The Cost of Neutrality: How Apoliticism Undermines Sustainable Development

As published in The Transformed PIChE Journal: The Official Publication of the Philippine Institute of Chemical Engineers

Recommended Citation:

Roco, J. B. A. (2026). The cost of neutrality: How apoliticism undermines sustainable development. The Transformed PIChE Journal, 1(1), 24–39.

Abstract

Sustainable development is a political endeavor: a process of explicit contestation over the distribution of resources, historical responsibilities, and the power to define systemic problems. This position paper examines apoliticism as a consequential political stance that enables harm in development across three analytically distinct levels: the macro-state, organizational, and corporate. Through comparative analysis of case studies from the Philippines (Marcos-era silence, Duterte drug war complicity), Lebanon (humanitarian depoliticization), Uganda (NGO technocracy), and Peru (extractive corporate social responsibility), the paper develops a Typology Matrix that classifies forms of apoliticism by their type, mechanism of harm, and scale of operation. The framework can serve as a critical lens for global development agendas, like the risk on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), functioning as a "green anti-politics machine" when implemented as mere technical coordination. But it also distinguishes evidence-based professional advocacy from partisan political activity.

The paper argues that when NGOs and professional bodies, such as the Philippine Institute of Chemical Engineers (PIChE), refrain from engaging with policy issues squarely within their technical competence, environmental regulation, process safety, industrial sustainability, and climate policy, they may inadvertently reproduce the very structural harms that sustainable development seeks to address.

Overall, apolitical approaches systematically undermine transformative development and reproduce existing inequalities.

Keywords: Apoliticism, Sustainable Development, Political Engagement, Chemical Engineering Ethics, Professional Advocacy, PIChE

1. Introduction

At its core, sustainable development is a political negotiation over who controls resource flows, who bears historical accountability, and who holds the power to frame systemic challenges (Engebretsen & Greenhalgh, 2025; Larsen et al., 2022; Telleria & Garcia-Arias, 2022; Venugopal, 2022). While frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) target profound structural change, institutional practice frequently mischaracterizes political apathy and technical neutrality as either genuine personal choices or objective administrative efficiency. This paper challenges the framing by demonstrating that apoliticism is not an absence of politics but an active neutrality that preserves existing distributions of power and resources.

The urgency of this argument stems from the widening gap between sustainable development aspirations and on-the-ground progress. The SDGs were adopted in 2015 with a 2030 deadline, yet mid-point assessments suggest that most targets remain significantly off track (Engebretsen & Greenhalgh, 2025; Horký-Hlucháň, 2025; Telleria & Garcia-Arias, 2022). This paper contends that part of the explanation lies not in technical capacity deficits or resource constraints, but in the systematic depoliticization of development, the removal of structural power questions from institutional agendas in favor of technocratic management. When development practitioners, professional bodies, and corporations position themselves as "apolitical," they may inadvertently reinforce the very structural arrangements that produce underdevelopment, environmental degradation, and inequality.

The core thesis proceeds from a single analytical definition: politics is contestation over the distribution of resources and the power to define systemic problems. From this definition, apoliticism necessarily functions to preserve existing arrangements, regardless of individual intent. This paper traces apoliticism's operation across three levels: (a) the macro-state level, where apoliticism manifests as public silence enabling authoritarian consolidation through institutional capture and coercion; (b) the organizational level, where apoliticism takes the form of technocratic professionalization that treats structural vulnerabilities as logistics problems; and (c) the corporate level, where apoliticism operates through market control, specifically greenwashing and corporate social responsibility (CSR) performativity, to prevent regulatory intervention (Larsen et al., 2022; Telleria, 2017).

Cases from the Philippines, Lebanon, Uganda, and Peru illustrate these dynamics at different scales, synthesized through a matrix that classifies each case along three axes: type of apoliticism, mechanism of harm, and scale of impact. The paper further extends its analysis to the field of chemical engineering, a profession whose technical decisions on environmental regulation, process safety, and industrial sustainability carry direct consequences for communities and ecosystems. The chemical engineering profession is examined not because it is uniquely apolitical, but because it exemplifies how technical expertise that is highly relevant to public policy can be systematically withheld from democratic deliberation through professional norms of neutrality. Professional institutions, including the Philippine Institute of Chemical Engineers (PIChE), have an ethical obligation to engage in evidence-based policy advocacy on matters within their technical competence. The intended audience includes sustainable development practitioners, chemical engineers, professional regulatory bodies, and policy-makers seeking to understand why neutrality on political-structural questions can function as complicity with harmful status quo arrangements.

2. Conceptual Framework: Defining Politics and Apoliticism

2.1 The Operative Definition

This paper employs a single, consistent definition of politics throughout: politics is contestation over the distribution of resources and the power to define systemic problems. This definition synthesizes two traditions: from political economy, it captures the material dimension, who gets what, when, and how. It captures who possesses the authority to name a situation as a "problem" requiring collective response, versus a natural or inevitable condition requiring only individual coping (Hout, 2012; Telleria, 2017). Further, the definition is deliberately structural rather than partisan. It encompasses electoral activity but extends far beyond it: to bureaucratic decisions about zoning, to professional standards that determine acceptable risk, and to institutional silence on matters of public concern. Politics, in this understanding, is not confined to the legislature and elections; it encompasses every domain where human arrangements determine who benefits and who bears costs.

Under this definition, apoliticism is the refusal to participate in either dimension of contestation. It can be passive (mere withdrawal) or active (an explicit claim of neutrality). In either form, the structural consequence is identical: existing distributions of resources are preserved, and existing definitions of problems remain unchallenged. Apoliticism is thus not the absence of a political position but an implicit endorsement of the status quo (Havelka, 2016). The definition has important implications. It means that genuinely being apolitical is, in structural terms, impossible: the stance of non-engagement itself has political consequences. This does not mean that all actors are equally responsible. The paper draws careful distinctions between voluntary and coerced silence, and between actors with different capacities for engagement. But it does mean that the claim "we are not political" can never be taken at face value; it must always be analyzed for its structural effects.

2.2 Three Operational Modes

This paper develops a three-part typology that classifies apoliticism by level of operation, mechanism, and outcome. The typology was developed through iterative comparative analysis of the selected cases, drawing on but extending beyond existing conceptual frameworks in the depoliticization literature. The categories are distinguished from prior scholarship.

Anti-politics (Ferguson, 2017) describes how development institutions systematically remove political dimensions from their interventions. This paper's typology extends the concept by distinguishing the level at which depoliticization operates and identifying distinct mechanisms at each level. Depoliticization (Burnham, 2001; Flinders & Buller, 2006) focuses primarily on state-level governance strategies. This paper adds organizational and corporate levels as distinct analytical sites where different mechanisms operate. Lastly, political disengagement literature (Parvin, 2018)emphasizes individual-level withdrawal from formal political processes. This paper reframes disengagement as operating across structural levels, not merely as individual choice, and examines how institutions and professions can be collectively disengaged.

I categorize three modes when applied across scales:

Silence-type apoliticism (macro-state level): The individual or mass refusal to contest state authority's claim to define problems and distribute resources. This enables authoritarian consolidation because it removes the social friction, protest, dissent, electoral contestation, that democracies rely upon to check institutional capture. The mechanism is coercion (real or anticipated), and the manifestation is public quiescence in the face of state violence or extraction (Borja et al., 2025; Nawawi, 1982)

Technocratic-type apoliticism (organizational level): The organizational claim that problems are technical rather than political, that they require expertise rather than contestation. This mode treats structural vulnerabilities (poverty, displacement, famine) as logistics challenges solvable through better management, data, or coordination. It thereby removes questions of power, redistribution, and justice from the domain of actionable problems (Feldman, 2003; Fisher, 1997; Venugopal, 2022).

Market-type apoliticism (corporate level): The corporate deployment of voluntary self-regulation, CSR narratives, and sustainability branding to preempt state-level regulatory contestation. By performing social responsibility through market mechanisms, corporations prevent the formation of political coalitions that might demand binding legal constraints on corporate behavior. The mechanism is regulatory capture through anticipatory compliance with non-binding norms (Moog et al., 2015).

2.3 The Conservative Function

Across all three modalities, apoliticism performs the same structural function: it removes items from the political agenda. When citizens are silent, states face no pressure to redistribute. When organizations treat displacement as logistics, the political economies producing displacement go unaddressed. When corporations self-regulate, legislatures have no mandate to impose binding obligations. In each case, the absence of contestation produces a presence – the continuation of existing arrangements (Macedo et al., 2006; Parvin, 2018). This conservative function operates regardless of the subjective intentions of those who adopt apolitical stances, which is precisely what makes it analytically important: good intentions do not neutralize structural effects.

3. Methodology and Analytical Approach

This paper employs a scoping review methodology combining conceptual framework development with illustrative case analysis. The literature search process followed PRISMA-informed principles (systematic searching, defined inclusion/exclusion criteria, documentation of search process), adapted for a discussion paper rather than a systematic review.

A systematic search of databases (Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar) using terms including "apoliticism," "depoliticization AND development," "anti-politics machine," "technocratic governance," "political disengagement AND sustainability," and "neutrality AND development."

Sources were included if they met at least one of the following criteria:

• Provide theoretical grounding for the concepts of apoliticism, depoliticization, or anti-politics;

• Offer empirical evidence (qualitative or quantitative) on the selected for citation based on their direct contribution to understanding the cases;

• Address the relationship between professional neutrality and public harm in engineering or associated fields;

• Document specific instances of regulatory failure, corporate greenwashing, or institutional silence with primary evidence;

• Contribute to understanding the professional ethics of engineering or chemical engineering specifically; and

• Present policy frameworks or recommendations relevant to the paper's advocacy components

Sources were excluded when they: addressed apoliticism only in passing without analytical contribution; lacked empirical grounding or theoretical rigor; or duplicated arguments already adequately represented in selected sources. Grey literature was searched using Google Search as a targeted supplement whenever screened studies lacked sufficient case study detail.

The search strategy yielded 653 papers, with 8 classified as highly relevant and 354 as partially relevant. The resulting reference list reflects an effort to ground claims in the strongest available evidence while maintaining analytical coherence. The cases presented are illustrative rather than statistically representative. The selection is not intended to represent all possible manifestations of apoliticism. Rather, it demonstrates the typology's analytical utility across diverse geographic, institutional, and sectoral contexts.

The five case contexts were selected to provide analytical diversity across the three typological levels while maximizing the theoretical contribution of each instance. At the macro-state level, the Philippines was chosen to illustrate both historical and contemporary mechanisms of state-imposed silence, ranging from the Martial Law era under Ferdinand Marcos Sr. to the drug war during the Duterte administration; this selection provides temporal variation and leverages deep contextual understanding. The organizational level is addressed through the contrasting cases of Lebanon and Uganda: Lebanon demonstrates humanitarian depoliticization and the blurring of boundaries between humanitarian aid and development in a fragile state, whereas Uganda highlights how NGO technocracy operates in a development-dependent context to substitute for state accountability. Finally, corporate-level apoliticism is examined through Barrick Gold in Peru and Unilever globally. The Peruvian case serves as an symbolic study of extractive CSR and environmental justice dynamics in the Global South, while the Unilever case illustrates the mechanisms of greenwashing at a multinational scale, providing a necessary contrast between the CSR strategies of extractive and consumer-goods industries.

4. Macro-State Level: Institutional Capture and Public Silence

At the macro-state level, apoliticism manifests as the mass absence of contestation over how state institutions distribute resources and define problems. When populations are silent, whether through coercion, manufactured consent, or cultivated indifference, states face no democratic friction, enabling institutional capture by narrow interests. The Philippine experience across two authoritarian moments demonstrates this mechanism with unusual clarity.

During the Marcos (1972–1986) and Duterte (2016–2022) eras, the Philippine state operationalized "silence-type apoliticism" to insulate state violence and elite-driven resource redistribution from public contestation, though through distinct structural mechanisms. Marcos achieved this by forcibly closing democratic spaces and rebranding governance as a technocratic modernization problem, effectively delegitimizing political opposition as inefficient noise while enabling widespread crony capitalism and institutionalized amnesia (Tadem, 2015; Wurfel, 1977). In contrast, Duterte operated within nominal democratic structures, using "definitional capture" to dehumanize victims and reframe mass extrajudicial drug-war killings as a routine administrative or technical execution rather than a political issue (Muhs, 2022; Thompson, 2022). Ultimately, both regimes rendered state actions non-contestable: Marcos through institutional erasure and coercion, and Duterte through rhetorical and ideological framing. Thereby converting citizens into passive spectators and stripping them of the political vocabulary needed to contest state-led violence and upward resource redistribution.

5. Organizational Level: Technocratic Professionalization

At the organizational level, apoliticism manifests not as individual silence but as institutional ideology, the systematic claim that development challenges are technical problems requiring expert management rather than political problems requiring contestation over power and resources. This technocratic-type apoliticism has been extensively theorized as the "anti-politics machine" (Venugopal, 2022), but its consequences for specific populations are best understood through comparative case analysis.

5.1 Lebanon: Humanitarian Neutrality as Political Economy

The 2006 July War on Lebanon and its aftermath generated a humanitarian response that exemplifies technocratic apoliticism's mechanisms and costs. Moghnieh (2015) documents how the influx of international humanitarian organizations after the war created what she terms a "political economy of aid", a system where the claim of neutrality served specific political functions while appearing to stand outside politics.

The key mechanism was standardization. International organizations imposed universal humanitarian protocols, needs assessments, psychosocial intervention frameworks, beneficiary targeting criteria, that translated the complex political experiences of war-affected communities into standardized data points. War became a "technical problem requiring a technical solution." The political dimensions, which communities were targeted and why, how reconstruction resources were distributed, whose definitions of recovery prevailed, were rendered invisible by the apparatus of neutral professionalism (Moghnieh, 2015).

5.2 Uganda: NGO Technocracy and Benefit Collapse

Uganda's development sector provides a complementary case where technocratic apoliticism operates not in emergency conditions but in long-term development programming. Nalubiri (2010) documents how local NGOs, constrained by donor requirements for measurable results within fixed timeframes, systematically depoliticize their interventions, treating poverty as a technical condition addressable through skills transfer, microfinance, and agricultural extension rather than as a political outcome of specific power relations.

The mechanisms of failure Nalubiri identifies are precisely those predicted by the framework of technocratic apoliticism. First, managerial techniques, logframes, result indicators, predetermined outcomes, "deter holistic development thinking" by requiring that complex political situations be translated into quantifiable deliverables. Second, donor timelines prevent "process-oriented work", the slow, politically sensitive relationship-building through which communities develop collective capacity for contestation. Third, the focus on financial sustainability drives NGOs toward credit programs that respond to market logic rather than community-identified political needs.

King (2014) makes this explicit in the Ugandan agricultural context, arguing that the dominant "good governance" approach to cultivating political capabilities among smallholders fails because it treats political engagement as an individual skill to be developed through training rather than a collective capacity that emerges through organization building. The technocratic approach offers "civic education" and "leadership training" while avoiding the genuinely political work of building organizations capable of contesting land distribution, market access, and state agricultural policy.

The Uganda case demonstrates technocratic apoliticism's specific harm: by treating structural vulnerabilities as logistics problems, organizations fail to build the collective political capacity communities need to contest the ongoing resource distributions that produce their poverty. Benefits collapse upon organizational withdrawal precisely because no political infrastructure for ongoing contestation has been constructed, only service delivery dependencies.

6. Corporate Level: Market Authority and Regulatory Prevention

At the corporate level, apoliticism operates through a distinct mechanism: the deployment of voluntary self-regulation, CSR narratives, and sustainability branding to prevent the formation of political coalitions demanding binding state regulation. Unlike silence-type apoliticism (which removes citizens from contestation) or technocratic apoliticism (which redefines political problems as technical ones), market-type apoliticism actively performs responsibility to preempt the need for external political contestation.

6.1 Unilever: The "Do-Good" Spirit as Depoliticization

Unilever's corporate communications exemplify what Raja (2021) identifies as the "neoliberal do-good spirit", a discursive strategy that presents corporate social responsibility as sufficient response to social problems, thereby removing those problems from the domain of political contestation. Unilever's Sustainable Living Plan, with its targets for health improvement, environmental footprint reduction, and livelihood enhancement, positions the corporation as a development actor whose voluntary commitments make regulatory intervention unnecessary.

The mechanism operates through preemptive responsibilization: by publicly accepting "responsibility" for social outcomes, the corporation claims the authority to define what the problem is and what constitutes adequate response. When Unilever defines its sustainability challenge as reducing packaging waste by a certain percentage, it simultaneously removes from political contestation the question of whether corporations should be permitted to externalize waste costs at all. The voluntary target replaces the binding obligation; the CSR report replaces the regulatory impact assessment (Kowshik, 2025)

This connects to the broader dynamics Moog et al. (2015) identify in multi-stakeholder initiatives: the Forest Stewardship Council, despite facilitating "multi-sectoral determination of new standards," failed to transform commercial forestry practices because the initiative's existence as alternative to state regulation reduced political pressure for binding legal constraints. The corporate performance of responsibility functions as what Fougère and Solitander (2020) call "consensus land", a discursive space where adversarial political relations between corporations and affected communities are repackaged as collaborative stakeholder partnerships, eliminating the agonistic dimension of politics.

6.2 Barrick Gold in Peru: CSR as Opposition Pacification

The Barrick Gold case in Peru provides the sharpest illustration of market-type apoliticism as mechanism for preventing regulatory state intervention. Alonso (2014) documents how Barrick Gold, in partnership with World Vision and the Canadian government, implemented CSR projects near its Lagunas Norte mine specifically to discourage local grassroots opposition to mining.

The study identifies three indicators of CSR functioning as political demobilization: "a significant division of opinion within the communities, a decrease in organized resistance to the project, and an increase in support for the project" (Alonso, 2014). The mechanism is precise: by distributing limited social goods (infrastructure, employment, development projects) through corporate channels, Barrick fragments community solidarity, creates dependencies, and removes the political vocabulary communities need to contest mining's environmental and social costs. Communities that might have formed political coalitions demanding state regulation of mining, a political act of contesting resource distribution, instead become recipients of corporate charity, their political agency transformed into beneficiary status.

Under this paper's framework, the Peru case demonstrates market-type apoliticism's most potent operation: CSR does not merely claim neutrality but actively produces apoliticism in affected communities by (a) substituting corporate distribution for political redistribution, (b) fragmenting collective political capacity into individual beneficiary relationships, and (c) preempting regulatory state intervention by performing voluntary "responsibility." The structural consequence is that the state is relieved of its regulatory function, while communities are demobilized through selective patronage.

The two cases illustrate that corporate sustainability initiatives may function as apoliticism when they satisfy one or more of the following conditions:

• Position sustainability as achievable without regulatory intervention, thereby removing environmental standards from democratic contestation,

• Substitute corporate managerial discretion for democratic decision-making about acceptable environmental impacts,

• Generate "social license" that prevents or fragments community political mobilization, and

• Lobby against mandatory environmental standards while publicizing voluntary commitments, creating the impression of adequate self-governance

This framework does not condemn all CSR. Rather, it identifies the political function that corporate sustainability can serve and argues that this function should be made explicit in sustainability discourse. When CSR functions to forestall regulation and depoliticize environmental governance, it operates as corporate apoliticism regardless of any ancillary benefits it produces. However, when it genuinely complements regulation, addresses structural causes, supports strengthening of mandatory standards, and empowers affected communities, it may advance sustainable development.

7. Comparative Synthesis

The preceding case studies are not presented as isolated illustrations but as data points within a formal comparative architecture. The matrix below classifies each case along three axes derived from the paper's analytical framework: (a) type of apoliticism, (b) mechanism of harm, and (c) scale of impact

Table 1. Proposed Typology Matrix of Apoliticism

Case	Type	Mechanism	Primary Actors	Scale	Key Outcome
Philippines (Marcos)	Macro-State Silence	Coercion, institutional capture, technocratic reframing	State, citizens, media, professional bodies	National	Authoritarian legitimation; democratic erosion
Philippines (Duterte)	Macro-State Silence	Populist framing, fear production, dehumanization	State, professional bodies, civil society	National	Normalization of extrajudicial violence
Lebanon	Organizational Neutrality	Humanitarian mandates, donor conditionality, access requirements	INGOs, UN agencies, local NGOs	National/Regional	Structural inequality unaddressed; confessional system perpetuated
Uganda	Organizational Neutrality	Technocratic project design, donor frameworks, service substitution	NGOs, donors, bilateral agencies	National	State accountability substituted; governance failure perpetuated
Peru (Barrick)	Corporate Market Control	CSR as social license, community division, selective distribution	Extractive corporations, communities	Local/National	Regulatory avoidance, community pacification, environmental harm
Unilever	Corporate Market Control	Sustainability branding, voluntary initiative proliferation	MNCs, consumers, media	Global	Voluntary substitution for regulation; sustainability depoliticized

The matrix reveals several cross-cutting analytical findings:

Pattern 1: Scale escalation through non-contestation. In every case, the initial scale of harm expanded through the absence of contestation. Marcos's initial institutional capture escalated to full dictatorship. Duterte's targeted killings escalated to mass extrajudicial execution. Barrick's local environmental damage escalated to systemic community disempowerment. The matrix suggests that apoliticism does not merely preserve existing arrangements but enables their intensification, because the absence of friction removes the feedback mechanisms that might moderate harm.

Pattern 2: Hybrid mechanisms at intersections. The most intractable cases involve multiple modality types simultaneously. The Duterte drug war combined silence (mass public acceptance) with technocratic elements (the bureaucratic administration of kill lists). Lebanon combines technocratic (humanitarian standardization) with market-type elements (the competitive aid "market"). Effective counter-strategies must therefore address multiple modalities simultaneously rather than targeting a single mechanism.

Pattern 3: The disproportionate burden on marginalized populations. Across all cases, the populations bearing the highest costs of apoliticism—martial law victims, drug war targets, displaced Lebanese communities, Ugandan smallholders, Peruvian mining-affected communities—are also those facing the highest costs of political engagement.

8. Discussion: The Political Economy of Disengagement

8.1 Apoliticism as Produced Condition

The case analyses demonstrate that apoliticism is not a natural resting state but a produced condition. It is produced through coercion (Marcos's military violence), ideological capture (Duterte's redefinition of killing as administration), institutional design (humanitarian standardization protocols), and market power (CSR programs that fragment community solidarity). Recognizing apoliticism as produced rather than chosen shifts the analytical and normative frame: the question becomes not "why don't people engage?" but "what systems produce disengagement, and who benefits?"

This reframing aligns with what Borja et al. (2025) identify in the Philippine context as "political disempowerment", a condition distinct from mere apathy. Disempowerment implies structural constraints on agency rather than individual preference. Their research demonstrates that "challenges to democratization from the perspective of political inaction" reveal not citizens who have freely chosen withdrawal but citizens whose capacity for contestation has been systematically undermined through institutional design, information control, and the cultivation of cynicism.

8.2 Implications for Sustainable Development

The Sustainable Development Goals provide a useful test of the paper's framework. The SDGs are premised on universal progress toward shared objectives, poverty reduction, environmental sustainability, institutional quality. Yet as Larsen et al. (2022) argue, the SDG framework itself can function as a "green anti-politics machine" that depoliticizes inherently political questions about resource distribution, historical responsibility, and structural power. When SDG implementation is framed as technical coordination rather than political contestation, it reproduces technocratic-type apoliticism at global scale (Langford, 2016; Telleria & Garcia-Arias, 2022).

The framework advanced here predicts that SDG progress will be limited wherever implementation avoids contestation over distribution. Wong and Van der Heijden (2019) confirm this empirically, finding that "avoidance of conflicts and trade-offs" in SDG policymaking, a form of institutional apoliticism, undermines transformative potential. Progress requires identifying winners and losers, naming structural causes, and contesting existing distributions, precisely what apolitical approaches avoid (Engebretsen & Greenhalgh, 2025; Horký-Hlucháň, 2025).

The emergence of Political Economy Analysis (PEA), Thinking and Working Politically (TWP), and Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA) within development practice represents institutional recognition of the failures documented in this paper. Dasandi et al. (2019) synthesize evidence on TWP approaches, finding that effective development requires understanding and engaging with local power dynamics rather than treating them as external constraints. Andrews et al. (2013) argue that PDIA, iterative, locally-led problem-solving, succeeds where "best practice" transplantation fails because it embeds political learning within implementation.

Clarke (2021) applies TWP specifically to Philippine reform coalitions, finding that donor-supported reform efforts succeed when they identify and work with politically motivated local reformers rather than attempting to impose technical solutions on political problems. This confirms the paper's framework: development effectiveness requires engagement in political contestation over resources and problem-definition, not the evasion of it. The organizations that adopt PEA and TWP approaches are, in the language of this paper, choosing to reject technocratic apoliticism in favor of explicit political engagement (McGregor et al., 2020; Whitty, 2019)

8.3 Implications for Chemical Engineering

Chemical engineering is a profession whose technical decisions carry profound consequences for communities, ecosystems, and future generations. The profession designs, operates, and maintains facilities that handle hazardous materials, produce emissions, generate waste, consume energy, and transform natural resources into products. Every one of these activities is governed or under governed by regulatory frameworks that are themselves products of political processes. The profession's engagement with or withdrawal from these political questions directly affects sustainable development outcomes.

When engineers frame sustainability as purely a technical optimization problem, they engage in precisely the technocratic depoliticization identified in this paper's framework. Sustainability decisions invariably involve value trade-offs: cost versus safety, profit versus environmental protection, short-term economic performance versus long-term ecological integrity, local employment versus community health. These trade-offs are inherently political; they require decisions about whose interests prevail when objectives conflict. Professional engagement must acknowledge these political dimensions rather than obscuring them behind technical language (Byrne, 2010; Chance et al., 2025; Karjanto, 2022).

When chemical engineers and their professional bodies refrain from advocating for evidence-based environmental standards, regulatory frameworks may remain inadequate, outdated, or poorly enforced. The evolution of environmental regulation: from the Alkali Act of 1863 through the Seveso Directives to modern controls such as the IPPC Directive, has been driven substantially by reactive responses to industrial disasters rather than proactive professional advocacy (Sikdar, 2019). Each regulatory advance required a catastrophe to catalyze political action: Seveso (1976), Bhopal (1984), Buncefield (2005), and numerous others have forced regulatory reform that the profession's proactive engagement might have achieved without preventable loss of life.

Major industrial disasters, such as Bhopal (Eckerman & Børsen, 2021; Varma & Varma, 2005), Piper Alpha (Reid, 2020), West Texas (Babrauskas, 2017), consistently reveal gaps between corporate responsibility rhetoric and operational reality. These gaps demonstrate that voluntary commitment, however sincere at the organizational level, cannot substitute for enforceable standards with independent oversight. The profession's ethical obligation extends to advocating for the regulatory infrastructure that makes corporate commitments enforceable, including independent investigation bodies, mandatory reporting requirements, and meaningful penalties for non-compliance (Engler, 2019).

The chemical engineering profession's relationship to the Anthropocene demands political as well as technical engagement (Horio & Clift, 2023). When the profession confines itself to optimizing industrial processes without advocating for the regulatory frameworks that determine whether those processes serve sustainable development, it enacts the organizational apoliticism this paper critiques.

8.4 Implications for the Philippine Institute of Chemical Engineers (PIChE)

PIChE states its mission as “[promoting] the ethical practice of the Chemical Engineering Profession in the country” and “[committing] to constantly stimulate collaborative efforts…to encourage their participation in endeavors addressing current national and international issues, particularly related to the industries, education, economy, and the environment.” This mission statement contains an explicit commitment to civic engagement, a commitment that organizational apoliticism on pressing national issues directly contradicts. Therefore, it is imperative for PIChE to take positions on pressing national issues within the purview of chemical engineering. Doing otherwise violates the essence of its mission and vision.

PIChE's commitment to “technical competence” requires that members' expertise be deployed in the public interest, including through policy advocacy when professional knowledge indicates that existing regulatory frameworks are inadequate to protect public safety and environmental integrity. “Ethical standards” in chemical engineering include the obligation to hold paramount public safety, health, and welfare. When regulatory frameworks fail to protect these values – as documented throughout this paper, ethical standards demand advocacy for their improvement, not mere individual compliance with inadequate rules. PIChE's explicit commitment to civic engagement requires operationalization through concrete institutional mechanisms, policy positions, and public advocacy on matters within the profession's competence.

8.5 Limitations and Qualifications

Several limitations warrant acknowledgment. First, the paper relies on secondary synthesis rather than primary data collection; while the Typology Matrix generates testable propositions, these require empirical verification through primary comparative research. Second, the three-level typology (silence/technocratic/market) is analytically useful but necessarily simplifies hybrid cases where multiple modalities operate simultaneously. Third, the paper's normative stance, that apoliticism is dangerous and political engagement is desirable, must be qualified: in some contexts, temporary strategic withdrawal may be the only survival option available to marginalized populations.

Further, a critical distinction must be drawn between partisan political activity and evidence-based professional advocacy. This paper does not argue that PIChE or individual chemical engineers should align with political parties, endorse candidates, or adopt ideological positions unrelated to their professional competence. The argument is for professional advocacy, grounded in evidence, limited to domains of competence, and oriented toward public welfare rather than partisan advantage. Distinctions are further described in the table below.

Table 2. Distinctions between Partisan Political Activity and Evidence-Based Professional Advocacy at various dimensions.

Dimension	Partisan Political Activity	Evidence-Based Professional Advocacy
Basis	Party ideology, electoral strategy, political loyalty	Scientific evidence, professional expertise, and engineering standards
Scope	All political questions, regardless of expertise	Questions within professional competence only
Alignment	With specific parties, candidates, or ideological positions	With public safety, environmental protection, and scientific integrity
Method	Endorsements, donations, campaign activity, electoral mobilization	Position papers, expert testimony, public education, policy recommendations, and regulatory consultation
Obligation	Personal choice; no professional duty	Professional ethical duty when expertise is relevant to public welfare
Standard	Political agreement or advantage	Peer-reviewed evidence, engineering standards, documented outcomes
Accountability	To party or faction	To evidence, professional standards, and affected communities

9. Conclusion

This paper has advanced three interconnected arguments. First, apoliticism—defined as the refusal to engage in contestation over the distribution of resources and the power to define systemic problems—is not neutral but functionally conservative, preserving existing arrangements across macro-state, organizational, and corporate levels. Second, comparative analysis reveals that different types of apoliticism (silence, technocratic, market) operate through distinct mechanisms of harm (coercion, structural erasure, regulatory capture).

The Philippine experience demonstrates these dynamics with clarity because the country's combination of democratic forms and persistent elite capture makes the mechanisms of apoliticism unusually visible. From Marcos to Duterte, from local development councils to international NGO operations, they repeatedly illustrate how the absence of contestation enables the intensification of inequality and violence, and how, when conditions permit, organized contestation can achieve transformative change.

The paper's practical implication is that interventions against apoliticism must be as differentiated as the phenomenon itself. Programs that offer "civic education" without building organizational capacity reproduce technocratic apoliticism at the level of intervention design. CSR initiatives that perform responsibility without accepting regulatory constraints reproduce market apoliticism. Professional institutions, including PIChE, bear ethical obligations to engage in evidence-based policy advocacy within their domains of competence. The history of process safety regulation, where every major advance followed a preventable disaster rather than proactive professional advocacy, demonstrates the human cost of professional neutrality. When PIChE possesses expertise relevant to preventing harm and refrains from deploying it in the policy arena, the organization enacts the very apoliticism this paper critiques. Only approaches that explicitly engage in, or build capacity for, contestation over resources and problem-definition address the structural function that apoliticism serves.

10. AI-use Declaration

ChatGPT (GPT 5.5) and Google Gemini 3.6 Flash (including Notebook Gemini) were used to assist with language refinement, restructuring of paragraphs, and improvements to clarity and flow. Grammarly was used for grammar and syntax correction. All AI tools were restricted to editorial or organizational function; all substantive arguments, analytical judgments, case interpretations, typological assignments, policy recommendations, and positions expressed in this paper represent the author's own intellectual contributions and professional judgment. The author takes full responsibility for all claims, citations, recommendations, and analytical conclusions. The use of AI tools does not diminish the author's accountability for the paper's content, nor does it constitute endorsement of AI-generated content without human oversight.

11. References

Alonso, G. (2014). Barrick Gold and CSR: Dynamics of Canadian Extractive Capitalism in Peru [Masters Thesis]. Saint Mary’s University.

Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., & Woolcock, M. (2013). Escaping Capability Traps through Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA). World Development, 51, 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.05.006

Babrauskas, V. (2017). The West, Texas, ammonium nitrate explosion: A failure of regulation. Journal of Fire Sciences, 35(5), 396–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734904116685723

Borja, A. L. A., Torneo, A. R., & Hecita, I. J. R. (2025). Challenges to Democratization from the Perspective of Political Inaction: Insights into Political Disempowerment and Citizenship in the Philippines. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 44(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/18681034241239060

Burnham, P. (2001). New Labour and the Politics of Depoliticisation. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 3(2), 127–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-856X.00054

Byrne, E. P. (2010). Teaching engineering ethics and sustainability.

Chance, S., Børsen, T., Martin, D. A., Tormey, R., Lennerfors, T. T., & Bombaerts, G. (2025). The Routledge International Handbook of Engineering Ethics Education (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003464259

Clarke, G. (2021). “Thinking and Working Politically”: The case of donor‐supported reform coalitions in the Philippines. Development Policy Review, 39(3), 398–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12494

Dasandi, N., Laws, E., Marquette, H., & Robinson, M. (2019). What Does the Evidence Tell Us about ‘Thinking and Working Politically’ in Development Assistance? Politics and Governance, 7(2), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v7i2.1904

Eckerman, I., & Børsen, T. (2021). Corporate and Governmental Responsibilities for Preventing Chemical Disasters: Lessons from Bhopal. In J. Schummer & T. Børsen, Ethics of Chemistry (pp. 113–140). WORLD SCIENTIFIC. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789811233548_0005

Engebretsen, E., & Greenhalgh, T. (2025). Missed SDG targets: From ‘trying harder’ to engaging critically with paradox and conflict. Critical Public Health, 35(1), 2463465. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2025.2463465

Engler, R. (2019). Should engineers have more influence on safety? A view from a member of the United States Chemical Safety Board. Process Safety Progress, 38(3), e12076. https://doi.org/10.1002/prs.12076

Feldman, S. (2003). Paradoxes of institutionalisation: The depoliticisation of Bangladeshi NGOs. Development in Practice, 13(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/0961452022000037955

Ferguson, J. (2017). The anti-politics machine: “development”, depoliticization, and bureaucratic power in Lesotho (Eleventh printing). University of Minnesota Press.

Fisher, W. F. (1997). Doing Good? The Politics and Antipolitics of NGO Practices. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26(1), 439–464. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.439

Flinders, M., & Buller, J. (2006). Depoliticisation: Principles, Tactics and Tools. British Politics, 1(3), 293–318. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bp.4200016

Fougère, M., & Solitander, N. (2020). Dissent in Consensusland: An Agonistic Problematization of Multi-stakeholder Governance. Journal of Business Ethics, 164(4), 683–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04398-z

Havelka, M. (2016). “Apolitics”, “Anti-politics”, “Non-political Politics” and “Sub-politics” as Threats and Challenges. Sociální Studia / Social Studies, 13(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.5817/SOC2016-1-9

Horio, M., & Clift, R. (2023). Chemical engineering for the Anthropocene. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 101(1), 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.24644

Horký-Hlucháň, O. (2025). Policy coherence for sustainable development as a governance tool: Depoliticisation and the limits of its transformative potential at the global level. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5954933

Hout, W. (2012). The Anti-Politics of Development: Donor agencies and the political economy of governance. Third World Quarterly, 33(3), 405–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2012.657474

Karjanto, N. (2022). Seeking Genuine Vocations through Sustainability in Chemical Engineering. Sustainability, 14(12), 6980. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14126980

King, S. (2014). Cultivating Political Capabilities Among Ugandan Smallholders: Good Governance or Popular Organisation Building? SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2391808

Kowshik, N. (2025). Green Illusions and the Carbon Neutrality Paradox. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/b2fmt_v1

Langford, M. (2016). Lost in Transformation? The Politics of the Sustainable Development Goals. Ethics & International Affairs, 30(2), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0892679416000058

Larsen, P. B., Haller, T., & Kothari, A. (2022). Sanctioning Disciplined Grabs (SDGs): From SDGs as Green Anti-Politics Machine to Radical Alternatives? Geoforum, 131, 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2022.02.007

Macedo, S., Galston, W. A., Swanstrom, T., Alex-Assensoh, Y., Reich, R., & Karpowitz, C. (2006). Democracy at Risk: How Political Choices Undermine Citizen Participation, and What We Can Do About It. Brookings Institution Press. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.43-4944.

McGregor, L., Frazer, S., & Brinkerhoff, D. (2020). Thinking and Working Politically: Lessons from Diverse and Inclusive Applied Political Economy Analysis. RTI Press. https://doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2020.rr.0038.2004

Moghnieh, L. (2015). Relief as a neutral form of aid or a political-communal mobilization? Doing politics in emergencies and war and the politics of aid in Lebanon. Civil Society Knowledge Centre, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.28943/CSKC.001.30008

Moog, S., Spicer, A., & Böhm, S. (2015). The Politics of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives: The Crisis of the Forest Stewardship Council. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(3), 469–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-2033-3

Muhs, L. (2022). Duterte’s “War on Drugs” Rhetoric. Journal for the Study of Radicalism, 16(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.14321/jstudradi.16.2.0149v

Nalubiri, A. G. (2010). Sustaining Local NGO Social Intervention-Benefits in Uganda [Masters Thesis]. Institute of Social Studies.

Nawawi, Mohd. A. (1982). Political Participation during the First Five Years of the New Society in the Philippines. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 13(2), 270–278. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022463400008699

Parvin, P. (2018). Democracy Without Participation: A New Politics for a Disengaged Era. Res Publica, 24(1), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-017-9382-1

Raja, S. (2021). The Neoliberal “Do-Good” Spirit: A Case Study of UNILVER’s Digital Communication of Corporate Social Responsibility [Dissertation]. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

Reid, M. (2020). The Piper Alpha Disaster: A Personal Perspective with Transferrable Lessons on the Long-Term Moral Impact of Safety Failures. ACS Chemical Health & Safety, 27(2), 88–95. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chas.9b00022

Sikdar, S. (2019). Environmental protection: Reactive and proactive approaches. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 21(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-018-1653-9

Tadem, T. S. E. (2015). Technocracy and the Politics of Economic Decision Making during the Pre–Martial Law Period (1965–1972). Philippine Studies: Historical & Ethnographic Viewpoints, 63(4), 541–573.

Telleria, J. (2017). Power relations? What power relations? The de-politicising conceptualisation of development of the UNDP. Third World Quarterly, 38(9), 2143–2158. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2017.1298437

Telleria, J., & Garcia-Arias, J. (2022). The fantasmatic narrative of ‘sustainable development’. A political analysis of the 2030 Global Development Agenda. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 40(1), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/23996544211018214

Thompson, M. R. (2022). Duterte’s Violent Populism: Mass Murder, Political Legitimacy and the “Death of Development” in the Philippines. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 52(3), 403–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2021.1910859

Varma, R., & Varma, D. R. (2005). The Bhopal Disaster of 1984. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 25(1), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467604273822

Venugopal, R. (2022). Can the anti-politics machine be dismantled? New Political Economy, 27(6), 1002–1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2022.2045926

Whitty, B. S. (2019). Practising politics: Technical project templates and political practice in a DFID country office. Development Policy Review, 37(S2). https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12410

Wong, R., & Van Der Heijden, J. (2019). Avoidance of conflicts and trade‐offs: A challenge for the policy integration of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainable Development, 27(5), 838–845. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1944

Wurfel, D. (1977). Martial Law in the Philippines: The Methods of Regime Survival. Pacific Affairs, 50(1), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/2756116