Engaging the Public and the Private in Global Sustainability Governance

Journal Article Engaging the public and the private in global sustainability governance Get access KENNETH W. ABBOTT KENNETH W. ABBOTT 1Professor of Law and Professor of Global Studies, Willard H. Pedrick Distinguished Research Scholar, and Senior Sustainability Scholar at Arizona State University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Affairs, Volume 88, Issue 3, May 2012, Pages 543–564, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2012.01088.x Published: 23 March 2012

A revised version of this working paper has been published as: Biermann, Frank. 2012. Greening the United Nations Charter: World Politics in the Anthropocene. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development. May / June 2012. A constitutional turn is needed to bring the UN system in line with the urgent needs of planetary stewardship and earth system governance in the 21st century. Yet how this could be organized in practice remains a challenge and subject to political and scholarly debate. This paper contributes to this debate by outlining four reforms of the UN system that would advance global decision-making by addressing major shortcomings in the current system: Lack of integration of economic and environmental policies in the UN system; institutional fragmentation and weakness of the environmental pillar of sustainable development; lack of high-level regulatory competence and oversight regarding areas beyond national jurisdiction; and insufficient integration of scientific insights into political decision-making. The reforms proposed would together create an Earth Alliance in the UN system, consisting of a high-level UN Sustainable Development Council, a World Environment Organization, a UN Trusteeship Council for Areas beyond National Jurisdiction, and an UN Global Environmental Assessment Commission.

Scrutinizing environmental governance in a digital age: New ways of seeing, participating, and intervening

It is widely assumed that the fragmentation of global governance can affect coordination efforts among international institutions and organisations. Yet, the precise relationship between the fragmentation of global governance and the extent to which international organisations coordinate their activities remains underexplored. In this article, we offer new empirical evidence derived from the so‐called custodianship arrangements in which numerous international organisations have been mandated to coordinate data collection and reporting for 231 indicators of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These complex custodianship arrangements provide a fertile testing ground for theories on the relationship between fragmentation and coordination because the institutional arrangements for each of the 17 SDGs have emerged bottom–up with varying degrees of fragmentation. Through a comparative approach covering 44 custodian agencies and focusing on the most and least fragmented custodianship arrangements, we make three key contributions. First, we offer a novel operationalisation of institutional fragmentation and coordination. Second, we present empirical evidence in support of the claim that fragmentation negatively affects coordination. Third, we provide nuances to this claim by identifying factors that affect the strength of this relationship. Based on our analysis, we suggest further steps that might facilitate coordination in global sustainability governance.

This study investigates the structuring of private sustainability governance as a critical mechanism for facilitating sustainability transitions. Drawing on 33 semi-structured interviews with manufacturing firms, regulatory bodies, policy associations, auditing firms, and management consultancies, the study examines how firms navigate increasing external governance pressures, including regulatory ambiguity, compliance demands, market expectations, and stakeholder accountability, while simultaneously managing internal governance through organizational restructuring, sustainable performance measurement, data management, human resources, and incentive structures. The findings highlight the importance of integrating rule-based and goal-based private sustainability governance through two key mechanisms: shaping external governance by aligning with and influencing regulatory standards, and adapting internal governance to embed sustainability into core business operations. This study develops a hybrid governance framework that demonstrates how firms leverage both mechanisms in parallel, revealing the tensions inherent in balancing regulatory compliance with strategic sustainability ambitions. We make a further contribution by underscoring the role of ethical change management in fostering transparency, accountability, and proactive sustainability commitments. By examining governance structures in combination with ethical considerations, the study advances the discourse on private sustainability governance, offering both theoretical insights and practical implications for firms navigating the transition toward sustainable systems.

The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, held in June 2012 in Rio de Janeiro, was probably the largest event in a long series of megasummits on environmental protection and sustainable development. Roughly 44 000 participants descended on Rio de Janeiro to take part in ten days of preparatory committee meetings, informal consultations, side events, and the actual conference. Yet despite this unprecedented high attendance by participants from governments and civil society, the outcome of the conference is less than many had hoped for. In this paper I review the outcomes of the 2012 Rio conference in detail, with a special focus on its contributions towards the reform of the institutional framework for sustainable development. Following this review, I discuss the way ahead and options for structural reform to restrengthen earth system governance.

Private philanthropic foundations—nongovernmental, nonprofit organizations with assets provided by donors for socially useful purposes—have become key political actors in global sustainability governance. Their collective efforts amount to over USD 112 billion for the implementation of the United Nations (UNs)’s ambitious plan to deliver on seventeen interconnected Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This corresponds to about a quarter of governmental contribution through official development assistance for the same purposes. Many of these foundations implicitly or explicitly aim to foster global justice, through, for example, empowering women, reducing inequalities, and promoting democracy. They thus act as justice agents shaping the substance and practice of justice in global sustainability governance. But what does this direction of private money into supporting global justice norms really mean? This question deserves scrutiny, especially against a context of diverse and contested meanings of justice and because philanthropy—beyond an act of giving—is often an exercise of power. Using critical discourse analysis of texts produced by selected foundations that are key funders of the UN Sustainable Development Agenda, this paper examines how private foundations frame global justice and with what implications for sustainability governance.

Private sustainability governance in the making – A case study analysis of the fragmentation of sustainability governance for the gold sector

Theories of global governance blossomed in the 1990's when multilateralism appeared to empirically back idealist and constructivist perspectives on global policy and international organization. A plethora of global policy frameworks, intergovernmental treaties and institutions influenced by global governance thinking came into existence until the political fallout from 9/11 marked an abrupt end of that phase and neorealism and neomercantilism resurged in global affairs. Today, global policy is challenged by unprecedented disorder, uncertainty, and complexity. Phenomena like climate change, pandemics, failing states, the creeping collapse of democratic governance and the rule of law, or forced migration, cannot be resolved by nation-state centric politics, defying multilateralism, or conventional policy design. This chapter explores the utility of learning from the evolution of global sustainability governance (GSG), which is characterized by resilience, flexibility, and adaptability, resulting in the largest regime complex in global policy, whose flagship are the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and apply those lessons to inform future policy research.

The current institutional framework for sustainable development is by far not strong enough to bring about the swift transformative progress that is needed. This article contends that incrementalism-the main approach since the 1972 Stockholm Conference-will not suffice to bring about societal change at the level and speed needed to mitigate and adapt to earth system transformation. Instead, the article argues that transformative structural change in global governance is needed, and that the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro must turn into a major stepping stone for a much stronger institutional framework for sustainable development. The article details core areas where urgent action is required. The article is based on an extensive social science assessment conducted by 32 members of the lead faculty, scientific steering committee, and other affiliates of the Earth System Governance Project. This Project is a ten-year research initiative under the auspices of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP), which is sponsored by the International Council for Science (ICSU), the International Social Science Council (ISSC), and the United Nations University (UNU). © 2012.

Global sustainability governance is marked by a highly fragmented system of distinct clusters of international organizations, along with states and other actors. Enhancing inter-organizational coordination and cooperation is thus often recognized as an important reform challenge in global sustainability governance. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals, agreed by the United Nations in 2015, thus explicitly aim at advancing policy coherence and institutional integration among the myriad international institutions. Yet, have these goals been effective in this regard? We assess here the impact of the Sustainable Development Goals on the network structure of 276 international organizations in the period 2012–2019, that is, four years before and four years after the launch of the Sustainable Development Goals. The network structure was approximated by analyzing data from the websites of these 276 international organizations that were joined by more than 1.5 million hyperlinks, which we collected using a custom-made web crawler. Our findings are contrary to what is widely expected from the Sustainable Development Goals: we find that fragmentation has in fact increased after the Sustainable Development Goals came into effect. In addition, silos are increasing around the 17 SDGs as well as around the social, economic, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.

An examination of three major trends in global governance, exemplified by developments in transnational environmental rule-setting. The notion of global governance is widely studied in academia and increasingly relevant to politics and policy making. Yet many of its fundamental elements remain unclear in both theory and practice. This book offers a fresh perspective by analyzing global governance in terms of three major trends, as exemplified by developments in global sustainability governance: the emergence of nonstate actors; new mechanisms of transnational cooperation; and increasingly segmented and overlapping layers of authority. The book, which is the synthesis of a ten-year “Global Governance Project” carried out by thirteen leading European research institutions, first examines new nonstate actors, focusing on international bureaucracies, global corporations, and transnational networks of scientists; then investigates novel mechanisms of global governance, particularly transnational environmental regimes, public-private partnerships, and market-based arrangements; and, finally, looks at fragmentation of authority, both vertically among supranational, international, national, and subnational layers, and horizontally among different parallel rule-making systems. The implications, potential, and realities of global environmental governance are defining questions for our generation. This book distills key insights from the past and outlines the most important research challenges for the future.

Transnational public–private governance initiatives (TGIs) have become key elements in global governance, especially in the governance of sustainability. Pertinent research has concentrated on why TGIs have emerged as well as on their impacts on political outcomes and questions related to their legitimacy. This instructive literature has predominantly focused on TGIs as entities in their own right. This explorative study contributes to the literature by advocating a complementary analytical perspective that pays attention to domestic‐level patterns of participation in TGIs and national factors that determine which types of organizations (public, business, or civil society) participate in TGIs. It is shown for six Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru) that there exists cross‐country variation in the composition patterns in 29 TGIs on sustainability, suggesting that national conditions matter for how organizations participate in them. By improving the knowledge of the national conditions, a more complete analysis of participation and the effectiveness of TGIs can be provided in global sustainability governance. In this spirit, in a last step, an agenda is developed for guiding future research on this topic.

Abstract: There exists a knowledge gap in the literature on how international actors address artificial intelligence (AI) in international sustainability governance. By addressing this gap and bringing a critical perspective, this paper aims to enrich discussions on AI within international relations. First, this paper shows that the development and deployment of AI-based technologies are mainly seen as an opportunity to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in international politics, while their drawbacks are only considered to a limited extent. Second, this paper refers to the tendency to rely on AI to address societal challenges that are considered too complex for humans to comprehend as potential "AI solutionism." It defines this approach as being based on an insufficient understanding of the operation and socio-environmental impacts of AI, arguing that these two aspects should be thoroughly analyzed by actors in global sustainability governance.

International organizations frequently lack accountability to both states and civil society groups. States often face difficulties monitoring the actions of international organizations. Civil society groups do not often enjoy direct influence over decision-making within international organizations. To address these challenges, states have created accountability mechanisms for international organizations. Accountability mechanisms allow civil society groups to submit complaints about the performance of international organizations. They take the form of ombudsmen offices, accountability panels, and complaint procedures. Little is known about when and why these mechanisms constrain behavior by international organizations that runs counter to the mutual interests of states and civil society groups. Using the World Bank Inspection Panel as a test case, I show that monitoring by civil society groups alters lending at the World Bank when it enhances oversight by powerful states. By combining their abilities in sanctioning and monitoring, states and civil society groups can promote accountability at international organizations.