By Nico Luchsinger 

Recent images from China—a regional summit followed by a military parade—suggest a world tilting east. Asia is not only driving global growth, but increasingly writing the rules. As economic historian Adam Tooze noted, it is both “the greatest generator of change and the greatest generator of solutions.” 

What’s new is not just Asia’s importance, but its agency: The region is shifting from arena to actor. The technologies shaping our future, from AI to clean energy, will increasingy come from Asia. If we are to address climate change, the decisions will come from Beijing, Delhi, or Jakarta—not Washington or Brussels. 

But “Asia” is no single force. Rivalries run deep: Between China and India, India and Pakistan, and many more. This makes it unlikely we’ll see a unified Asian pole. Instead, we are in an age of hedging—where countries seek shifting, overlapping partnerships rather than fixed alliances. 

For Europe, and for Switzerland, this creates unease but also room to act. Influence today depends on recognizing Asian agency, engaging with empathy, and accepting that rules are shaped by others too. That’s not submission—it’s strategy. 

So will the 21st century be remembered as Asia’s? We can’t yet know. But asking the question helps us how what is happening in Asia is influencing us. 

Nico Luchsinger is the Executive Director of Asia Society Switzerland, an independent non-profit organization dedicated to fostering Asia Competence in Switzerland. He holds an M.A. in history and economics from the University of Zurich, and previously worked for Swiss newspaper  Neue Zürcher Zeitung  as a journalist, editor, and producer, reporting on issues like media and technology. He was a co-founder and CEO of the global entrepreneurial community  Sandbox, and ran business development and strategy for Swiss startup Mila. 

The post Is This the Asian Century?  appeared first on St. Gallen Symposium.

Technology

AI and automation are reshaping politics, medicine, media, and work—stirring ethical unease while unlocking ways to steward resources, optimize energy, and hasten a greener, more productive economy.

Read on

Geopolitics

Shifting alliances amid a retreat from free trade are recasting the global order as the U.S. recalibrates, Europe rearms, BRICS and Africa gain sway, and conflicts and defense inflation return.

Read on

Demography

Rapid ageing in the Global North and youth surges in the Global South are shifting productivity centers, straining welfare systems, reshaping politics, raising migration, and opening uneven development opportunities.

Read on

Deep dive into the major disruptions of our time

This section examines how the three intertwined forces — AI-driven transformation, shifting geopolitics, and seismic demographic change — are disrupting economies, institutions, and societies, and what their convergence means for the decade ahead.

The slowdown of global free trade is forcing regions to rethink their economic models. To remain competitive, they increasingly depend on technological innovation and international talent. Migration shifts can help meet labour shortages — but also strains cohesion where integration falters. 

The race for technological leadership is intensifying. Nations compete for chips, critical resources, and digital capabilities — not only to secure a geoeconomical advantage, but to address demographic realities such as shrinking workforces and rising healthcare costs. 

Yet while geopolitical, technological, and demographical shifts unfold in months, democratic processes — election cycles, legislation, judicial review — move in years. The result is a widening gap between the speed of disruption and the capacity to govern it leaving businesses in uncertainty. 

Together, these converging forces define a disrupted age — one where opportunity and risk rise in tandem. 

The post Disrupted Age appeared first on St. Gallen Symposium.

by Lindiwe Mazibuko

The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born”. So said Antonio Gramsci, the founding member and one-time leader of the Italian Communist Party during the 1920s. I take a rather more optimistic view of global affairs, echoing that of the Indian author and activist Arundhati Roy, who, inher seminal collection of essays, War Talk, wrote: “A new world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.”

The 2024 Electoral Landscape: A Rejection of the Status Quo

As we enter the final weeks of 2024 – a year in which 68 national elections have already taken place across the globe—a clear and stark trend has emerged in international politics: the emphatic rejection of the status quo.

Indeed, the winds of change have swept away more political incumbents than ever before, with John Burn-Murdoch at the Financial Times reporting that ruling parties in major elections in 2024 were ‘given a kicking by voters’ – registering some of the most significant declines in vote shares since records began. These leaders, through a combination of their own fault and contextual misfortune, have presided over a world that is as chaotic and fragmented as I can remember. In many places, such as the UK, the US, Mexico, Botswana, Indonesia, and Senegal, these winds of change have brought in new leaders, new majorities, new parties, and new alliances. All with new visions for the future.

So, as citizens of this new age, how can we make sense of such a radical transformation of global governance architecture? How do we chart a course forward without dismantling some of the hard-fought gains of years gone by? To me, the answer is to reformulate the world according to a new image – one of greater balance and multipolarity but with a reaffirmed commitment to democracy, its values, and ethical standards.

Multipolarity in Action: The Rise of New Voices

If the late 20^th century was defined by a power struggle between two poles, the Soviet Union and the United States, the early years of the 21^st century have witnessed the gradual emergence of a more balanced, ‘multipolar’ system. I am confident that the amplification of new voices in the international arena – including Brazil, India, China, South Africa, Turkey, Nigeria, Vietnam, and Saudi Arabia, to name a few – has the potential to bring greater equilibrium to an increasingly antiquated and outmoded global governance framework.

For too long, alliances and institutions forged in the dying embers of World War II have served selective interests and aspirations. The US approach to an international ‘rules-based order’ has proven to be narrow and self-serving at best, dangerously hypocritical at worst. And given the archaic political interests and preoccupations of the men and women who occupy the highest offices in Washington and Moscow, the need for diverse, modern geopolitical voices has never been greater.

The prevailing expectation is that United States President Donald Trump’s impending return to the White House will renew some of his favoured ‘America First’ policies. Having withdrawn from various international pledges and engagements during his first term in the Oval Office, the smart money is on Trump paying little attention to what Chatham House calls the ‘global common good or interventions that uphold it’. Although their congressional majority is narrow, the GOP will assume control of the Senate and the House, making policies easier to enact for the only US president ever to have been impeached (twice). Similarly, Russia’s continued violations of international law in Ukraine illustrate the dangers of not having proper measures of accountability and oversight in place in our global institutions.

Democracy vs. Authoritarianism: A Crucial Crossroads

As I see it, the rise of a greater number of diverse actors in the international arena can promote fairer, more equitable international collaboration based on just and democratic values. Today, the countries in BRICS represent around 45% of the world’s population and 35% of the global GDP—more even than the G7 in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP). Such socio-economic might will soon translate into a more robust presence in the UN Security Council and the Bretton Woods Institutions. 

However, rising middle powers must not fall into the trap of viewing democratic norms and standards as separate from, or even antithetical to, economic aspirations. As I have touched on here, the two go hand in hand. Scores of studies have demonstrated that countries governed under democracy are less prone to conflict, regularly yield higher economic growth, and are better equipped to tackle climate change and the other defining crises of our time. As such, the onus is on our political leaders to remain faithful to the key principles of democracy: free and fair elections, freedom of speech, the rule of law, and restraints on executive power. Lasting prosperity will only be achieved if it is built upon a foundation of proper democratic accountability and responsible stewardship. The Westminster Foundation for Democracy reported in 2023 that the ‘success of authoritarian development models has led to a growing willingness to question the need for democratic politics’. To this, attention must be paid. The temptation to sacrifice the norms and standards of self-determination, human rights, equality and freedom of voice must never be entertained

President Lula’s recent decision to exercise Brazil’s right of veto and block Venezuela from joining BRICS is an excellent yardstick of the standards required moving forward. Nicolas Maduro’s ‘victory’ in the 2024 Venezuelan elections has been shrouded in allegations of electoral fraud and manipulation. Receipts from the country’s polling machines demonstrate that the main opposition candidate, Edmundo Gonzalez, won in a landslide. Gonzalez has since released a statement that he was coerced into signing a letter recognising Maduro as the rightful president in order to be granted safe passage to Spain. Lula’s veto (and its acceptance by other BRICS members) demonstrates the vigilance required to ensure that democratic values in BRICS are not forsaken in pursuit of broader economic expansion. As global alliances and power dynamics take on new forms, we must not let our ethical standards and commitments to democracy change with them.

Lindiwe Mazibuko is a South African public leader, writer, and academic fellow. She was the first black woman in South African history to be elected Leader of the Opposition in Parliament. Ms Mazibuko is the co-founder and CEO of Futurelect, a non-partisan organisation supporting a new generation of political and public sector leaders in Africa. Ms Mazibuko was an elected representative in South Africa’s National Assembly until May 2014, when she resigned from active politics in order to return to higher education. A graduate of the University of Cape Town and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, she has served as a fellow of the Institute of Politics at Harvard University and of the Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study in South Africa. Currently, Ms Mazibuko is a World Economic Forum Young Global Leader as well as a Fisher Family Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science & International Affairs.

The post A Multipolar World Is Here. Will It Mean Further Democratic Decline? appeared first on St. Gallen Symposium.

by Nikolaus Lang

In times of relative peace and prosperity, geopolitics can feel like an afterthought for business leaders. When goods are exchanged smoothly and talent moves freely, it can be easy to default to a hope-for-the-best mind-set. 

Many of today’s leaders came of age during such a time. In the 1990s and 2000s, free trade was the dominant paradigm, and global institutions advanced the liberal agenda worldwide. But that era is now fading from view, as multiple spheres of influence align along divergent economic, technical, and military interests.

In this world, the ability to respond to geopolitical risk and crisis is not a one-off. Rather, it is a muscle that must be strengthened and toned continuously. At the core of this exercise is the ability to develop a broad but plausible set of scenarios for how the geopolitical landscape could evolve by 2030. Why scenarios? Because they tend to be precisely wrong – but generally right.

The Future Sits Between Opposite Extremes

On the one hand we can imagine a scenario that is popular and comfortable but, unfortunately, not very likely. We call it “back to the future,” because the world’s major powers would once again come to embrace the benefits of greater cross-border cooperation and minimal military conflict. In this scenario, free trade and multilateral institutions would be dominant, enabling constructive collaboration on global issues. 

On the other hand, we can envision a scenario characterised by global escalation. The increasing proliferation of conflicts in the last few years, such as those in Ukraine, the Middle East, and Sudan, has had an unimaginable human toll and massive macroeconomic effects. Under this scenario, conflicts would continue to spiral – in particular, in the Indo-Pacific region, with catastrophic implications on nations, societies, and the world economy.

Despite some recent sharp rhetoric, I do not believe that this extreme scenario is very likely – at least in the coming years – because of how intertwined the global economic system continues to be. Instead, the most likely scenario is the establishment of a multipolar world. 

The Rise of Multipolarity

The Western bloc, made up of the U.S., Europe, and their allies in the Indo-Pacific, is growing more integrated as it flexes its collective economic might through coordinated trade agreements and shared financial markets. Technologically, the West is pushing innovation through joint research, especially in AI, cybersecurity, and clean energy. We’ve also seen a recent strengthening of military alliances – in the re-awakening of NATO, but also in the stringent build-up of a net of U.S.-led alliances such as the QUAD and AUKUS.

A “new” Eastern bloc, led by China and Russia and tied to nations like North Korea and Iran, is advancing economically through cross-regional infrastructure projects such as the China-led Belt and Road Initiative. Technologically, the Eastern bloc is focusing on self-reliance, particularly in semiconductors and telecommunications. Military collaboration is on the rise: consider the maritime drill that brought together Russian, Chinese, and Iranian navies in the Gulf of Oman in March of this year.

We also observe the emergence of a third group, made up of regional powers such as India, Indonesia, or the Gulf countries. These nations share a strategic goal of mastering the balancing act between West and East. They are harnessing their assets – be it natural resources, abundant talent, or attractive geolocations – to shape a non-aligned path and to create new, independent spheres of influence across South Asia, the Middle East, or Africa.

How Leaders Can Build Their Geopolitical Muscle

As these blocs continue to build influence and resources, global business will inevitably experience shocks and disruptions. To prepare, they must develop their geopolitical muscle. What does this entail?

1. Acquire and empower the right talent. You need people in your organisation capable of sensing and anticipating shocks, tailoring and monitoring scenarios, and designing resilient supply chains and operating models. And you’ll need to equip them with the tools and resources to be able to respond in the event of crisis.

2. Integrate geopolitics into everyday decision making. Geopolitical risk can’t be pushed to the side, and only considered when a global event occurs. It should be part of every major strategic move your company makes, similar to finance or legal considerations.

3. Cultivate a new leadership mind-set. Traditional leadership needs a geopolitical update. Corporate leaders should be inspired by historians, economists, and diplomats when assessing and responding to geopolitical shifts – ready to pivot strategies as the global risk landscape evolves.

The flip side of risk is opportunity. Corporations have a choice: Keep geopolitics as a “nice to have,” leaving them vulnerable and in a state of perpetual reaction, or make a decisive move to build their geopolitical muscle – and turn global shifts into advantage.

Dr Nikolaus S. Lang is a managing director and senior partner in BCG’s Munich office and has been working for the firm since 1998. Nikolaus is the global leader of the BCG Henderson Institute, BCG’s think tank, global vice chair of BCG’s Global Advantage practice, and chair of the Center of Geopolitics.

Dr Lang is co-author of the book Beyond Great: Nine Strategies for Thriving in an Era of Social Tension, Economic Nationalism, and Technological Revolution (PublicAffairs, 2020).

The post In a Polarised World, Companies Need Geopolitical Muscle appeared first on St. Gallen Symposium.

by C. Raja Mohan

For nearly five hundred years, Asia has been a passive adjunct to the geopolitics of Europe. It was European technology and military power that shaped the evolution of modern Asia. To be sure, Asian resources and markets contributed to the rise of modern Europe. Asian troops significantly contributed to the outcomes in the wars between European powers.

The tables are turning today. It was perhaps inevitable; the shifting economic power from the west to the east in Eurasia was bound to alter the geopolitical balance within this vast region. Asian powers are now muscling into European wars as independent powers. A few of them now have the agency and capacity to shape the geopolitical evolution of Europe. Consider for example the Asian contribution to the war in Ukraine at the heart of Europe.

Goodwill for Moscow in Large Parts of Asia

Large-scale deliveries of drones, ammunition, and weapons components from Iran, North Korea, and China are helping Russia fight Ukrainian forces and rain death on civilians in Ukrainian cities. It is Beijing’s role, though, that is most significant. China provides Moscow a stable strategic rear, provides alternative markets to Germany and Europe, and lends the geopolitical heft to President Vladimir Putin’s confrontation with the ‘collective West’.

Many Asian nations are unwilling to condemn the Russian aggression against Ukraine, because of the historic goodwill for Moscow in Asia, inherited from the late colonial era when the Soviet Union presented itself as an opponent of European imperialism and supporter of Asian decolonisation. Asian reluctance to criticise Moscow and question the European double standards on Ukraine and Gaza gives much space for President Putin in Asia. Adding to the Russian room are some in Asia, like India and Vietnam that see Russia as a necessary part of balancing China. Even North Korea sees Moscow as giving it a measure of autonomy from Beijing.

Not all of Asia is with President Putin. Several important Asian powers are boosting the Western effort in Ukraine. South Korea, which has emerged as a major weapons producer, is already selling arms to NATO – and could increase its support for Ukraine in response to North Korea’s increasing involvement on the Russian side. Japan has emerged as a major political and diplomatic supporter of Kyiv and will have a key role in the reconstruction of Ukraine when it begins.

A Rising Role for Asia in Europe

The NATO summit in Washington in July revealed the extent to which European defence has become a concern of Asian and Pacific powers. The Biden administration has persuaded its four Asian allies – Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea – to become part of Europe’s security discourse. Leaders of the four countries, the so-called AP-4, have become regular participants at NATO summits.

A role for Asia in Europe is the flip side of Biden’s argument that Europe should do more to secure Asia against China. It is not clear if the Europeans have the capacity and strategic coherence to contribute to Asian security, but Asian leaders recognise their stakes in Europe.

‘Divide and rule’ was the European colonial powers’ old maxim for gaining control of Asia. Today, Asia’s great powers are learning the art of probing European fault lines – whether it’s Russia courting Hungarian President Viktor Orban or the Chinese continuing to tease the European capital. It is quite amusing to see some Europeans articulating the idea of ‘strategic autonomy’ in defying the US to protect their expansive commercial interests in China. Beijing, of course, loves the idea of European strategic autonomy. Besides exploiting the Trans-Atlantic divide on geopolitics, Moscow and Beijing have more than enough room to work with anti-Americanism on the left and right of the European political spectrum.

Some in the US are tempted to see Asia as a more urgent and important theatre than Europe. Many in the UK and Europe see Asia as too far away and that it must focus its strategic energies in countering Russia. They also do not see China as a threat to European security.

Yet, there is escaping the fact that Asian and European theatres are as interconnected today as in the past. Any long-term Western strategy in Eurasia must involve addressing the challenges on both fronts in a coordinated manner. Downgrading one in favour of the other could lead the west to lose on both fronts in a sequential manner.

Asia Has Its Own Divisions

Contrary to the pervasive Europessimism, the old continent has room to play in Asia. If it manages to shed its historic condescension to the East, Europe could find new and mutually beneficial ways of working with Asia. For one, Europe must recognise that Asia has its own divisions. Nationalist contradictions abound in Asia – between China and Japan, Korea and Japan, Vietnam and China, Cambodia and Vietnam, and India and China.

Europe has a long tradition of engaging with these contradictions during its colonial engagement with Asia. But the illusions about the rise of a post-modern world, an addiction of mercantilism, outsourcing its security thinking to the US, and self-deceptions about being an ‘empire of norms’, have driven into a long holiday from Asian geopolitics.

A Europe that actively engages with Asian geopolitics, with due respect to the rise and agency of Asian powers, will find it possible to modernise its relationship with the US as well as upgrade ties with Asia. Sharing’s America’s burdens in the East and treating Asia as geopolitical equal, Europe can regain its place in the new global chessboard.

Image Attribution: “Meeting with Xi Jinping (2023)” by Government.ru, licensed under CC BY 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons. Link to image.

Raja Mohan is a non resident distinguished fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute and a visiting research professor at the Institute for South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore.

The post Reversing Roles? How Asia is Shaping Europe’s Future appeared first on St. Gallen Symposium.

Confronted with a world that is hyper volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA), many managers chase after external changes: Racing after market trends in the latest industry reports, conducting risk assessments, and discussing the game-changing potential of generative AI in the board.

The best entrepreneurs – people who thrive in hyper-VUCA environments – are deeply sceptical of these attempts at strategic foresight: Nobody knows how AI will transform the competitive landscape yet. Instead of chasing after external trends and trying to predict scenarios, they shift the focus to their own strengths and capabilities. The good news is that the answers where to steer your company are already there – but not in analyses of external trends, but in your own employees, your customers and the partners in your ecosystem. Through these crucial resources, you can shape the future instead of chasing after it. After all, the best way to predict the future is to create it.

A New Kind of Advantage

Louis Gerstner reinvented IBM through a crowdsourcing effort to which over 300’000 employees contributed. Satya Nadella managed one the most remarkable transformations of the 21^st century by turning Microsoft from a monopolist to an open, collaborative company orchestrating partner resources throughout its entire ecosystem. Manufacturers such as P&G replaced their traditional research & development with a collaborative connect & develop department. Cisco out-innovated the much more prestigious and better resourced Bell Labs through an open approach based on collaborations and acquisitions. 

This new approach goes beyond the traditional idea of competitive advantage. For decades, managers were taught based on Michael Porter’s classical framework: Competitive advantage was the result of superior positioning in the competitive landscape. By analysing and predicting the external world, managers were to find the optimal niche where their company could capture outsized value.

The problem with this approach in a hyper-VUCA world, of course, is that the world changes too quickly and too unpredictably: No positioning in the external world is a sustainable source of competitive advantage. Instead, exceptional leaders and organizations are increasingly going new ways: Instead of analysing their competition, they focus on their own capabilities. Instead of predicting the future, they create it. Instead of building barriers to entry, they build an open ecosystem by leveraging resources around them. Instead of winning through competitive advantage, they win through the adaptability and speed they achieve through collaborative advantage. What do we mean by collaborative advantage? In contrast to prior usage of the word, we loosely define collaborative advantage as the capability of an organisation to leverage resources inside and outside of its formal boundaries to create and capture value.

In today’s world, openness and connectivity are the keys to success. Ecosystems and open networks are the source of competitive advantage. We call this ‘collaborative advantage’ as companies focus on their strengths and partner together in order to create superior, innovative value propositions for their customers and dominate new uncontested market spaces. These companies create win-win-win situations for their customers, their partners, their employees and in the end their shareholders. They innovate by making the world their lab, instead of making the lab their world.

The insight that successful innovation and transformation is done not through heroic foresight but collaboratively with customers, partners and employees throughout the hierarchy was explored across various sectors and issue areas at the 51^st St. Gallen Symposium in 2022. During our talks, exceptional leaders such as Roshni Nadar (Chairperson HCLTech, Forbes “100 most powerful women in business”), Manuel Barroso (President European Commission, 2004-2014) or Aditya Ghosh (President IndiGo, 2008-2018) highlighted how they have achieved their successes by nurturing open networks of flexible collaboration.

A New Model for Leadership

How can you lead for collaborative advantage? Research has shown that in most organisations only 4% of leaders are responsible for creating over 30% of the value-creating collaborations. To be clear, this is not a story of ineffective leadership. Rather, many managers are stuck in old mental models which are effective at managing processes and individuals, but don’t translate well to managing open, collaborative networks. But advantage moved from economies of scale (“the large eats the small”) over individual innovativeness (“the fast eats the slow”) towards collaborative advantage based on managing relations of synergy and coopetition (“the connected eats the lonesome”). These often coopetive relations form the “neural network” within and beyond your organization which drive innovation and transformation. They energise performance, guide or obstruct change and form the nervous system of an organisation through which ideas and resources can flow. A breadth of research in diverse contexts shows that the quality of these collaboration patterns of a group are much more important for its innovative performance than the individual skills and motivations of the group members. In addition, transformation initiatives which target collaboration signatures are typically between 4 and 8 times more effective than those which focus on individual employees.

What is needed is a new, complementary perspective to classical leadership principles. Both transactional and transformational leadership have their role in effective organisations, but organizations don’t succeed based on incentives and purpose alone. At the end of the day, humans are social animals. Effective leaders integrate collaborative leadership into their repertoire:

Table: Collaborative advantage requires a collaborative approach to leadership.

How can you put this into practice and start leading more collaboratively in your own organisation?

A good first step is to start small and create visibility around the openness of your organisation with regards to a key stakeholder. We recommend starting with customer-openness, as this is usually well accepted in most organisations. For example, you could consider taking a page out of tool manufacturer Hilti’s playbook and track throughout your organisation (i) how many direct customer interactions you have and (ii) what percentage of employees have a direct customer interaction at least once a week. Just by making these measures visible you send a strong signal throughout the organisation that you value openness with regards to the customer.

Dig Deeper

Interested in opening up your organisation? In their new book “Collaborative Advantage”, Raphael Boemelburg and Oliver Gassmann offer a wide range of practical cases and personal reflections from exceptional leaders such as Satya Nadella (CEO Microsoft), John Hennessey (Chairperson Alphabet), Roshni Nadar (Chairperson HCLTech), Matthias Doepfner (CEO Springer), Yves Daccord (Director General ICRC), and many others. It also explores how companies can use data and AI to better manage transformations: As knowledge workers use ever more software tools, they leave digital footprints which form an untapped treasure trove for people analytics. The book illustrates with a diverse set of concrete examples how these data sources can be interpreted and used in practice to drive transformative business value.

The post Collaborative Advantage: Embracing a New Leadership Paradigm for Turbulent Times appeared first on St. Gallen Symposium.

This raises a fundamental question: how do we work to ensure that innovation creates value for the company and its customers, while positively contributing to a sustainable and fair use of natural resources? The answer may lie in the concept of sufficiency and its application to business innovation.

The latest IPCC Report defines sufficiency as “policy measures and daily practices that avoid the demand for energy, materials, water, and land, while providing wellbeing for all within planetary boundaries”. So far, sufficiency has primarily received attention as a strategy for climate mitigation (policy level) and sustainable consumption (individual level), while its relevance and potential impact on businesses has not yet been fully explored.

Traditionally, businesses have thrived on ever-increasing demand as a catalyst for growth, so sufficiency and business might be perceived as inherently contradictory or antagonistic concepts. This perception, however, is far from accurate. Sufficiency holds the potential to become a driver for innovation while reshaping businesses’ societal role and purpose. In doing so, it can enable new design ideas, drive improved customer relations, access new markets and foster long-term resilience.

To explore how sufficiency could fuel innovation within businesses, let’s start by looking at three key elements embedded in its definition:

1. Avoid demand for energy, materials, water, and land: This calls for a strategic emphasis on dematerialisation, prompting a reduction in the demand for natural resources;
2. Providing wellbeing for all: Sufficiency mandates the fulfilment of the needs of all human beings, advocating for a more inclusive and holistic approach;
3. Within planetary boundaries: An integral dimension of strong sustainability, this element underscores the imperative of aligning actions with the finite capacities of our planet.

Starting from these three components, sufficiency prompts a revaluation of challenges and required solutions. Instead of elaborate, resource-intensive solutions, sufficiency encourages businesses to find innovative, leaner and more sustainable alternatives. This mindset may spark creativity, leading to services and products that prioritise sustainability and durability. As a result, sufficiency-led innovation can drive transformative business changes, particularly in three key areas.

Sufficiency’s principle of satisfying human needs while reducing the demand for resources enables a profound revaluation of product and service design. This paradigm shift pushes businesses to focus on the need to be satisfied, rather than on the product itself. This redirection encourages a systems thinking approach, allowing businesses to explore innovative solutions to meet human needs effectively.

This shift in mindset from product-centric to need-centric not only aligns with the principles of sufficiency but also opens the door to creative problem-solving and ground-breaking innovations in product and service design. Moreover, this may facilitate the uptake of innovative product-as-a-service systems, where businesses can innovate by offering services that fulfil needs, rather than promoting the disposal of goods and creating ever more waste.

Sufficiency encourages a deep understanding of customer needs. Instead of perpetuating an environment of ever-growing consumption, sufficiency encourages businesses to establish deeper connections with customers, identifying their genuine needs and values. Innovation becomes about offering products and services that truly matter to customers, not just filling the market with more noise.

Rethinking customer relations through sufficiency opens a gateway to improved communication and a deeper connection with consumers. It’s an opportunity to not just sell products or services, but to inform and educate customers about the environmental impact of their consumption choices. In turn, this may enable customers to establish a deeper connection with what they consume and better maintain, repair and care for products. The transparency and educational approach can foster trust and loyalty, as consumers increasingly value companies that prioritise sustainability.

There is still a huge portion of people globally whose needs are not being met. According to the World Bank, over 3 billion people live on less than $6.85 a day, representing a vast consumer base and business opportunity. Currently, low-income markets, due to their price sensitivity, often find themselves serviced by companies that prioritise affordability over sustainability. The cost-focused nature of these markets leads to the dominance of products and practices that are often the least sustainable—both environmentally and socially—with shorter lifespans, higher resource consumption, and lower quality.

However, sufficiency-driven business models challenge this paradigm, aiming to show that affordability and sustainability must not be mutually exclusive. By introducing innovations that prioritise resource efficiency, durability, and environmental responsibility, businesses may shift the focus from short-term affordability to long-term value. This approach isn’t just about selling more; it’s about addressing a significant segment of the population that has a huge potential to contribute to a company’s growth while simultaneously elevating their quality of life.

Sufficiency emphasises the responsibility of businesses to not only meet human needs but to do so responsibly within the planet’s ecological limits. It challenges the traditional notion of growth at all costs, urging businesses to consider their impact on society and the environment. Shifting the focus from fulfilling wants to meeting essential needs marks a transformative pivot in the innovation landscape for companies.

While resetting its role in society, sufficiency-led businesses might also become more resilient to market fluctuations and unexpected changes. By innovating and becoming more mindful of resource usage, in fact, businesses become more adaptable and potentially more resilient to sudden shifts in resource availability, economic downturns and changing customer preferences.

Opening the business doors to sufficiency, therefore, can be a valuable strategy for long-term value creation, that goes beyond a quick spike in sales. Integrating sufficiency into their business models, companies can drive a different kind of innovation – one that’s rooted in balance, sustainability and a unique value proposition.

WRF is an international non-profit organisation empowering collaboration to promote sustainability and fairness in the global use of natural resources. Through multi-stakeholder conferences, projects and publications, it strives to scale up knowledge and practical solutions able to make resource use a force for human wellbeing within planetary countries. WRF is located in St. Gallen, Switzerland and has a strong track-record of project implementation in Africa and Latin America.

The topic of sufficiency was featured as one of the three main conference tracks at the last World Resources Forum 2023 Conference (Geneva, 4-6 September, 2023).

The post How Sufficiency-led Innovation Can Reshape Business Purpose  appeared first on St. Gallen Symposium.

With a world population approaching eight billion people, talk of a ‘scarcity’ within the workforce is a disingenuous argument, especially when viewed in the context of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DE&I). Seen through the prism of DE&I, we garner a more intricate understanding of scarcity and its remedies. It similarly enables us to challenge conventional wisdom and chart a course towards innovation and sustainable growth.

Despite making up half the population, women, for example, still fail to be fully represented within industries pertaining to Science and Technology (the so-called STEM sectors). There is no reason for this, beyond outdated attitudes to learning that should have been discarded decades ago.

Nevertheless, in Europe alone, women only account for 19% of the total STEM workforce , leaving a huge pool of talent that is yet to be tapped. People with a disability represent only 3% of STEM employees – another missed opportunity that could be countered by embracing more comprehensive recruitment strategies to help unlock the talent pool. After all, the most diverse companies are now more likely than ever to outperform less diverse peers on profitability, according to the 2020 McKinsey report “Diversity wins: How Inclusion Matters”.

Given that almost one in five (19%) of engineers are expected to retire in the next three years, engaging or re-engaging older age groups, and perhaps delaying their retirement and/or bringing them back into the fold, would also help turn ‘scarcity’ into ‘plenty’ if handled in the right way. Retraining talent is just as important as finding it in the first place, confirms the OECD report on Promoting an Age-Inclusive Workforce which finds that 57% of workers globally envision working beyond retirement but less than a third feel they have options to do so in a suitable manner.

Diversity is one part of the answer. Equity is similarly important. Inequitable access to opportunities is another way of fabricating an illusory impression of scarcity. Conversely, by upholding equity, we can streamline the allocation of resources and prospects. Disparities in our educational systems result in a lack of skilled labor coming from deprived areas.

Levelling the playing field and improving our educational systems will grow the talent pool among communities that are traditionally overlooked. Wage inequalities similarly discourage particular groups from closer engagement. Creating more equitable remuneration, on the other hand, kindles heightened commitment, engagement and productivity within the workforce.

Inclusion is, of course, critical, since it transcends mere recruitment strategies. It forges an environment where everyone feels valued and integrated, and in doing so significantly increases employee retention rates. Diverse, multi-cultural and inclusive teams are proven to be more innovative and productive, and by cultivating a more inclusive environment, organizations can surmount the scarcity of ideas and positively galvanize innovation.

The notion of intersectionality also provides a different lens through which scarcity can be seen, benefiting from the intertwined nature of social categorizations and acknowledging that the intricate tapestry of inequality facilitates the generation of more precisely targeted and effective solutions to scarcity. Taking a global rather than a local view also helps, and by embracing cross-border diversity, we overcome regional challenges and engender a more resilient global economy.

The conventional view of scarcity particularly within the workforce, fails to acknowledge the root causes of inequality and the misallocation of resources. Via the prism of DE&I, it becomes evident that the genuine remedies are steeped in embracing diversity, upholding equity, nurturing inclusivity, and grasping the intricate interplay of disparities through intersectionality.

By pivoting our focus from scarcity towards these foundational principles, we can unlock latent potential, catalyze innovation, and establish a more enduring and robust workforce. The truth of the matter is that the challenge isn’t scarcity; people are not the problem. There is no scarcity of talent, there is a shortage of imagination in how to best use our ‘people pool’ to create the workforce of the future. The real challenge is unlocking the skills with the people we have, and doing so by recognising and channeling the potency of DE&I.

Simona Scarpaleggia is a Board member to EDGE Strategy, a company leader in measuring, accelerating and certifying gender and intersectional equity in the workplace. A Non-Executive Director in different Boards of companies in Switzerland, Italy and Germany, she consults in DE&I and ESG.

Former Co-Chair of the High-Level Panel for Women’s Economic Empowerment of the United Nations and author of the book “Die andere Hälfte” NZZ Libro (“The Other Half” LID Publishing)

The post The Illusion of Talent Scarcity  appeared first on St. Gallen Symposium.

Commitments to combat scarcity are emanating from all centres of global power: governments, intergovernmental organisations, NGOs, start-ups, philanthropists, institutional investors, just to name a few. To this day however, scarcity remains a key organising principle of a mainly growth-oriented capitalism as our global economic model. Scarcity of a resource is rewarded with a positive market-based signal (i.e. a higher price) and promotes (mostly technological) innovation to overcome it, so as to continue the exploitation.

Yet, a dead-end approaches, as this model has severely destabilised Earth’s major biophysical systems, with tipping points approaching at great speed. Relying solely on technology and ignoring necessary changes in mental models and behaviour patterns in our societies now bears the risk of replacing one scarcity with another. The question must no longer be “How can we more efficiently use the scarce resources we have left?”, but rather “How can we transition towards thriving natural and human systems that are in line with planetary boundaries, and what is technology’s role in this?”.

Systemic investing is a new investment logic that explores ways to answer this question in order to transform systems from perpetuating scarcity to enabling a low-carbon, climate-resilient, just, and inclusive global society. It is an approach that allows us to understand a system as a network of interconnected leverage points. These leverage points, if jointly activated by capitals and other interventions, can unlock combinatorial effects and catalyse transformation towards a desired future.

This transformation represents a pathway, along which “climate technology” has a role to play. Yet if we aspire to deep and irreversible system transformation, we must look beyond innovation in technology and address the underlying paradigms that anchor a system in the status quo. Let’s illustrate these points based on a systemic investing prototype currently underway in the net-zero mobility space in Switzerland.

Light-road traffic in Switzerland is the strongest contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the overall transportation mix (which accounts for 41% of all GHG emissions in the country), as well as the sector with the greatest need for net-zero investment. If looked at without a systemic lens, a push towards the large-scale adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) for private car ownership (technology innovation and adoption) appears to be an obvious and viable solution to decarbonise the system. Yet, if all privately owned Internal Combustion Engines (ICE) were replaced with EVs, the end goal would inherently summon different forms of scarcity (e.g. raw materials for batteries or urban living and green spaces used for vehicles).

While it certainly forms a crucial pillar in the overall mix, a systemic mindset understands EVs for private mobility as a bridge solution in a wider System Transformation Strategy for the Swiss mobility sector.

Developing such a strategy has been the goal of months of stakeholder interviews and meticulous system analysis conducted by the TransCap Initiative (based in Zurich, Switzerland). The findings reveal that decarbonisation leveraging the private mobility system requires investment along two connected objectives:

1. Accelerate the shift from ICEs to EVs for current car owners in an inclusive and just manner
2. Reduce the importance of car ownership (and number of private held cars in general) through electrified shared solutions that eliminate their relative convenience advantage

To understand the role of privately owned EVs, we must look at an important factor. That factor is time.

The TransCap Initiative developed its System Transformation Strategy using a model from the world of Futuring, called the “3 Horizons Model”.

The 1st Horizon represents a system without change, reliant on ICEs that will inevitably perpetuate a future that is inefficient and polluting. A system from which we must depart as soon as possible, aided by investment capital that is systemically deployed at various leverage points. The 3rd Horizon is our desired, yet not immediately actionable, future. One of reduced car ownership, alternative electrified transportation solutions, and a low-carbon, climate-resilient, just, and inclusive Swiss mobility system.

The 2nd Horizon is where we see the critical role of increased adoption of EVs for private use come into play. We must account for a transition period, a period that is required to shift the societal mindset, as well as ready infrastructure, regulatory frameworks and economic conditions that allow for our 3rd Horizon to unfold. E-mobility is the bridge that allows us to counteract the negative consequences of a 1st Horizon system while the 3rd emerges.

The TransCap Initiative is now in the process of shaping a systemic investing strategy which aims for the transition from the 1st to the 2nd Horizon, while supporting the establishment of conditions that allow the 3rd Horizon and a future not reliant on scarcity to emerge.

Johannes Tschiderer is a Research & Investment Associate, focusing on the coordination and delivery of the TransCap Initiative’s prototyping activities around individual mobility in Switzerland. In addition to his role at the TransCap Initiative, he is engaged in the design and facilitation of novel course formats at the nexus of business and sustainability at the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland.

Tom Zamzow leads the communications and public relations at the TransCap Initiative. In addition to his work at the TCI, he also manages his own consulting firm, specialising in strategic communications and cross-sector partnerships to unlock new business opportunities for clients. Tom honed his communications and stakeholder engagement skills with a Fortune 100 multinational, where he worked in multiple roles related to marketing, commercial strategy, digital innovation, and corporate communications.

The post Confronting Scarcity: The Role of Systemic Investing appeared first on St. Gallen Symposium.

Since the industrial revolution, we’ve lived in an economic system predicated on high growth. For the past two decades, this growth has relied on the abundant availability of capital, labour, energy and natural resources, coupled with the advantages of global economic integration.

Yet, recent years have ushered in a new reality. In light of the Covid-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, challenges have ranged, among many others, from energy shortages in Europe, rising food insecurities across Africa and the Middle East, to disrupted supply chains and the resurgence of domestic manufacturing. While some of these waves have receded in recent months, long-term trends signal a deeper systemic shift towards an economy defined by scarcity.

Towards a Time of Protracted Scarcity

Central banks globally have raised interest rates to combat rising inflation, putting an end to an era of cheap capital that lasted nearly 15 years. This shift reverberates across industries, prompting both established businesses and emerging startups to re-evaluate their strategies.

The world’s largest powers have increasingly shifted away from free trade policies, while a more multipolar world order and growing geoeconomic tensions between East and West have led to a slowdown in globalisation. The result is increased volatility in global value chains and more frequent disruptions.

Demographic change, marked by declining birth rates and aging populations, will dramatically shrink the labour force, not only across industrialised societies such as Germany and Japan, but also in emerging economies like China. 

However, perhaps the most consequential force of all is climate change, which looms large even if humanity manages to avert its most severe effects. We are faced with a dwindling carbon budget and the critical question of how to allocate it fairly, while rising temperatures and the related crisis in biodiversity will only exacerbate food and water scarcities.

What may become a new “era of scarcity” thus touches upon fundamental aspects of economic and societal development, including capital, traded goods, labour, and natural resources. The fragility exposed over the past three years and these long-term developments underscore the need for deeper systemic change.

Striving for More or Thriving with Less?

In essence, scarcity arises when the demand for a good exceeds its supply. In response, traditional growth-centric approaches focus on increasing the supply of goods through intensified resource exploitation or substituting one resource with another, such as replacing fossil-fuelled cars with electric vehicles or automating processes to replace human labour.

Throughout history, constraints have driven efficiency gains, sparked innovation, and led to the development of new technologies. However, an approach that simply seeks to substitute scarce goods with alternatives can swiftly encounter its own scarcity challenges: “Green growth” strategies, for instance, hinge on the availability of “sustainable” resources like recycled plastics, batteries, and green hydrogen. 

Yet, the growth in demand for these resources may soon outstrip their supply, despite significant investments and innovations. Additionally, such solutions may inadvertently generate negative environmental or societal consequences and create new scarcities. This calls for a broader discussion encompassing demand-side considerations when addressing scarcity.

The St. Gallen Agenda

The 53rd St. Gallen Symposium will delve into the multifaceted, emerging challenges posed by scarcity and tackle the difficult questions they raise: To what extent can innovation, efficiency, and circular models help to deal with intensifying constraints? And where do we need to consider deeper, more radical shifts and ask whether less may, in fact, be more? Year-round and at our main symposium in May 2024, our cross-generational dialogue will explore our annual theme within five key areas:

Resilient Businesses and Economies: For decades, growth-based economic models have relied on an abundance of labour, natural resources, capital, and energy, and benefitted from global economic integration. Considering long-term developments such as demographic change, rising costs of capital, the climate crisis and geopolitical shifts, we will explore ways to address protracted scarcities through more sustainable and resilient business models.

Equitable and Effective Governance: The intensification of scarcity in recent years has elevated the role of the state in the economy: governments around the world act as investors, suppliers and regulators to meet challenges such as energy insecurity, water stress, green infrastructure and inflation. We will debate the appropriate level and type of policy intervention and geopolitical cooperation to establish durable solutions.

A Sustainable Transformation: Dominant green economy approaches centre around innovation and substituting old with new technologies. Yet, they run into their own scarcity problems, when the supply of recycled plastics, batteries, or green hydrogen does not meet demand. We will discuss the extent to which sustainable business model innovations need to be complemented by deeper, systemic changes of reducing overall consumption.

Inclusive Societies: New, protracted scarcities and their consequences in terms of rising prices and reduced supply do not affect all members of society equally. When thinking about responses, both the potential and limits of individual behavioural change and the needs society’s most vulnerable members need to be considered. What role can individuals play in societal responses to scarcity and how do we ensure social equity in light of increasing constraints?

Responsible Innovation and Technology: Whether it’s the role of artificial intelligence to replace scarce human labour, renewable energy to power the green transition, or desalination techniques for drinking water, innovation is seen as a key component of solutions. At the same time, the advent of new technologies often creates its own set of challenges. How can innovations best help to anticipate and cope with current and future scarcities at scale?

The post Confronting Scarcity: Theme of the 53rd St.Gallen Symposium appeared first on St. Gallen Symposium.

Stakeholder capitalism provides an agenda for businesses to reimagine their role within their community, argues Michael Tang of SGX RegCo in his St. Gallen Symposium Brief.

Many conversations about business sustainability come back to a more fundamental question of the role of corporations. Are corporations pure money-making instruments, or do they serve a larger purpose?

The rise of corporations as a business vehicle enables mankind to pool different forms of capital together to achieve common objectives.

A separate legal personality means that the corporation can enter into contracts and sue in its own right, while perpetual succession means that the corporation can long outlive any of its initial subscribers. Limited liability allows for more calculated risk-taking – an entrepreneur can segregate the liabilities of the corporation from his or her own, and have more confidence in taking business risks.

As businesses become more complex, corporations become more sophisticated and a specialised model for governance emerges. There arises the segregation of the roles of the board of directors and management, to achieve bigger endeavours.

In many jurisdictions, the board of directors works for the best interest of the corporation. But the corporation is an inanimate legal fiction – ultimately, people and lives stand behind the corporate form. To paraphrase Hemingway, for whom does the corporation toil?

As Klaus Schwab and Peter Vanham elaborate in their book “Stakeholder Capitalism: A Global Economy that Works for Progress, People and Planet”, there are two prevailing economic systems in the world today: shareholder capitalism and state capitalism.

Shareholder capitalism places shareholders’ interests at the centre of the economic endeavours, as the driving force for the allocation of factors of production. It has as its mantra the maximisation of shareholder value, and Milton Friedman as its key proponent.

State capitalism, on the other hand, considers the state as the dominant force, which controls the distribution of resources. What this means is that the interests of individual entities are subservient to the greater good of the state.

In recent times, a third form has gained prominence – that of stakeholder capitalism.

This refers to a system which places attention on all private actors in society. It seeks to protect and guide their economic activities to ensure that the overall direction of economic development is beneficial to society, and no actor can freeride on the efforts of others.

A key proponent is the Business Roundtable, a group comprising of 200 chief executives of the largest corporations. In 2019, the Business Roundtable called on corporates to embrace the goal of managing companies for the benefit of all stakeholders – customers, employees, suppliers, communities and shareholders.

But stakeholder capitalism is not itself a new idea. Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means, in their 1932 seminal text “The Modern Corporation and Private Property”, advocated that public companies should have professional managers who would balance the needs of different stakeholders, taking into account public policy considerations.

Further, managers need to watch how such needs and considerations change over time.

Take climate change as an example. The understanding of its impact on businesses has evolved tremendously in the last five years. In addition to the physical risks of climate change, the business community is also asked to consider transition risks. For example, changing consumer preferences, emerging new technologies, and new regulatory policies on companies to take responsibility for climate impacts.

Notably, a legal opinion commissioned by the Commonwealth Climate and Law Institute opined that directors must understand what climate change entails and how it would impact on their corporation’s activities, strategies and financial planning. Directors must also consider steps to prevent legal challenges to business practices, especially given the risk of climate litigation. In New Zealand, for example, a court has raised the possibility of expanding the existing law of torts, to include an inchoate duty to minimise greenhouse gas emissions.

The best interests of a corporation, properly understood, naturally extend beyond just shareholders’ interest. it also encompasses the interests of stakeholders in the communities in which the corporation operates. The duty of the director therefore involves the balance in serving all of a corporation’s stakeholders, to reach a suitable compromise.

Many of today’s problems – including climate change – are seemingly intractable, with critics on all sides of the debate. Part of the problem lies in existing entrenched power dynamics, which prevent or restrict us from changing the status quo. Another part lies in how some view the tactics of change advocates as provocative and radical.

The better way is to engage in conversation with all stakeholders about our respective interests and focus on how we can transform the common good.

Michael Tang

Executive Director and Head, Listing Policy & Product Admission and Sustainable Development Office, Singapore Exchange Regulation

Michael Tang is the Head of Listing Policy & Product Admission at Singapore Exchange Regulation (SGX RegCo), a subsidiary of Singapore Exchange (SGX Group) that undertakes frontline regulatory functions. He also heads the Sustainable Development Office at SGX RegCo. In his two roles Michael oversees listing policy and rules development, administers the admission of securities products, coordinates sustainability-related issues on the regulatory front as well as leads efforts to promote sustainability across stakeholder groups. Michael graduated from the National University of Singapore (NUS) with a Bachelor of Laws degree and is admitted to the Singapore bar. He is a member of the Advisory Board of the NUS Business School’s Centre for Governance and Sustainability (CGS), a Management Committee member of Global Compact Network Singapore (GCNS) and a member of the Environmental, Social and Governance Committee of the Singapore Institute of Directors (SID).

The post Transforming Capitalism for the Common Good? appeared first on St. Gallen Symposium.

Der bewusste und öffentlichkeitswirksame Rechtsbruch gehört zum Wesenskern zivilen Ungehorsams. Der Ungehorsam – mag er auch noch so «zivil» und gewaltfrei sein – stellt daher zwangsläufig die geltende Rechtsordnung in Frage. Für den freiheitlich-demokratischen Rechtsstaat ist dies eine Herausforderung. Lässt der Staat zivilen Ungehorsam tatenlos zu, leidet die Autorität des Rechts. Denn es kann nicht dem Belieben einzelner überlassen werden, ob sie sich an Rechtsnormen halten wollen, die nach einem offenen Diskurs in einem demokratischen Verfahren zustande gekommen sind.

Greift der Staat umgekehrt mit der «ganzen Härte des Gesetzes» durch oder verschärft er gar die Rechtsnormen, wird die Einhaltung des Rechts zum Selbstzweck und die Ungehorsamen werden zu Opfern stilisiert. Vor diesem Hintergrund plädiert dieser Essay für einen unaufgeregten und maßvollen Umgang des Rechtsstaats mit Protestformen des zivilen Ungehorsams.

The public and conscientious breaking of law is an essential part of civil disobedience. Disobedience – although “civil” and non-violent – therefore inevitably calls the legal order into question. This is a challenge for a liberal and democratic state, based on the Rule of Law. If it allows civil disobedience without any official reaction, the authority of the law suffers. It must not be left to personal feelings and the discretion of individuals whether they want to comply with the law or not. If, on the other hand, civil disobedience is punished draconically, the compliance with law becomes an end in itself and the disobedient are thus made into victims. For this reason, the essay pleads for an unexcited and proportionated reaction to protests of civil disobedience.

1. Vorbemerkung zur disziplinären Perspektive

Ich schreibe diesen Diskussionsbeitrag aus Sicht eines Juristen. In meiner Funktion als praktisch tätiger Richter steht für mich primär die Frage im Zentrum, ob ein bestimmtes Verhalten mit der heute geltenden Rechtsordnung vereinbar ist: Ist es rechtmässig bzw. legal, zivilen Ungehorsam zu leisten? Als Rechtswissenschafter sollte ich allerdings nicht hierbei stehen bleiben. Die Jurisprudenz muss sich als Wissenschaft nicht nur der Frage der Legalität stellen, sondern darüber hinaus reflektieren, ob die Rechtsordnung künftigen Herausforderungen gewachsen ist oder Reformbedarf besteht.

Nicht im Zentrum meiner Überlegungen steht hingegen die Frage, ob ziviler Ungehorsam ethisch und moralisch gerechtfertigt werden kann, ob er legitim ist. Dies ist eine Frage, die der Rechtswissenschaft – insbesondere der Rechtsphilosophie – zwar nicht völlig fremd ist. Letztlich muss diese aber anhand ausserrechtlicher Normensysteme wie der Moral, Ethik oder Religion gemessen werden. Ebenfalls nicht im Fokus meiner Forschung steht die Frage, ob ziviler Ungehorsam als Instrument zur Erreichung eines Meinungswandels in der Gesellschaft überhaupt wirksam ist oder eher kontraproduktive Effekte hat. Diese Frage kann nur empirisch beantwortet werden, wofür sich die klassisch-juristische Methodik nicht eignet.

2. Begriff des «zivilen Ungehorsams»

Auch wenn Juristinnen und Juristen eine große Schwäche für Begrifflichkeiten und Begriffsbildungen haben, stammt der Begriff des «zivilen Ungehorsams» nicht von einem Juristen, sondern vom amerikanischen Schriftsteller und Philosophen Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862).[1] Und obwohl die Umschreibung des «zivilen Ungehorsams» in keinem Rechtstext verbindlich Niederschlag gefunden hat, haben sich im Verlauf der Zeit doch Begriffsmerkmale herauskristallisiert, die weitgehend unbestritten sind.

Martin Kolmar hat diese Elemente in seinem Beitrag herausgearbeitet: Kennzeichen des «zivilen Ungehorsams» sind gezielte und bewusste Verstöße gegen die geltende Rechtsordnung («Ungehorsam»), die gewaltfrei («zivil») sind und auf eine breite Öffentlichkeitswirkung zielen. Das Phänomen wird heute meist mit verschiedenen Protestformen der Klima-Bewegung in Verbindung gebracht, doch ist es keineswegs neu. Die Jugendbewegungen der 1968er- und 1980er-Jahre bedienten sich der Formen des zivilen Ungehorsams, ebenso wie die Anti-Atomkraft-Bewegung in den 1970ern.

Aber auch wer das Rad der Geschichte noch weiter zurückdreht, begegnet dem bewussten, gewaltfreien und öffentlichkeitswirksamen Brechen obrigkeitlicher Anordnungen. Wenn man der Überlieferung glauben schenkt, steht der zivile Ungehorsam gar am Nullpunkt der Schweizer Geschichte. Friedrich Schiller (1759-1805) hat die Szene in seinem Drama «Wilhelm Tell» zu einem Stück Weltliteratur gemacht. Tell – bis dahin ein «Ehrenmann und guter Bürger»[2] – weigert sich, dem auf einer Stange steckenden Hut des Landvogts die verordnete Reverenz zu erweisen: «Was kümmert uns der Hut?»[3] Die ostentative Verweigerungshaltung auf dem Hauptplatz von Altdorf ist Auslöser eines Disputs mit Landvogt Gessler, der dazu führt, dass Tell als Strafe seinem Sohn einen Apfel vom Kopf schießen soll.

3. «Ziviler Ungehorsam» als staatlich zu sanktionierende Rechtsverletzung

Es ist ein zentrales Kennzeichen «zivilen Ungehorsams», dass damit gegen die geltende Rechtsordnung verstoßen wird. Wer «ungehorsam» ist, nimmt selbstredend in Kauf, dass das Rechtssystem auf solche Verstöße mit Zwang reagiert. Straßenblockaden werden polizeilich aufgelöst, besetzte Bankfilialen geräumt und die Fehlbaren gebüßt. Denn was das Recht von anderen Normensystemen unterscheidet, ist seine Durchsetzbarkeit mittels staatlichem Zwang. Werden offenkundige Rechtsverstöße nicht vom Staat sanktioniert, leidet die Autorität des Rechts. Wenn jemand durch Blockade einer Straße andere daran hindert, diese Straße zu benutzen, dann dürfte er meist den Straftatbestand der Nötigung erfüllen (Art. 181 schweizerisches Strafgesetzbuch [StGB CH]). Und wer sich gegen den Willen der Bank in deren Räumlichkeiten aufhält und darin Tennis spielt, begeht Hausfriedensbruch (Art. 186 StGB CH). Erhalten staatliche Behörden von solchen Handlungen Kenntnis, sind sie in der Regel verpflichtet, dagegen vorzugehen und die Schuldigen zu bestrafen – es besteht ein Verfolgungszwang (Art. 7 Strafprozessordnung [StPO CH]).

Keine entscheidende Rolle spielt dabei, ob die Handlungen mit physischer Gewalt verbunden sind. Zwar gibt es bestimmte Delikte, bei denen die Gewaltausübung ein notwendiges Tatbestandsmerkmal ist, etwa beim Landfriedensbruch (Art. 260 StGB CH). Bei Nötigung und Hausfriedensbruch genügt indes allein der Umstand, dass durch das strafbare Handeln andere Menschen in ihrer Freiheit eingeschränkt werden oder ihr Eigentum gegen ihren Willen beeinträchtigt wird. Wenn der Staat gegen gewaltlose Proteste mit Zwang vorgeht und die Protestierenden bestraft, dann entspricht dies der Logik des Rechtsstaats.[4] Dies mag hart und herzlos erscheinen. Die kompromisslose Haltung des Staates scheint umso stoßender, je drängender und legitimer das Anliegen ist, auf das die Protestierenden aufmerksam machen. Doch wie das Bundesgericht in einem Grundsatzurteil vom 26. Mai 2021 festgehalten hat, muss das unerlaubte Tennisspielen in der Schalterhalle einer Bank als Hausfriedensbruch betraft werden – mag das Motiv hinter dem Protest noch so legitim sein, weil die drohenden Gefahren des Klimawandels für künftige Generationen wissenschaftlich unbestritten sind.[5]

Zumindest metaphorisch trifft es zu, dass das Haus der Erde in Flammen steht. Doch im Unterschied, zu einem real brennenden Haus, bei dem die Retter straflos die Türe einschlagen und gegen den Willen des Eigentümers eindringen dürfen, werden durch Straßenblockaden und die Besetzung von Bankfilialen nicht unmittelbar Menschen aus akuter Lebendgefahr gerettet. In der Logik des Strafrechts gibt es daher für solche Aktionen keine entschuldbaren Gründe.

4. Rechtsstaat als Garant friedlichen Zusammenlebens

Ein Staat, der das Recht mit dieser Konsequenz durchsetzt, weckt je nach Perspektive wenig Sympathien und scheint in erster Linie für «Law and Order» zu stehen. Dabei wird leicht übersehen, dass der Rechtsstaat eine zivilisatorische Errungenschaft ist, indem staatliches Handeln in rechtliche Bahnen gelenkt wird und damit eine Ordnung geschaffen wird, die das gewaltlose und friedliche Zusammenleben in einer pluralistischen Gesellschaft ermöglicht. So ist das Recht nach Artikel 5 Absatz 1 der schweizerischen Bundesverfassung (BV) «Grundlage und Schranke» allen staatlichen Handelns (Grundsatz der Gesetzmäßigkeit bzw. Legalitätsprinzip). Das Recht wiederum wird in einem demokratischen Prozess geschaffen; alle für das Zusammenleben «wichtigen» Rechtsnormen müssen in einem Gesetz verankert werden, das vom demokratisch gewählten Parlament beschlossen werden muss und dem Referendum durch das Stimmvolk untersteht (Art. 141 und 164 BV).

Das Recht ist damit Ausdruck eines demokratisch zustande gekommenen Entscheids. Außerdem ist das Recht nicht nur eine potentiell einengende Zwangsordnung, sondern beschützt auch Freiheiten, etwa mit den Grundrechten und eben auch durch das Strafrecht, indem es verhindern will, dass Individuen die Freiheiten und das Eigentum anderer Individuen bedrohen.[6] Eine rechtsgleiche Durchsetzung des demokratischen Willens und der Schutz der Freiheit verlangen daher, dass das Recht gleich und konsequent durchgesetzt wird. Es kann nicht den moralischen oder ethischen Vorstellungen Einzelner überlassen werden, ob sie sich an diese Ordnung halten wollen oder nicht. Gerade in einer stark pluralisierten Gesellschaft mit divergierenden Wertvorstellungen erfüllt das Recht eine wichtige stabilisierende Funktion, die es verlieren würde, wenn die Befolgung individuellem Belieben überlassen würde.

Die befriedende Wirkung des demokratisch legitimierten Rechts wurde besonders deutlich im Zusammenhang mit den heftig umstrittenen staatlichen Maßnahmen zur Bekämpfung der Covid-19-Pandemie. Der hiergegen formierte zivile Ungehorsam erodierte zusehends, nachdem das Stimmvolk zweimal die Gelegenheit hatte, im Rahmen eines Referendums über die gesetzlichen Maßnahmen abzustimmen.[7] Das von den Maßnahmengegnern verbreitete Narrativ einer «Corona-Diktatur», die der schweigenden Mehrheit im Land aufgezwungen werde, zerbrach am klaren Ergebnis der Abstimmungen.

Weiterlesen auf Seite 2.

[1] Resistance to Civil Government, Æsthetic Papers, Boston/New York 1849, S. 189-211.

[2] Friedrich Schiller, Wilhelm Tell, Tübingen 1804, Dritter Aufzug, Dritte Szene.

[3] Schiller (Anm. 2), a.a.O.

[4] Andreas Kley, Rechtsstaat und Widerstand, in: Thürer/Aubert/Müller (Hrsg.); Verfassungsrecht der Schweiz, Zürich 2001, S. 285-298, 294; René A. Rhinow, Widerstandsrecht im Rechtsstaat?, Bern 1984, S. 41.

[5] BGE 147 IV 297, E. 2.

[6] Zur Janusköpfigkeit des Rechtsstaats als Bedrohung und Garant individueller Freiheit Benjamin Schindler, Entstehung und Entwicklung der Rechtsstaatsidee in der Schweiz, in: Diggelmann/Hertig Randall/Schindler (Hrsg.), Verfassungsrecht der Schweiz, Bd. II, Zürich/Basel/Genf 2021, S. 907-934, 932.

[7] Abstimmungen vom 13. Juni 2021 (BBl 2021 2135: Zustimmung von 60%) und vom 28. November 2021 (BBl 2022 894: Zustimmung zum Gesetz von 62%).

The post Ziviler Ungehorsam: Ein Beitrag aus Sicht der Rechtswissenschaften appeared first on St. Gallen Symposium.