In the current landscape, there is a prevailing norm urging individuals to take action on global issues. This article argues for a crucial reassessment of the narrative surrounding individual responsibility, particularly in the context of humanitarian crises, environmentalism, and income inequality. While acknowledging the importance of individual engagement, we may advocate for a more targeted approach that emphasises solving crises at their root cause, encouraging solutions that pressure institutions, businesses, and governments to make right decisions.
The conventional approach to activism often revolves around indiscriminate boycotts of perceived unethical entities, giving financial aid to ambiguous projects coupled with an emphasis on promoting less effective alternatives. However, we may endeavour to redirect activism towards more targeted and efficacious goals.
The essence of this new approach to individual responsibility lies in collective activism, wherein embracing evidence-based plans can contribute to resolute and lasting change across various societal challenges. The individual takes on a new role, one that is revitalised and realising of their potential. To enhance the effectiveness of this approach, it is imperative to address any existing gaps. In the absence of collective activism, initiate or join a group dedicated to the cause. If evidence-based plans are lacking, engage in thorough research, seek insights from experts, and disseminate your ideas across various media platforms. Where organised movements are lacking, leverage existing ones to amplify impact. Through these concerted efforts, we can contribute to a more impactful and sustained positive change on a societal level.
Humanitarian Crises
Individuals in affluent circumstances play a vital role in addressing humanitarian crises by supporting charitable organisations through donations. While appeals for funds during crises reach the average internet user, emphasising the need for systemic changes is crucial. Financial aid, though benefits, only tackles immediate suffering, while limited political resolution in the meantime stifles any hope of progress. Hence, we may re-evaluate the role of the individual, as being a supplementary push for systemic changes.
1. Yemen
Yemen is in a dire humanitarian crisis due to a prolonged civil war since the 2011–2012 revolution against President Abdullah Saleh. It’s currently the world’s most pressing humanitarian issue, with over half of the population facing acute food insecurity. The conflict between the Internationally Recognised Government of Yemen (IRG) and the Iran-backed Houthi faction since 2015 has deepened the economic and humanitarian crisis. The involvement of the Southern Transitional Council has worsened existing challenges like corruption, weapons proliferation, and internal divisions. Active front lines, intensified fighting in the Marib governorate, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic have added layers of complexity. Urgent international intervention is needed to alleviate the suffering of millions and address the multifaceted issues in Yemen.
Despite a UN-mediated truce in April 2022, clashes resumed in October 2022, resulting in casualties and raising concerns about renewed conflict. The situation was exacerbated by persistent cuts by the World Food Programme (WFP) to humanitarian assistance due to funding shortages, as highlighted by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) in August 2023. These cuts jeopardised crucial programs, compelling aid organisations to scale back or cease operations.
Unlike contributing to existing humanitarian efforts, resurrecting Yemen’s aid programs required funding beyond the capacity of personal donations. It does not seem appropriate, therefore, to push a narrative that individuals are responsible for the funding and survival of Yemen’s international aid programmes, The struggle for non-government organisations to keep their doors open is made increasingly disappointing as global wealth inequality rises, half of the world struggles on $6.85 a day, while billionaire wealth has risen more in 24 months as it has in 23 years.
The intricate nature of the Yemen crisis shows the necessity for larger, wealthier entities, such as global firms and governments, to contribute to the efforts to alleviate the suffering of millions.
The limitations of individual responsibility in addressing complex global issues are evident in the World Food Programme’s suspension of food distribution in Houthi-controlled areas of northern Yemen by the World Food Programme (WFP). Addressing global challenges like supply chain disruptions and aid prioritisation requires diplomatic efforts and stakeholder collaboration. The WFP’s selective intervention in Yemen highlights the need for consensus among stakeholders and improved collaboration between international bodies and local governments. Instead of advocating individual responsibility, focusing on communication and coordination between governments and humanitarian organisations is key.
The WFP pauses food distributions in Yemen [Photo Source: WFP/Annabel Symington]
The UN’s decision to exclude the Saudi and UAE-led coalition from its “list of shame” reveals the limitations of individual efforts in holding powerful entities accountable, especially in the context of safeguarding children during conflicts. The list, integral to UN initiatives since 2001, prompts documentation and negotiations with armed forces to address violations, making its accuracy crucial. Without an accurate list, the UN’s framework for addressing children and armed conflict is compromised.
A comprehensive solution for Yemen necessitates inclusive political dialogue, an accountable government, security sector reform, and disarmament. International monitoring, economic reconstruction, and support for displaced civilians are vital for stability. Limited progress in ceasefire and political resolution emphasises the need for global cooperation. Individual action, such as pressuring governments and corporations, is also crucial in crisis alleviation.
2. Afghanistan
The current humanitarian situation in Afghanistan is dire, with 28.8 million people now requiring assistance, marking a 60 per cent surge since 2021.The plight extends to nearly 30 million Afghans in desperate need, and a staggering 80 percent of them are women and girls who face deprivation of education and employment due to the strict governance imposed by the Taliban.
Following the Taliban’s takeover in 2021, Afghanistan, heavily reliant on aid, experienced a loss of support from Western donors, resulting in a profound economic collapse. Fearing for the future of humanitarian response for the country, the IRC showed that only 23 per cent of the proposed $4.6 billion funding in 2023 had been covered. Urgently, they called on donors to commit to providing long-term and flexible support to avert the impending threat of hunger and an uncertain future for millions. Thus, it is within the capacity of individuals to alleviate some of the immediate suffering of others by actively contributing to humanitarian aid efforts.
Afghan women receive food rations distributed by a humanitarian aid group, in Kabul, Afghanistan, in 2023. [Photo Source: : 2023 Ebrahim Noroozi/AP Photo]
However, such aid is evidently unpredictable and volatile. While financial aid from individuals can have a positive impact, it is not guaranteed. In grappling with the challenge of delivering aid in Afghanistan, the UN faces the complex task of pressuring the Taliban to cease human rights violations – this makes the required consensus before an individual is able to contribute much trickier to achieve. A meeting of UN envoys in Doha concluded with an agreement on continued engagement without formal recognition of the Taliban until observable progress in human rights is achieved. Despite the commitment at providing aid, without diplomacy, the risk of heightened poverty and hunger for many Afghans persists.
The abrupt loss of financial aid in Afghanistan highlights the volatility of aid systems, prompting questions about the appropriateness of placing significant responsibility on individuals during such crises. Well-intentioned individual funds may lead to wastage without adequate structures in place, to make the work of aid agencies effective. Administering humanitarian aid in Afghanistan is challenging due to uncertainties about the Taliban’s governance capabilities and aid management. The reliance on short-term foreign staff, coupled with the urgency of aid delivery, complicates effective management and increases the risk of waste and corruption. The country’s political divisions add complexity to resource allocation during crises. Challenges are exacerbated by limitations in the banking system, leading to the use of alternative methods such as U.N. cash shipments. Local NGOs face obstacles in accessing international funds, yet humanitarian efforts persist despite bureaucratic hurdles. However, severe underfunding, fueled by misinformation and politicisation, jeopardises their operations. This casts doubt on the effectiveness of individual action promoted in advertisements, and questions the rationale behind allocating more funds to inefficient aid systems.
Solving the Afghan crisis would require the nation’s leaders and international stakeholders to resolving the underlying issues of the extensive economic crisis, which, triggered by the sudden cessation of aid following the Taliban takeover, was further exacerbated by sanctions impacting macroeconomic adjustments, private sector activities, and the distribution of humanitarian aid. The freeze on foreign exchange reserves had resulted in a severe cash liquidity shortage, affecting various transactions, including crucial humanitarian aid efforts.
To avert further civilian catastrophe, there should be strategies to expand to additionally secure funding for essential personnel, such as health workers, teachers, and other vital service providers. Ultimately, sanction relief and unfreezing of Afghanistan’s reserves would allow for the banking sector to recover. Foreign exchange reserves would be able to gradually fortify the banking system, supporting the balance of payments, and facilitating economic adjustments. This highlights just how pivotal the role of government and diplomacy plays in laying the land for any humanitarian relief, and any hope of recovering from the conflict through negotiating for peace or even fiscal empowerment.
While affluent individuals’ contributions can assist, efficient aid systems are essential. Monetary donations alone cannot tackle root causes. Instead of solely addressing scarcity, focus should shift to eradicating the need for aid to break the cycle of dependency. Individual contributions matter, but solutions must prioritise systemic changes. Activism should target more specific goals, moving beyond financial aid to challenging oppressive forces through strategic boycotts and exposing their crimes so that people are more informed. Advocacy efforts should promote evidence-based solutions and pressure global firms and governments to implement them, reducing reliance on aid.
The Environmental Conundrum
The role of individual responsibility in emphasising the urgent need for coordinated efforts vital for lasting change, extends to environmental action. In the endeavour for better climate protection, initiatives like sustainable agriculture practices, transitioning to a circular economy, and addressing major waste producers are crucial. The part an individual may play goes beyond reducing personal energy and waste, extending to advocating for government intervention and climate equity.
1. Poor Production Practices
Poor production practices, driven by increased consumption, often resort to fast but harmful methods to meet high demands. Reducing consumption could mitigate these harms, but achieving it through individual action is challenging. An individual’s choices are influenced by cost and benefit, and without systemic changes, ethical consumption may be inaccessible
There is a real issue in the food industry – today, it contributes 20 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and faces increasing environmental scrutiny. Technological advancements have led to a boost in production and consumption, raising concerns about carbon-intensive ingredients. With a projected 56 per cent increase in food demand by 2050, it becomes clear that addressing the climate impact of agricultural practices quickly is an imperative. Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health suggests incorporating “climate impact” labels on fast-food menus to combat climate change, revealing a 23 per cent decline in high-impact beef orders and a 10 per cent increase in climate-friendly choices.
The Australian “Shifting the Menu” report shows fast food’s substantial greenhouse gas emissions, urging major chains to offer permanent plant-based options. While ethical choices and plant-based diets are encouraged, deeper scrutiny reveals inefficient production practices as the main issue. For example, a Greenpeace report on Amazon forest destruction from 2004-2005 highlights the structural dimensions of the issue of plant based diets. Three major US agricultural companies—Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Bunge, and Cargill—dominate 60 per cent of soy production financing in Brazil. Cargill, with 13 silos and an illegal Amazon port, spearheads soy expansion, encouraging illegal farms and facilitating global market access, followed by Bunge and ADM with six and four Amazon silos, respectively.
While promoting plant based alternatives, they have not adopted any industry-wide structural changes that would contribute to meaningful change.
[Photo Source: Greenpeace]
A better solution would be to emphasise the need for ethical production, not consumption.
In an interview, Christian Huyghe advocates for an adoption of agroecology in the food industry to combat biodiversity loss, soil pollution, and climate change, emphasising the need for a farming transition towards greater diversity. Agriculture’s significant role in climate change, responsible for 24 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, comes from its extensive deforestation, use of livestock and chemical fertilisers, and damage to water and other natural resources. As a response to this pressing issue, the Green Deal proposed a key initiative for innovation, research, and stakeholder involvement in transforming food systems for a sustainable future.
Such changes may also need to be reflected on an international level. In Brazil, the nation’s Agriculture Minister, Carlos Fávaro, not only criticises the EU regulations but also questions their alignment with the principles of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The issue’s unresponsiveness to consumer actions suggests individuals may not bear sole responsibility for solving deforestation. Fávaro challenges EU regulations as potentially discriminatory, aligning with WTO principles. Producers contend that meeting traceability requirements within 18 to 24 months is difficult, favouring tech-savvy regions and disadvantaged smaller producers. This undermines the effectiveness of consumer boycotts alone. Instead, collaborative efforts should focus on combating deforestation and promote sustainable practices industry-wide.
The same may be said about the clothing industry, where systemic changes are needed to undercut the 8-10 per cent of global emissions it currently contributes. Unfortunately, “greenwashing” may be undermining strategies such as purchasing from eco-collections or making second-hand purchases. In fact, critics argue consumer disinterest in pricier ethical products is evident, while second-hand purchases replace only 10 per cent of new sales.
Efforts like the UN’s #ActNow Fashion Challenge aims to reduce individual consumption, but lasting change requires transitioning to a circular economy, prioritising durability, and sustainable manufacturing. Projects like Resyntex highlight the EU’s innovation commitment. Achieving textile sector sustainability demands industry-wide shifts, not just consumer action.
Balancing personal responsibility with production practices driven by consumption poses a challenge. Advocacy for systemic changes in food and clothing industries is crucial, shifting focus from ethical consumption to production. Personal responsibility lies in promoting international collaboration, critiquing regulations, and supporting industry-wide initiatives, aiding broader systemic sustainability changes.
2. Poor plastic waste management
The urgency of addressing plastic waste is evident in its significant environmental impact, affecting landfills, oceans, ecosystems, biodiversity, climate change efforts, and human health. While banning single-use items, using reusable packaging and utensils are respectable solutions, recycling mandates and plastic taxation are seen as more impactful policies. There is a need for international cooperation and negotiations for a treaty on plastic pollution as a crucial opportunity for the larger plastic waste producers to lead global efforts in addressing this environmental crisis.
Low- and middle-income countries, along with small island developing states, suffer the most from the consequences of international plastic production despite having little influence. The absence of global regulations leads to the proliferation of problematic plastic products, exceeding these countries’ capacity to manage them.
Global plastic production outpaces waste management capabilities, imposing an annual cost of $26 billion on these nations and straining their limited infrastructure. Advocates propose a Global Treaty to End Plastic Pollution to address systemic issues and promote equity across the plastic value chain. However, concerns about its effectiveness arise due to weakly phrased options and few specific obligations in the initial draft, potentially burdening individual governments. This highlights the need for more proactive efforts from concerned individuals to make a meaningful impact where it matters.
The issue of the plastic waste issue calls for global leadership, particularly from the largest plastic waste producer, the United States. Active participation in UN negotiations for a plastic pollution treaty and overcoming challenges posed by industry lobbyists can position the U.S. as a pioneer in combating plastic pollution. The Plastic Waste Makers Index identifies the top 20 list of petrochemical companies producing virgin polymers bound for single-use plastic that remains effectively unchanged since 2019. Despite increased awareness and regulations, single-use plastic waste grew by six million metric tons in 2021 compared to 2019. A small group of 20 companies, including Exxon Mobil, Dow Chemical Co, and Sinopec, produces over half of the world’s single-use plastic waste.
Photo Source: Forbes/Science Advances
Hence, while placing responsibility on an individual to curb their own plastic waste is commonplace, reducing excessive plastic waste hinges on decreasing production and government action. Strategies may include capping production, imposing high taxes, and promoting sustainable alternatives. Shifting focus from education to practical solutions and accessible alternatives can curb domestic plastic waste. While blaming consumers is contentious, their reliance on plastic is hard to break. Education remains crucial for behaviour change and transitioning to better alternatives like reusable packaging.
3. Carbon emissions disparity
The current focus on subsidies for energy-efficient appliances highlights the role of individuals in reducing carbon emissions. For example, the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States, offers substantial incentives for electric car purchases and transitioning homes away from fossil fuels, which showcases how individual citizens can play a pivotal role in steering a nation’s energy transition. The analysis by the Climate Accountability Institute reveals that 20 fossil fuel companies have been responsible for over one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions since 1965. Since the late 1950s, these companies have acknowledged their environmental impact, accounting for 35% of global energy-related carbon dioxide and methane emissions. To expedite emissions reductions, focus policies, regulations, or incentives on the top 10% of high carbon-emitting entities. Subsidies are beneficial but should complement, not substitute, primary solutions.
Disparities in carbon emissions extend beyond high-emitting firms to income groups, with higher-income individuals having larger carbon footprints. To achieve Paris Agreement goals, the focus should be on holding major carbon emitters accountable, as lower-earning individuals contribute relatively minimally. The insufficient regulation of top earners by governments creates a critical gap, suggesting the need for targeted policies such as stricter taxes or regulations on affluent industries to swiftly reduce emissions.
The data shows distinctive carbon emission patterns across various income groups in different regions. In East Asia, the lowest income bracket contributes 2.9 tCO2e annually, the middle 40 per cent emit nearly 8 t, and the top 10 per cent surpass all with almost 40 t. North America shows lower emissions for the bottom 50 per cent (less than 10 t), higher for the middle 40 per cent (around 22 t), and even higher for the top 10 per cent (around 69 tCO2e). In Europe, emissions for the bottom 50 per cent stand at 5 t, the middle 40% emits around 10.5 tCO2e, and the top 10 per cent records approximately 30 tCO2e. South and Southeast Asia exhibit notably lower emission levels across income groups. Overall, the data reveals significant disparities in carbon footprints among different income segments within each region.
Over the past century, a notable disparity in carbon emissions has existed between lower-income and wealthier countries. North America and Europe alone have generated half of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions since 1850, significantly impacting human-caused climate change. The average carbon footprint of a US citizen is nearly ten times larger than that of an Indian and considerably higher than many countries in Southern and Eastern Africa, known for their lowest per capita emissions globally. If emissions were distributed equally worldwide, citizens in countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo would see a tenfold increase, while Europeans and North Americans would drop emissions by nearly 40% and over 70% respectively. A fair approach, considering these imbalances, becomes crucial in limiting emissions to meet Paris Agreement goals, equating to a 1.9 tCO2e per capita annually until 2050 for an 83% chance of staying below 1.5°C of global warming. The existing disparities also raise questions about the necessity of reducing carbon emissions for some individuals, highlighting the complexity of the discourse surrounding responsibility and commitment to climate action.
Photo Source: World Inequality Lab
Understanding the cause of the disparity in carbon emissions further proves that a single average consumers’ carbon footprint is insignificant compared to larger entities such as MNCs. For example, Coca-Cola’s emissions around the world were equivalent to the whole of the foreign-owned food and drink industry hosted by China. Dr. Zengkai Zhang of Tianjin University notes a concerning trend: multinationals are shifting investments from developed to developing countries, potentially leading to a net increase in global emissions. Emissions linked to individuals’ investments are as significant as consumption-related emissions within the top 1 per cent of global emitters. Investment-related emissions show greater inequality than household consumption-related emissions. It raises questions about holding individuals unduly accountable in the current state of affairs.
Hence, while individual action has definite merit, hyper-focusing on one’s carbon footprints may be unproductive. Instead, an individual may shift their awareness towards urging governments to acknowledge their role in addressing humanitarian and environmental emergencies. Environmental issues require a shift from personal action of boycotting unethical brands to advocating for innovative systems, geo-engineering, and technology that can rectify unsustainable production practices and raising awareness about climate equity.
The Crisis of Income Inequality and Corporate Structures
Beyond crises, income inequality prevailing in our society is another area in which the individual’s role may be re-evaluated. In addressing global income inequality within the complex framework of the global economy, a holistic approach is crucial, extending beyond individual actions. While responsible consumer choices, ethical business practices, and grassroots movements play a role, they alone cannot overcome deeply ingrained structural barriers. Initiatives like fair trade practices and living wage commitments are commendable, but a shift towards comprehensive proposals, such as those from international organisations like Oxfam, is necessary. There are limitations of individual responsibility against disparities in CEO pay, wage gaps, and income inequality.
Consumers are told they wield influence through purchasing decisions, favouring fair trade products like coffee to ensure fair compensation for labour and reduce income disparities in the supply chain. Business initiatives, driven by socially responsible investment practices and ESG criteria, encourage fair labour practices and positive community contributions. Existing regulations, like the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, aid consumers make informed decisions, fostering transparency and accountability within supply chains that make free trade possible.
Still, consumer choices, while contributing to positive change, should not be the primary focus in addressing income inequalities, as their impact is limited and relies on fair institutions holding businesses accountable. The cases of India, the US, South Africa, and China highlight this recurrent theme of individual responsibility limitations against structural barriers to equitable wealth distribution. Individual efforts should be more focused on reaching a consensus on long term solutions such as wealth taxes and minimum wage policies.
In the case of India, an Oxfam report for 2021 revealed that the top 1 per cent of India’s population commanded almost half of the nation’s total wealth. This concentration of economic power implies a systemic imbalance that transcends individual efforts. The subsequent surge in the number of billionaires from 102 in 2020 to 166 in 2022 further accentuates the structural nature of wealth accumulation. Gautam Adani’s wealth rose by 46%, and the top 100 individuals now hold $660 billion, revealing systemic wealth accumulation. Oxfam’s data shows 64 per cent of the GST is from the bottom 50 per cent, while only four per cent is from the top ten, highlighting economic disparities. A proposed 2 per cent wealth tax on Indian billionaires emphasises the need for systemic change to address inequality. This shows the limits of individual responsibility, urging structural reforms for fairer wealth distribution.
Similarly, the wealth gap in the U.S. emphasises the limitations of individual efforts in achieving fair wealth distribution, pointing to structural obstacles within the corporate sector. The Economic Policy Institute’s reports that despite a slight 14.8 per cent decrease in CEO compensation at the top 350 U.S. firms in 2022, the persistently high average pay of $25.2 million still amounts to 344 times more than typical workers with their pay soaring by 1,209.2 per cent since 1978, while typical worker compensation has risen by only 15.3 per cent. This widens income inequality and undermines the belief in CEO talent justifying their high pay, as in 2021, CEOs earned nearly eight times more than the top 0.1 per cent of earners.
In South Africa, the call for companies to disclose CEO and worker earnings serves as a response to the fact that CEOs in the country earn between 150 and 949 times more than the average worker. Preliminary analysis reveals a compensation distribution imbalance influenced by systemic factors, not just individual choices. Advocates support bills like the Companies Amendment Bill and Companies Second Amendment Bill, which require disclosing pay gap ratios, as vital for tackling inequality within firms in South Africa. Such disclosures would hold companies accountable for income and wealth disparities, gaining credibility with societal stakeholders pushing for reforms..
The limitation of individual responsibility in the context of widening income inequality in China, reveals that the prevalence of structural barriers impedes the realisation of equitable wealth distribution. Despite President Xi Jinping’s advocacy for “common prosperity” since 2013, the income gap has reached its widest point since data collection began in 1985. The top 20 per cent of urban households earn 6.3 times more than the bottom 20%, and in rural areas, the gap is 9.2 times, showcasing systemic disparities beyond individual choices. The concentration of wealth among the richest 1 per cent, controlling over 31 per cent of household wealth, indicates systemic advantages. Critics point to excessive debt and insufficient poverty alleviation efforts as drivers of growing inequality. They stress the need for structural reforms and government action to promote a fairer economic landscape, emphasising that individual efforts are limited against systemic barriers. This is essential for realising the government’s vision of “common prosperity” in China. Hence, addressing wealth inequality necessitates systemic changes, emphasising structural reforms over individual actions.
While individual actions, such as making responsible consumer choices may be significant, they alone cannot fully dismantle deeply entrenched systemic barriers.
What an individual may do, is call for here is an urgent need to exert increased pressure on institutions and governmental bodies to adopt policies that avoid the concentration of wealth among the ultra-rich. This may be done through grassroots movements holding transformative, collective power. For example, the Fight for $15 campaign successfully advocated for a $15 minimum wage, leading to legislative changes and corporate policy adjustments and Occupy Wall Street sparked public discourse on economic inequality and corporate influence, contributing to awareness and discussions on tax policies and financial regulations. By championing the welfare of marginalised groups, individuals can actively contribute to these proven initiatives that alleviate the impacts of income inequality.
‘Fight for $15’ protestors outside the Milwaukee Republican Party debate, in 2015 [Photo Source: Joe Brusky]
This way, individual efforts may be more focused on reaching a long-term, fairer economic landscape.
Rethinking Activism
Recognising the inherent limitations of relying solely on individual efforts, the imperative is to adopt a balanced approach that seamlessly integrates individual contributions into broader systemic changes. Without emphasis on policy reforms, fostering international collaboration, and instigating industry transformations to effectively address the root causes of these global challenges, an individual’s efforts are made to have little impact.
As individuals, we may rethink our role as agents of influence on the larger agents around us, participating in change through diverse means: peaceful protests, strategic boycotts, and self-education.
According to the economist, Noreena Hertz, there are two key principles guiding activism: addressing lack of accountability by generating public pressure for transparency and accountability and targeting the profit motive to induce companies to prioritise social and ethical consideration
Assuming individual responsibility entails not only participating in outward actions but also committing to self-education, information verification, and a continual reassessment of personal beliefs. An informed citizenry, thus cultivated, can advocate for responsible governance and demand ethical practices from companies as conscientious consumers. The indispensable roles of academics and journalists in guiding public perception ensure the dissemination of accurate information, empowering individuals to make informed decisions.
If individuals diligently fulfil their roles in contributing to positive change on global issues, and yet witness inadequate progress, it prompts a critical examination of the quality of leadership worldwide. Are our global leaders truly taking sufficient measures to address pressing global challenges? Are the democratic systems across the globe effectively upholding the rights of their citizens to demand meaningful change?
In our interconnected world, the pursuit of a more sustainable and equitable future necessitates a collective and multifaceted approach. By harmonising individual initiatives with systemic changes, we can catalyse a transformative impact that transcends boundaries and propels us toward a better future for all.
