The scene at the inauguration of large infrastructure projects often resembles a ritual of political and economic legitimization. Stakeholders gather under banners proclaiming “Commitment to the SDGs” and “Green Economic Transition,” making promises about emission reductions (SDG 13 – climate action) and social welfare improvements (SDG 1 – no poverty).
This phenomenon, theoretically referred to as the hegemonization of discourse, ensures that the “sustainable” narrative becomes the only framework accepted by the public and investors. However, initial data analysis indicates that the allocation of resources for mitigating real environmental risks is often significantly lower than the costs incurred for the public relations ceremonies.
Although leaders continue to promise environmentally friendly development, the reality on the ground shows the opposite. For example, data indicates that the disposal of hazardous waste from factories has actually increased, while companies claim they are clean. Furthermore, projects labeled as “sustainable” are often built on land forcibly taken from residents, violating promises to create social justice. This issue is not merely a minor oversight; it has become the way the system operates. Stakeholders focus solely on appearing compliant and adhering to regulations in official documents (like wearing masks), while they ignore the actual and substantial negative impacts on nature and society.
Initially, the idea of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was conceived to truly change the way we build for the better and more just. Unfortunately, this great idea has now become mere jargon or buzzwords frequently uttered. It can be referred to as “Empty Promises of Sustainable Development” because it consists mostly of talk and sweet promises, but lacks real evidence on the ground.
This phenomenon is akin to two separate things (the academic term is decoupling): there are beautifully written official rules (such as in speeches or documents), but the actual practices on the ground remain dirty and destructive. The function of this rhetoric is merely to make companies or governments appear good and entitled to continue operating, even though they still engage in old practices that harm the environment.
The misuse of these good development promises occurs in two main ways. The first is greenwashing by companies. They spend money to obtain certifications and create impressive reports to attract environmentally conscious investors (green bonds). However, the primary operations of these companies (supply chains) continue to harm the environment. The second is budget-washing, which is a way of “washing” budgets. Existing or even failed funds or projects are renamed as “SDG Priority Programs.” The aim is to appear good in the eyes of the world (window dressing) and to make it easier to secure funding.
If the phenomenon of empty promises and these revenue modes are not addressed, sustainable development will become a double obstacle: it fails to solve environmental issues while creating an illusion of progress that hinders public accountability. Data verification and the disclosure of on-the-ground facts are crucial steps to promote Transformative Accountability, demanding that this global consensus be implemented through substantial structural changes, rather than mere cosmetic labeling.
The issue of businesses masquerading under good promises (SDGs) is not merely about companies lying about their factory cleanliness (greenwashing). The problem becomes more complicated within the carbon trading system. This system is supposed to be beneficial as it forces companies to reduce pollution. In this system, a company that emits a lot of pollution (gas) can buy “credits” from other projects, such as tree planting or clean energy initiatives. Thus, these polluting companies do not have to bother cleaning up their own plants; they simply pay for other projects. On paper, global pollution appears neutral, while these large companies remain free to pollute, only paying money in return.
The major problem with carbon trading is that this system creates an “official license to continue polluting.” Polluting companies are no longer pressured to truly invest in and change their plant technologies to be cleaner. They simply pay a sum of money to buy credits from other projects. Unfortunately, many of the carbon credits purchased come from weak projects or even from forests that will not actually be cut down. Thus, the money paid does not truly save the environment. Ultimately, this system becomes a complicated and costly financial affair. The ones who profit the most are the intermediaries or consultants, while the primary goal of reducing the Earth’s temperature remains unachieved.
Money Laundering Mode Under the Guise of SDGs
The phenomenon of budget-washing is a quiet open secret. It begins with an oral directive to “green” budget proposals. Old, unpopular projects, even those that had stalled, suddenly receive new labels: “SDG-Based,” “Supporting Circular Economy,” or “Climate Adaptation Program.” Funds originally allocated for conventional road widening, for example, are now renamed “Sustainable Transportation Access Improvement,” without any significant changes to their design.
Budget-washing is defined as the practice of changing the packaging—not the content—of budgets. The sole aim is to make expenditure items appear relevant to global agendas, facilitating approval or even attracting foreign aid funds specifically oriented towards green issues. The essence of the projects, which should be transformational and have measurable impacts on the environment, is sidelined. Importantly, the keywords are present, and the formal checklist is fulfilled.
Data from the state budget and regional budget strongly indicate this practice. For example, in several regions, there are large budgets allocated for the purchase of electric vehicles for officials. Certainly, electric vehicles are part of the green economy. However, if these cars are purchased while the roads in villages remain muddy and public transportation services are unavailable, then this priority is fictitious. It serves only as a symbol of ‘progress’ showcased, rather than a real investment in sustainable public infrastructure. Similarly, the “SDG Training Programs” that cost billions yield nothing more than a stack of certificates without any policy implementation.
The signs of failure are increasingly evident at the project level in the regions. For example, a case study where a Wind Power Plant was inaugurated with claims of “clean energy” and full support for the SDGs. After spending hundreds of billions, the project is now stalled. The reason is simple: the location of the turbines was incorrect, failing to consider consistent wind speeds. Instead of generating clean electricity, the project has left behind rusting steel poles, damaging the local ecosystem’s landscape, and leaving debts that must be borne by the regional budget.
The case of project tenders is arranged to be won by a specific network of entrepreneurs, often supported by certain bureaucratic individuals. The project may be completed on paper, but with downgraded material specifications. Once the funds are disbursed and the ribbon is cut, oversight disappears. Ultimately, the wind power plant is not meant to illuminate the people, but rather serves as a means to funnel public funds into the pockets of a select few officials and entrepreneurs. The damaged environment and the communities without electricity are casualties that are never recorded in the SDG achievement reports.
In some cases behind the scenes of budget-washing and greenwashing, there is a key actor: the Sustainable Consulting Network. These consultants—often comprising former officials or prominent academics—profit significantly by providing “green legalization” services. They are adept at crafting elaborate due diligence reports, tidying up messy emission data, and writing budget proposals filled with SDG jargon.
The presence of these consultants creates a black market for compliance. For a high fee, companies and governments can purchase formal certifications and seemingly credible sustainability reports without undergoing independent and rigorous verification. This practice undermines the integrity of the entire SDG framework, turning it into a financial gatekeeping tool that can only be accessed by those who can afford to pay to conceal shortcomings.
The story of the Sky Project and the Fictional Budget reflects a failure of oversight and the loss of integrity. If the state and local governments continue to allow budget-washing to run rampant, then every rupiah claimed for sustainable development is wasted money, failing to save the environment and failing to improve the welfare of the people. In-depth and forensic audits of every budget item labeled “SDGs” are essential to end this farce of empty promises.
Ecological Damage Behind Claims of Sustainable Development
The loss of biodiversity is another silent victim of these empty promises. Instead of preserving, infrastructure projects claimed to be “green” often fragment wildlife corridors. For example, the development of Geothermal Power Plants, although considered clean energy, requires the clearing of conservation forests. The decline in primate populations and endemic species in the areas surrounding these projects has sharply increased. These real impacts are hidden, overshadowed by the narrative of carbon emission reductions that is heavily publicized.
The greatest threat is the decline in environmental carrying capacity. In major cities, reclamation projects and the development of high-end properties are labeled “Sustainable City.” However, these projects actually increase flood risks, accelerate land subsidence, and burden already collapsed waste management systems. The natural carrying capacity is jeopardized for short-term property profits, proving that sustainability is merely branding to justify environmental exploitation. The essential value of sustainability—as an ethical commitment not to harm the future—has been transformed into a commodified value that is traded, packaged, and resold. Jargon, labels, and certifications are prioritized far more than the essence of behavioral change.
This labeling regime is very dangerous because it creates an illusion of progress. The public and investors feel they have done good simply by looking at green-covered reports, while behind the scenes, damage continues under new legality. This is a betrayal of the fundamental principles of the SDGs, which aim to leave a better Earth, not just better reports.
So, what should be done? Criticism must be accompanied by calls for solutions. There needs to be a strengthening of independent and forensic oversight institutions. Environmental audits should involve neutral experts, not just paid consultants from companies. Budget transparency must be enforced, exposing every “sustainable” item in the state and regional budgets to ensure they can be easily monitored by the public.
The sanctions regime must be completely overhauled. Corporate greenwashers and bureaucratic budget-washers should not be merely given warnings or light fines. There needs to be strict criminal penalties and revocation of licenses that serve as a deterrent. As long as it is cheaper to deceive for labels than to bear the costs of environmental remediation, this modus operandi will continue.
The public must no longer be lulled by empty promises from the podium. We must stop buying the packaging. When an official or corporation claims to be “sustainable,” demand real evidence: “Where is your emissions data? Where is the completed land conflict map? How much biodiversity has truly recovered?” The time for listening to promises is over. It is time to demand proof. This is the only way we can ensure that development is not only sustainable for a select few profits but also for the survival of the Earth itself.
Silent Victims on the Frontline
Projects labeled as ‘sustainable’ often treat local communities as variables that can be eliminated. Compensation provided—if any—is far from adequate, failing to account for the cultural and social value of ancestral lands. Here lies the greatest irony: projects that are supposed to reduce inequality end up producing new poverty and alienation, benefiting large investors while leaving behind immeasurable losses of identity.
The impacts of these empty promises are not only seen in land loss but also in the concealed consequences of pollution. Around industrial areas that claim to be environmentally friendly, public health data shows a disturbing trend: an increase in cases of Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) among children under five years old. Companies have successfully hidden their hazardous waste disposal data from public reports, but they cannot conceal the chronic coughs of children playing near contaminated rivers.
The victims of these empty promises of development are clearly those who are the most vulnerable. Women and children bear a double burden. Women must search for clean water that is increasingly distant, while children are the most susceptible to air and water pollution. Statistical data on stunting (malnutrition) in villages around polluting factories often shows a spike, indicating that environmental contamination directly harms the health of future generations, hindering the achievement of the SDG related to Good Health.
Why do pollution and disease persist for so long? Because the accountability system is deliberately weakened. Companies have successfully purchased ‘licenses to pollute’ through carbon credit schemes or escaped legal consequences thanks to consultants who provide “green legalization.” The absence of strict oversight and blunt criminal penalties makes the cost of polluting far cheaper than the cost of cleaning up the environment.
Forensic and independent audits of every “sustainable” claim are essential. Environmental audits must involve neutral experts, not just paid consultants. Budget transparency must be enforced, exposing every “sustainable” item in the state and regional budgets (APBN/APBD) to ensure they can be easily monitored by the public.
The Irony of Poverty Amidst Sustainable Development
The discourse on the “Green Economic Transition,” which is fervently promoted, instead of leveling the playing field of development, is creating a new class of super entrepreneurs. These are capital owners who adeptly capitalize on global momentum. They are the ones who can afford expensive consultants, obtain certifications, and build environmentally conscious corporate images. On the global stage, they are the faces of successful sustainable development.
However, for thousands of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) and small farmers in rural areas, the demands of sustainability are an impenetrable wall. They are burdened by new compliance standards that are expensive. To obtain organic labels, fair supply chain certifications, or simply to meet green export requirements, they must incur significant costs that are disproportionate to the scale of their businesses. The costs for these labels are far greater than their daily operational expenses.
Economic inequality data serves as a silent testament. In areas that have been ‘pilot projects’ for sustainable development over the past five years, the increase in foreign investment and ‘green’ infrastructure projects has not necessarily been followed by a decrease in poverty rates. On the contrary, the Gini ratio (a measure of inequality) in these areas tends to stagnate, and in some cases, shows an upward trend. Large projects claimed to be environmentally friendly only benefit platforms and investors at the top tier.
Sustainable development was originally conceived to truly change the way we build for the better and more just. However, in practice, this grand idea has been reduced to mere jargon or buzzwords. This phenomenon is referred to as “Empty Promises of Sustainable Development,” where there is a decoupling between the beautifully written official policies in documents and the actual operational practices. (***)
Follow Us at Google News and WA Channel