Pub Date : 2025-01-01DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2024.100232
Jeffrey E. Blackwatters , Michele Betsill , Eugene Eperiam , Trina Leberer , Geraldine Rengiil , Elizabeth Terk , Rebecca L. Gruby
Many private philanthropic foundations are engaging intermediary organizations as a strategy to better integrate justice into their grantmaking. This study examines how intermediary organizations work in practice and how they can or cannot contribute to justice in conservation funding. We employed Q methodology and a knowledge co-production approach to examine grantees’ experiences of justice in their grantmaking relationship with a funding intermediary, the Micronesia Conservation Trust (MCT). Using a collaborative process of knowledge creation and interpretation, we identified three distinct perspectives: 1. Intermediaries bridge gaps in justice; 2. Intermediaries are helpful but constrained; and 3. Intermediaries cannot solve injustice in conservationfunding. Our findings indicate that while intermediaries can play a vital role in advancing justice in grant-making relationships, they are not a silver bullet for addressing injustices that are inherent to funding dynamics.
{"title":"Environmental justice in conservation philanthropy: Do intermediary organizations help?","authors":"Jeffrey E. Blackwatters , Michele Betsill , Eugene Eperiam , Trina Leberer , Geraldine Rengiil , Elizabeth Terk , Rebecca L. Gruby","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2024.100232","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2024.100232","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Many private philanthropic foundations are engaging intermediary organizations as a strategy to better integrate justice into their grantmaking. This study examines how intermediary organizations work in practice and how they can or cannot contribute to justice in conservation funding. We employed Q methodology and a knowledge co-production approach to examine grantees’ experiences of justice in their grantmaking relationship with a funding intermediary, the Micronesia Conservation Trust (MCT). Using a collaborative process of knowledge creation and interpretation, we identified three distinct perspectives: 1. <em>Intermediaries bridge gaps in justice</em>; 2. <em>Intermediaries are helpful but constrained</em>; and 3. <em>Intermediaries cannot solve injustice in conservation</em> <em>funding</em>. Our findings indicate that while intermediaries can play a vital role in advancing justice in grant-making relationships, they are not a silver bullet for addressing injustices that are inherent to funding dynamics.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"23 ","pages":"Article 100232"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143149472","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2024.100230
Korhonen-Kurki K., D'Amato D., Belinskij A., Lazarevic D., Leskinen P., Nylén E.-J., Pappila M., Penttilä O., Pitzén S., Pykäläinen N., Turunen T., Vikström S.
Transformative change is becoming a key concept in the scientific conceptualization of sustainability. We assess five environmental governance approaches: adaptive, earth system, evolutionary, transformative and transition governance. We ask 1) What characterizes the different governance approaches, and how do they understand the dynamics of change? 2) How is the role of law conceptualized in the context of these governance approaches? The five studied approaches present different and complementary ways of describing change and how it unfolds or can be steered. According to our literature review, collaboration, leadership, learning, plurality, empowering, innovation and vision are seen as key mechanisms for change, while law is often oversimplified in these governance approaches, either as an enabler of or as a barrier to change towards sustainability. Future avenues of research could include how disruptive elements could be introduced as a way of catalyzing change and how to strengthen legal analysis to transformative change.
{"title":"Transformative governance: Exploring theory of change and the role of the law","authors":"Korhonen-Kurki K., D'Amato D., Belinskij A., Lazarevic D., Leskinen P., Nylén E.-J., Pappila M., Penttilä O., Pitzén S., Pykäläinen N., Turunen T., Vikström S.","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2024.100230","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2024.100230","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Transformative change is becoming a key concept in the scientific conceptualization of sustainability. We assess five environmental governance approaches: adaptive, earth system, evolutionary, transformative and transition governance. We ask 1) What characterizes the different governance approaches, and how do they understand the dynamics of change? 2) How is the role of law conceptualized in the context of these governance approaches? The five studied approaches present different and complementary ways of describing change and how it unfolds or can be steered. According to our literature review, collaboration, leadership, learning, plurality, empowering, innovation and vision are seen as key mechanisms for change, while law is often oversimplified in these governance approaches, either as an enabler of or as a barrier to change towards sustainability. Future avenues of research could include how disruptive elements could be introduced as a way of catalyzing change and how to strengthen legal analysis to transformative change.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"23 ","pages":"Article 100230"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143149409","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2025.100237
Franziska Ehnert
In a context of complex and unprecedented challenges, innovations in governance are called for to embrace uncertainty and contingency. As a novel form of governance urban experimentation is intended to foster innovation and promote societal change. Building on the concepts of reconfiguration and multiplicity, scholars direct attention towards the multidimensional, hybrid and recursive nature of transformative change. The article provides an empirical exploration of local experimentation and contextual reconfiguration, illustrating how experimentation is mediated by and transforms local governance settings. It builds on “Dresden – City of the Future: Empowering Citizens, Transforming Cities!“, a transdisciplinary research project that aims to facilitate the co-creation of knowledge by researchers and practitioners, and advance the governance of local sustainability transitions. The exploratory study sheds light on processes of re-alignment between old and new forms of governance, illustrating the shift from hierarchy to co-creation, and from planning and accountability to experimentation and exploration.
{"title":"Sustainability transitions as contextual reconfiguration: Governance innovation through local experimentation","authors":"Franziska Ehnert","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100237","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100237","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In a context of complex and unprecedented challenges, innovations in governance are called for to embrace uncertainty and contingency. As a novel form of governance urban experimentation is intended to foster innovation and promote societal change. Building on the concepts of reconfiguration and multiplicity, scholars direct attention towards the multidimensional, hybrid and recursive nature of transformative change. The article provides an empirical exploration of local experimentation and contextual reconfiguration, illustrating how experimentation is mediated by and transforms local governance settings. It builds on “Dresden – City of the Future: Empowering Citizens, Transforming Cities!“, a transdisciplinary research project that aims to facilitate the co-creation of knowledge by researchers and practitioners, and advance the governance of local sustainability transitions. The exploratory study sheds light on processes of re-alignment between old and new forms of governance, illustrating the shift from hierarchy to co-creation, and from planning and accountability to experimentation and exploration.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"23 ","pages":"Article 100237"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143149410","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2024.100229
Daniel Black , Geoff Bates , Andy Gibson , Kathy Pain , Ges Rosenberg , Jo White
Involvement of non-academic stakeholders in research is essential when seeking to address global challenges, yet there is considerable uncertainty on how to do this well given the complexity. This paper aims to define more clearly what ‘good’ co-production looks like in the context of urban-planetary health research and how to operationalise it in research design, drawing on existing literature alongside case study experience from operationalising a major research programme. The first sections of the paper set out the rationale, and analyses key issues identified relating to co-production. The case study analysis is based on six headline themes: clarity of mission, language, societal impact, complexity, new approaches and limitations. Eight principles are presented alongside associated questions for research teams. Logic model development and co-production activities are plotted along the ten-year research trajectory, which reveals five key decision points and potential opportunities for optimising mission-oriented co-production in research design.
{"title":"What is “good” co-production in the context of planetary health research, and how is it enabled?","authors":"Daniel Black , Geoff Bates , Andy Gibson , Kathy Pain , Ges Rosenberg , Jo White","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2024.100229","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2024.100229","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Involvement of non-academic stakeholders in research is essential when seeking to address global challenges, yet there is considerable uncertainty on how to do this well given the complexity. This paper aims to define more clearly what ‘good’ co-production looks like in the context of urban-planetary health research and how to operationalise it in research design, drawing on existing literature alongside case study experience from operationalising a major research programme. The first sections of the paper set out the rationale, and analyses key issues identified relating to co-production. The case study analysis is based on six headline themes: clarity of mission, language, societal impact, complexity, new approaches and limitations. Eight principles are presented alongside associated questions for research teams. Logic model development and co-production activities are plotted along the ten-year research trajectory, which reveals five key decision points and potential opportunities for optimising mission-oriented co-production in research design.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"23 ","pages":"Article 100229"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143149471","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2025.100239
Anne van Veen, Ingrid Visseren-Hamakers
There is increasing agreement among scientists and policy makers that we need transformative change, change at the deepest levels of society, to become sustainable. There is also increasing attention for politics, power relations and justice in studying and governing sustainability transitions. This attention has however largely been limited to human politics, power relations and justice, even though other animals are also stakeholders in these transitions. This article focuses on the inclusion of nonhuman animals in the food system transition in the Netherlands. Through an embodied critical discourse analysis of academic papers and policy texts we show that there is a lack of inclusion of other animals as stakeholders, and how anthropocentric ontological and epistemological assumptions lead to reproducing power inequalities and the perpetuation of practices of nonhuman animal exclusion and oppression. In addition, our analysis demonstrates how terms such as ‘intrinsic value’ serve human rather than nonhuman interests because they are interpreted in such a way that they simultaneously assuage guilt and legitimize continued owning and killing of other animals by humans. We also contribute methodologically by adding the practice of re-embodiment of texts to the close reading method generally used in Critical Discourse Analysis, thereby making this method less anthropocentric. Finally, we propose steps towards the emancipatory inclusion of nonhuman animals in environmental governance.
{"title":"The emancipatory inclusion of nonhuman animals in the Dutch sustainable food system transition: An embodied critical discourse analysis","authors":"Anne van Veen, Ingrid Visseren-Hamakers","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100239","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100239","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>There is increasing agreement among scientists and policy makers that we need transformative change, change at the deepest levels of society, to become sustainable. There is also increasing attention for politics, power relations and justice in studying and governing sustainability transitions. This attention has however largely been limited to <em>human</em> politics, power relations and justice, even though other animals are also stakeholders in these transitions. This article focuses on the inclusion of nonhuman animals in the food system transition in the Netherlands. Through an embodied critical discourse analysis of academic papers and policy texts we show that there is a lack of inclusion of other animals as stakeholders, and how anthropocentric ontological and epistemological assumptions lead to reproducing power inequalities and the perpetuation of practices of nonhuman animal exclusion and oppression. In addition, our analysis demonstrates how terms such as ‘intrinsic value’ serve human rather than nonhuman interests because they are interpreted in such a way that they simultaneously assuage guilt and legitimize continued owning and killing of other animals by humans. We also contribute methodologically by adding the practice of re-embodiment of texts to the close reading method generally used in Critical Discourse Analysis, thereby making this method less anthropocentric. Finally, we propose steps towards the emancipatory inclusion of nonhuman animals in environmental governance.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"23 ","pages":"Article 100239"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143149475","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2024.100231
Varun Mohan
This article aims to fill a critical gap in literature by examining the evolving perspectives of Global South countries (often framed as a monolithic entity), within the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) debates on climate security from 2007 to 2023. Using discourse analysis, the study traces how internal divergences and convergences among these countries shape their positions on two key questions: the acknowledgment of climate change as a security issue and the endorsement of the UNSC’s role in addressing it. A key finding of this analysis is that while there is a growing consensus within the Global South that climate change poses significant security risks, there remains substantial resistance to UNSC involvement in addressing these risks. The article concludes that the Global South, as a category, may have limited utility in understanding the role of the UNSC in climate security. Instead, smaller, more focused coalitions like Small Island Developing States (SIDS) offer a more coherent and meaningful framework for understanding how states approach climate security.
{"title":"In search of consensus: Examining Global South perspectives on climate security in UNSC debates","authors":"Varun Mohan","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2024.100231","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2024.100231","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This article aims to fill a critical gap in literature by examining the evolving perspectives of Global South countries (often framed as a monolithic entity), within the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) debates on climate security from 2007 to 2023. Using discourse analysis, the study traces how internal divergences and convergences among these countries shape their positions on two key questions: the acknowledgment of climate change as a security issue and the endorsement of the UNSC’s role in addressing it. A key finding of this analysis is that while there is a growing consensus within the Global South that climate change poses significant security risks, there remains substantial resistance to UNSC involvement in addressing these risks. The article concludes that the Global South, as a category, may have limited utility in understanding the role of the UNSC in climate security. Instead, smaller, more focused coalitions like Small Island Developing States (SIDS) offer a more coherent and meaningful framework for understanding how states approach climate security.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"23 ","pages":"Article 100231"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143149474","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2025.100235
Craig A. Johnson , Susan Park , Teresa Kramarz
The electrification of renewable energy systems is fostering a global surge in demand for the “critical” metals that are used in the production of lithium-ion batteries, raising concerns that the latest round of “renewable extractivism” is degrading some of the world's most fragile ecosystems and communities. In the absence of credible and legitimate forms of state regulation, transnational corporations in the mining, battery and auto sectors have used a range of procedures to monitor, report, and verify their performance on environmental, social, and governance indicators. This article examines how transnational governance initiatives seek to regulate the extraction of lithium for lithium-ion batteries and electric vehicles. It starts from the premise that their monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) procedures are “rituals of legitimation” or technical routines that frame and define what constitutes responsible mining practice while not mitigating harm. We analyze an original database of 18 public, private, and hybrid governance initiatives to investigate the types of rituals used. In theory, using third-party audits to monitor, report, and verify mining standards and regulations provides an important means of holding powerful mining companies accountable for the social and ecological harms of resource extraction. However, maintaining the autonomy of third-party auditors entails reducing or eliminating the role of mining interests in transnational governance practices. We find that the strongest and most independent forms of governance are ones that are rooted in public institutions with legal mechanisms for enforcing corporate compliance. By contrast, private initiatives place significant responsibility in the hands of subcontractors, offering limited opportunities for including or offering affected communities a means of redress. Finally, hybrid initiatives establish more comprehensive MRV practices, but these too adopt procedures that limit the conditions under which affected communities may question, negotiate, or – indeed – say no to mining. The findings highlight the importance of establishing governance procedures that maintain the autonomy of third parties by institutionalizing and enforcing independent site visits, local participation, grievance mechanisms, and meaningful consequences for non-compliance.
{"title":"The unbearable lightness of lithium governance: Legitimizing extraction for a just and sustainable energy transition","authors":"Craig A. Johnson , Susan Park , Teresa Kramarz","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100235","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100235","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The electrification of renewable energy systems is fostering a global surge in demand for the “critical” metals that are used in the production of lithium-ion batteries, raising concerns that the latest round of “renewable extractivism” is degrading some of the world's most fragile ecosystems and communities. In the absence of credible and legitimate forms of state regulation, transnational corporations in the mining, battery and auto sectors have used a range of procedures to monitor, report, and verify their performance on environmental, social, and governance indicators. This article examines how transnational governance initiatives seek to regulate the extraction of lithium for lithium-ion batteries and electric vehicles. It starts from the premise that their monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) procedures are “rituals of legitimation” or technical routines that frame and define what constitutes responsible mining practice while not mitigating harm. We analyze an original database of 18 public, private, and hybrid governance initiatives to investigate the types of rituals used. In theory, using third-party audits to monitor, report, and verify mining standards and regulations provides an important means of holding powerful mining companies accountable for the social and ecological harms of resource extraction. However, maintaining the autonomy of third-party auditors entails reducing or eliminating the role of mining interests in transnational governance practices. We find that the strongest and most independent forms of governance are ones that are rooted in public institutions with legal mechanisms for enforcing corporate compliance. By contrast, private initiatives place significant responsibility in the hands of subcontractors, offering limited opportunities for including or offering affected communities a means of redress. Finally, hybrid initiatives establish more comprehensive MRV practices, but these too adopt procedures that limit the conditions under which affected communities may question, negotiate, or – indeed – say no to mining. The findings highlight the importance of establishing governance procedures that maintain the autonomy of third parties by institutionalizing and enforcing independent site visits, local participation, grievance mechanisms, and meaningful consequences for non-compliance.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"23 ","pages":"Article 100235"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143149476","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2025.100242
Kevin Surprise , Duncan McLaren , Ina Möller , J.P. Sapinski , Doreen Stabinsky , Jennie C. Stephens
Despite uncertainties about its feasibility and desirability, start-up companies seeking to profit from solar geoengineering have begun to emerge. One company is releasing balloons filled with sulfur dioxide to sell “cooling credits”, claiming that the cooling achieved when 1 g of SO2 is released is equivalent to offsetting one ton of carbon dioxide for one year. Another aspires to deliver returns to investors from the development of a proprietary aerosol for dispersal in the stratosphere. Such for-profit solar geoengineering enterprises should not be understood merely as rogue opportunists. These proposals are not only scientifically questionable, and premature in the absence of effective governance, but they are a predictable consequence of neoliberal, market-driven climate governance. The structures and incentives of market-based climate policy - circumscribed by neoliberalism's emphasis on technological innovation, venture capital, and the marketization of environmental goods - have generated repeated efforts to profit from various forms of geoengineering. With a climate governance regime wherein private, for-profit actors significantly influence and weaken climate policy, de facto governance of solar geoengineering has emerged, dominated by actors linked to Silicon Valley funders and ideologies. Without more explicit efforts to curb the power of private sector actors, including commercial geoengineering bans and non-use provisions, pursuit of techno-market “solutions” could lead to both inadequate mitigation and increasingly risky reliance on geoengineering.
{"title":"Profit-seeking solar geoengineering exemplifies broader risks of market-based climate governance","authors":"Kevin Surprise , Duncan McLaren , Ina Möller , J.P. Sapinski , Doreen Stabinsky , Jennie C. Stephens","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100242","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100242","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Despite uncertainties about its feasibility and desirability, start-up companies seeking to profit from solar geoengineering have begun to emerge. One company is releasing balloons filled with sulfur dioxide to sell “cooling credits”, claiming that the cooling achieved when 1 g of SO<sub>2</sub> is released is equivalent to offsetting one ton of carbon dioxide for one year. Another aspires to deliver returns to investors from the development of a proprietary aerosol for dispersal in the stratosphere. Such for-profit solar geoengineering enterprises should not be understood merely as rogue opportunists. These proposals are not only scientifically questionable, and premature in the absence of effective governance, but they are a predictable consequence of neoliberal, market-driven climate governance. The structures and incentives of market-based climate policy - circumscribed by neoliberalism's emphasis on technological innovation, venture capital, and the marketization of environmental goods - have generated repeated efforts to profit from various forms of geoengineering. With a climate governance regime wherein private, for-profit actors significantly influence and weaken climate policy, <em>de facto</em> governance of solar geoengineering has emerged, dominated by actors linked to Silicon Valley funders and ideologies. Without more explicit efforts to curb the power of private sector actors, including commercial geoengineering bans and non-use provisions, pursuit of techno-market “solutions” could lead to both inadequate mitigation <em>and</em> increasingly risky reliance on geoengineering.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"23 ","pages":"Article 100242"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143395143","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-01DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2025.100241
Naghmeh Nasiritousi , Alexandra Buylova , Björn-Ola Linnér
Institutional reforms are crucial to meeting growing transboundary challenges. However, the scholarship recognizes that institutions are often sticky due to path dependencies. This paper aims to contribute to the literature on institutional reform by highlighting the web of processes interacting to enable or prevent change from happening. The paper argues that a framework for understanding prospects for reform must combine perspectives about agency and architecture in order to gain insights into the coming together of the supply and demand of reform proposals. An international institution that faces growing calls for reform is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This paper examines UNFCCC reform options through an interview study with a range of stakeholders. The interviews reveal factors that can advance or block reform. The paper concludes by discussing its findings and implications for understanding the politics of institutional reform.
{"title":"Matching supply and demand? Exploring UNFCCC reform options","authors":"Naghmeh Nasiritousi , Alexandra Buylova , Björn-Ola Linnér","doi":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100241","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.esg.2025.100241","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Institutional reforms are crucial to meeting growing transboundary challenges. However, the scholarship recognizes that institutions are often sticky due to path dependencies. This paper aims to contribute to the literature on institutional reform by highlighting the web of processes interacting to enable or prevent change from happening. The paper argues that a framework for understanding prospects for reform must combine perspectives about agency and architecture in order to gain insights into the coming together of the supply and demand of reform proposals. An international institution that faces growing calls for reform is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This paper examines UNFCCC reform options through an interview study with a range of stakeholders. The interviews reveal factors that can advance or block reform. The paper concludes by discussing its findings and implications for understanding the politics of institutional reform.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":33685,"journal":{"name":"Earth System Governance","volume":"23 ","pages":"Article 100241"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143149405","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号