ITUC campaigns director Todd Brogan on the global trend of rerouting social spending to defence: “You cannot protect a way of life by defunding it” – Equal Times

Report on Corporate Influence, Militarization, and the Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: The Corporate Threat to Global Stability and the 2030 Agenda

A 2025 report by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), titled “Corporate Underminers of Democracy,” identifies seven corporations posing a significant threat to democratic principles and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The analysis focuses on the growing militarization of the global economy, corporate support for far-right political movements, and the resulting diversion of resources from essential social programs. This trend directly jeopardizes progress on multiple SDGs, particularly those related to peace, equality, and decent work.

Diversion of Public Funds: A Direct Challenge to SDGs 1, 3, 4, and 10

The report highlights a global shift in resource allocation, with nations increasingly diverting funds from social spending to military and defense industries. This reallocation represents a significant setback for the 2030 Agenda.

• Undermining Social Protections: The redirection of funds from healthcare, education, and social safety nets directly contravenes SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), and SDG 4 (Quality Education).
• Exacerbating Inequality: This financial shift transfers wealth from public services that support working-class populations to a small number of corporations owned by the world’s wealthiest individuals. This process widens the gap between the rich and the poor, directly undermining SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).
• A Flawed Premise: The argument that national security requires defunding the very social structures that ensure a high quality of life is described as an “insane proposition.” Historical evidence suggests arms races do not lead to improved living standards or societal well-being.

Erosion of SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The activities of the identified corporations present a direct assault on the principles of SDG 16 by weakening democratic institutions, fueling conflict, and obstructing justice.

• Destabilizing Societies: By draining social safety nets, corporate-driven militarization destabilizes societies, creating conditions ripe for the rise of authoritarianism and undermining the goal of building peaceful and inclusive societies.
• Fueling Conflict and Surveillance: The report notes a symbiotic relationship between far-right governments and the arms industry. Corporate involvement in military and surveillance technology, such as Amazon’s and Palantir’s contracts with the Israeli government for operations in occupied Palestinian territories, raises concerns about complicity in breaches of international humanitarian law and undermines peace.
• Weakening Democracy: Corporate financial support for far-right political factions that are openly anti-democratic erodes the integrity of global institutions and threatens democratic governance at all levels.

Identified Corporations and Their Negative Impacts

The report names seven companies whose operations and political engagements are particularly detrimental to sustainable development. The selection process involved mapping connections between companies with major legal violations and their financial links to far-right actors.

1. Amazon
2. Meta
3. Palantir
4. Anduril
5. Northrop Grumman
6. SpaceX
7. Vanguard

Specific Corporate Actions Contravening the SDGs

• Amazon: Deploys web services for military applications while lobbying against the regulation of AI, undermining SDG 16. The company has also been penalized globally for labor rights violations, in direct conflict with SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).
• Meta: Has reversed internal policies to align with far-right political interests and expanded its involvement in military contracting.
• Vanguard: Abandoned Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) commitments under political pressure and is the world’s largest investor in nuclear weapons production, a clear threat to SDG 16.
• Northrop Grumman: Maintains an exceptionally low unionization rate (4%) compared to industry peers, actively moving operations to areas with weaker labor laws, which directly challenges the principles of SDG 8.

Mechanisms of Undue Influence and the Hollowing Out of Democracy

The report details how these corporations leverage their immense wealth, often exceeding the GDP of entire nations, to manipulate political outcomes and circumvent democratic processes, further compromising SDG 16.

• Economic Coercion: Corporations use their economic footprint to influence legislative districts and reward or punish political actors.
• Lobbying and Misinformation: They finance think tanks and associations to produce biased research that is then used by officials to justify policy decisions favorable to corporate interests.
• Erosion of Representation: This “hollowing out” of democracy maintains a superficial veneer of democratic process while substantive power is wielded by unelected corporate actors, undermining the goal of accountable and inclusive institutions.

Recommendations for Multilateral Action in Line with SDG 17

To counteract the undue influence of these corporations, the report advocates for strengthening international cooperation and legal frameworks, in line with SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

• UN Tax Convention: Establishing a global tax convention is proposed as a mechanism to create a fair system that prevents corporations from using capital flight threats to coerce nations into lowering taxes, thereby securing revenue for social programs that advance the SDGs.
• ILO Convention on Platform Work: An international labor standard for platform work would provide a baseline of protection for workers, giving national governments the political space to enact stronger labor laws without fear of corporate backlash.
• Strengthening Multilateralism: The international system, while imperfect, is presented as the most viable opportunity for nations to collectively establish standards that can rein in corporate power and ensure progress towards the 2030 Agenda.

Analysis of the Article in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article’s central theme is the undermining of democracy by large corporations. It details how companies support far-right political factions, engage in aggressive lobbying that weakens policymaking, and contribute to the “hollowing out” of democratic institutions. The text explicitly mentions that these actions “significantly threaten democracy at work, in society and in global institutions.” Furthermore, the discussion on the militarization of the global economy, arms races, and corporate involvement in conflicts (e.g., in the occupied Palestinian territories) directly relates to the goal of promoting peaceful and inclusive societies.
2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • The article highlights the anti-union practices of the corporations discussed. It mentions “wrecked and broken unions,” the “vehemently anti-union” stance of political forces supported by these companies, and the low unionization rate at a major arms manufacturer, Northrop Grumman. The text also points to the struggle for better wages and benefits, noting that companies claim they “can’t afford to provide better wages or benefits for their workers” while extracting massive profits, which is a direct challenge to the principles of decent work.
3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The article directly links corporate and government actions to a “rapid, drastic rise in inequality between the very rich and everyone else.” It describes the diversion of public funds from social programs to the arms industry as a “transferring wealth from already under-supported working-class people to a few companies owned by the richest people on the planet.” This process exacerbates economic disparities both within and among countries.
4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • Towards the end, the article proposes solutions that rely on international cooperation to counteract the undue influence of multinational corporations. It advocates for a “UN Tax Convention” and an “ILO Convention on platform work” as ways to create “baseline international standards.” This highlights the need for a global partnership to establish a regulatory framework that governments can use to hold corporations accountable, thereby enhancing policy coherence for sustainable development.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. The article’s focus on “rearmament,” “arms races,” and the “militarisation of the global economy” directly connects to this target by discussing the proliferation of weapons and the conditions that lead to conflict.
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article describes how corporate lobbying, financing of think tanks, and other influence tactics circumvent and weaken democratic institutions, making them less accountable and transparent.
   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The corporate “hollowing out of democracy” described in the article is a direct threat to this target, as it replaces representative decision-making with outcomes determined by corporate power.
2. Under SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth):
   • Target 8.8: Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers. The article’s discussion of “vehemently anti-union” forces, “wrecked and broken unions,” and low unionization rates points to a failure to protect labor rights, a core component of this target.
3. Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Target 10.4: Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality. The article critiques the policy of diverting funds from “social programmes and protections” (healthcare, education, social security) to the arms industry, which is the opposite of what this target recommends and leads to greater inequality.
4. Under SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals):
   • Target 17.14: Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development. The article illustrates a lack of policy coherence where economic and military policies (favoring arms manufacturers) directly undermine social and democratic goals. The call for international conventions is an attempt to restore this coherence.
   • Target 17.16: Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development. The proposal for a UN Tax Convention and an ILO Convention represents a direct call to action for this target, using the multilateral system to address global challenges posed by corporate power.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicators for SDG 16:
   • Military vs. Social Spending: The article repeatedly mentions the “significant shifting of resources from social programmes and protections to the arms industry.” The ratio of military expenditure to public spending on health, education, and social protection is an implied indicator of a country’s priorities.
   • Breaches of International Law: The mention of a Norwegian investor pulling out of Palantir due to “exposure to breaches of international humanitarian law” suggests that documented violations of such laws can serve as an indicator of corporate impact on peace and justice.
2. Indicators for SDG 8:
   • Union Density/Unionization Rate: This is explicitly mentioned as an indicator. The article contrasts the low unionization rate at Northrop Grumman (“four percent”) with that of its competitors (“20 per cent”), using it as a measure of the company’s commitment to labor rights.
   • Fines for Labor Law Violations: The article notes that the report’s methodology included identifying companies that “have had major fines levied against them for violations of… labour laws.” The frequency and size of such fines are a direct indicator of non-compliance with labor standards.
3. Indicators for SDG 10:
   • Wealth and Income Inequality: The article refers to a “rapid, drastic rise in inequality between the very rich and everyone else” and the transfer of wealth to “billionaire CEOs.” This implies that metrics like the Gini coefficient or the income share of the top 1% could be used as indicators.
4. Indicators for SDG 17:
   • Ratification of International Conventions: The article proposes a “UN Tax Convention” and an “ILO Convention on platform work.” The number of countries that engage in negotiating and ratifying such international agreements serves as a direct indicator of progress in strengthening global partnerships for sustainable development.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: equaltimes.org