Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:50:00.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Governance through Global Goals

from Part III - Policy Responses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2020

By
Marjanneke J. Vijge ,
Frank Biermann ,
Rakhyun E. Kim ,
Maya Bogers ,
Melanie Van Driel ,
Francesco S. Montesano ,
Abbie Yunita  and
Norichika Kanie
Edited by
Frank Biermann  and
Rakhyun E. Kim
Frank Biermann
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Rakhyun E. Kim
Affiliation:
Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands
Get access

Summary

Governance through goals, a relatively new global governance mechanism, has recently gained prominence, particularly since the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals. Through this mechanism, internationally agreed policy goals orchestrate the activities of governmental and non-governmental actors. This chapter argues that governance through goals has important effects on governance architectures and their degree and type of fragmentation. To analyze these effects, we review literature around four characteristics of governance through goals: their non-legally binding nature, weak global institutional arrangements, inclusive goal-setting processes and national leeway. We argue that alternative forms of bindingness, such as reporting and accountability mechanisms, can steer actors toward a shared vision. This may result in synergistic fragmentation if broad support is obtained through inclusive processes. However, tensions and cherry-picking may arise when goals are prioritized and implemented. Further research on the effects of governance through goals is crucial given that it is likely to maintain – and gain – importance in earth system governance.

Keywords

Sustainable Development Goalsgovernance through goalsgovernance fragmentationinclusivenessnon-legally binding
Type
Chapter
Information
Architectures of Earth System Governance
Institutional Complexity and Structural Transformation
 , pp. 254 - 274
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, K. W., Genschel, P., Snidal, D., & Zangl, B. (eds.) (2015). International organizations as orchestrators. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Abbott, K. W., & Bernstein, S. (2015). The High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development: Orchestration by default and design. Global Policy, 6, 222–33.Google Scholar
Abshagen, M. L., Cavazzini, A., Graen, L., & Obenland, W. (2018). Hijacking the SDGs? The private sector and the Sustainable Development Goals. Berlin: Brot für die Welt.Google Scholar
Allen, C., Metternicht, G., & Wiedmann, T. (2018). Initial progress in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A review of evidence from countries. Sustainability Science, 13 (5), 1453–67.Google Scholar
Bäckstrand, K. (2006a). Multi‐stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. European Environment, 16 (5), 290–306.Google Scholar
Bäckstrand, K. (2006b). Democratizing global environmental governance? Stakeholder democracy after the World Summit on Sustainable Development. European Journal of International Relations, 12 (4), 467–98.Google Scholar
Bäckstrand, K., Campe, S., Chan, S., Mert, A., & Schäferhoff, M. (2012). Transnational public–private partnerships. In Biermann, F, & Pattberg, P (eds.), Global environmental governance reconsidered (pp. 123–47). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bäckstrand, K., & Kylsäter, M. (2014). Old wine in new bottles? The legitimation and delegitimation of UN public–private partnerships for sustainable development from the Johannesburg Summit to the Rio+20 Summit. Globalizations, 11 (3), 331–47.Google Scholar
Bernstein, S. (2017). The United Nations and the governance of Sustainable Development Goals. In Kanie, N, & Biermann, F (eds.), Governing through goals: Sustainable Development Goals as governance innovation (pp. 213–40). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Biermann, F. (2014). Earth system governance: World politics in the Anthropocene. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., van Asselt, H., & Zelli, F. (2009). The fragmentation of global governance architectures: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 9 (4), 14–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biermann, F., & Gupta, A. (2011). Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: A research framework. Ecological Economics, 70, 1856–64.Google Scholar
Biermann, F., Chan, S., Pattberg, P., & Mert, A. (eds.) (2012). Multistakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Emergence, influence and legitimacy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Biermann, F., Kanie, N., & Kim, R. E. (2017). Global governance by goal-setting: The novel approach of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 26–31.Google Scholar
Bitzer, V., Francken, M., & Glasbergen, P. (2008). Intersectoral partnerships for a sustainable coffee chain: Really addressing sustainability or just picking (coffee) cherries? Global Environmental Change, 18 (2), 271–84.Google Scholar
Bodansky, D. (2010). The Copenhagen conference: A post-mortem. American Journal of International Law, 104 (2), 232–3.Google Scholar
Bodansky, D. (2016). The legal character of the Paris Agreement. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 25 (2), 142–50.Google Scholar
Briant Carant, J. (2017). Unheard voices: A critical discourse analysis of the Millennium Development Goals’ evolution into the Sustainable Development Goals. Third World Quarterly, 38 (1), 16–41.Google Scholar
Bridgewater, P., Kim, R. E., & Bosselmann, K. (2014). Ecological integrity: A relevant concept for international environmental law in the Anthropocene? Yearbook of International Environmental Law, 25, 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chasek, P. S., Wagner, L. M, Leone, F., Lebada, A. M., & Risse., N. (2016). Getting to 2030: Negotiating the post-2015 sustainable development agenda. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 25, 5–14.Google Scholar
Chasek, P. S., & Wagner, L. M. (2016). Breaking the mold: A new type of multilateral sustainable development negotiation. International Environmental Agreements, 16, 397–413.Google Scholar
Deacon, B. (2016). Assessing the SDGs from the point of view of global social governance. Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, 32 (2), 116–30.Google Scholar
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302, 1907–12.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. S., & Pickering, J. (2017). Deliberation as a catalyst for reflexive environmental governance. Ecological Economics, 131, 353–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, J. S. (2014). Institutions for the Anthropocene: Governance in a changing earth system. British Journal of Political Science, 46 (4), 937–56.Google Scholar
Easterly, W. (2009). How the Millennium Development Goals are unfair to Africa. World Development, 37 (1), 26–35.Google Scholar
Eckersley, R. (2004). Green state: Rethinking democracy and sovereignty. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Elder, M., & Olsen, S. H. (2019). The design of environmental priorities in the SDGs. Global Policy, 10 (S1), 70–82.Google Scholar
Elliott, L. (2005). The United Nations’ record on environmental governance: An assessment. In Biermann, F, & Bauer, S (eds.), A world environment organization: Solution or threat for effective international environmental governance? (pp. 27–56). Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Elliott, L. (2017). Cooperation on transnational environmental crime: Institutional complexity matters. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 26, 107–17.Google Scholar
Falk, R. A. (1966). On the quasi-legislative competence of the General Assembly. American Journal of International Law, 60 (4), 782–91.Google Scholar
Feindt, P. H., & Weiland, S. (2018). Reflexive governance: Exploring the concept and assessing its critical potential for sustainable development. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 20 (6), 661–74.Google Scholar
Fernández-Blanco, C. R., Burns, S. L., & Giessen, L. (2019). Mapping the fragmentation of the international forest regime complex: Institutional elements, conflicts and synergies. International Environmental Agreements, 19 (2), 187–205.Google Scholar
Franck, T. M. (1990). The power of legitimacy among nations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukuda-Parr, S. (2010). Reducing inequality – The missing MDG: A content review of PRSPs and bilateral donor policy statements. IDS Bulletin, 41 (1), 26–35.Google Scholar
Fukuda-Parr, S. (2014). Global goals as a policy tool: Intended and unintended consequences. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 15 (2–3), 118–31.Google Scholar
Fukuda-Parr, S. (2016). From the Millennium Development Goals to the Sustainable Development Goals: Shifts in purpose, concept and politics of global goal setting for development. Gender and Development, 24 (1), 43–52.Google Scholar
Fukuda‐Parr, S., & McNeill, D. (2019). Knowledge and politics in setting and measuring the SDGs. Global Policy, 10 (S1), 5–15.Google Scholar
Fukuda-Parr, S., Yamin, A. E., & Greenstein, J. (2014). The power of numbers: A critical review of Millennium Development Goal targets for human development and human rights. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 15 (2–3), 105–17.Google Scholar
Galli, A., Durović, G., Hanscom, L., & Knežević, J. (2018). Think globally, act locally: Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals in Montenegro. Environmental Science and Policy, 84, 159–69.Google Scholar
Gasper, D., Shah, A., & Tankha, S. (2019). The framing of sustainable consumption and production in SDG 12. Global Policy, 10 (S1), 83–95.Google Scholar
Gellers, J. C. (2016). Crowdsourcing global governance: Sustainable Development Goals, civil society and the pursuit of democratic legitimacy. International Environmental Agreements, 16, 415–32.Google Scholar
Glasbergen, P., Biermann, F., & Mol, A. P. J. (eds.) (2007). Partnerships, governance and sustainable development: Reflections on theory and practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, J. L., & Posner, E. A. (2005). The limits of international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Griggs, D. J., Nilsson, M., Stevance, A., & McCollum, D. (2017). A guide to SDG interactions: From science to implementation. Paris: International Council for Science.Google Scholar
Gupta, J., & Vegelin, C. (2016). Sustainable Development Goals and inclusive development. International Environmental Agreements, 16, 433–48.Google Scholar
Hailu, D., & Tsukada, R. (2011). Achieving the Millennium Development Goals: A measure of progress. Brasilia: International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth.Google Scholar
Hajer, M., Nilsson, M., Raworth, K. et al. (2015). Beyond cockpit-ism: Four insights to enhance the transformative potential of the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability, 7, 1651–60.Google Scholar
Hill, P. S., Ghulam, F. M., & Claudio, F. (2010). Conflict in least-developed countries: Challenging the Millennium Development Goals. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 88 (8), 562.Google Scholar
Honniball, A., & Spijkers, O. (2014). MDGs and SDGs – Lessons learnt from global public participation in the drafting of the UN Development Goals. Vereinte Nationen: German Review of the United Nations, 62 (6), 251–6.Google Scholar
Huck, W., & Kurkin, C. (2018). The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the transnational multilevel system. Heidelberg Journal of International Law, 2, 375.Google Scholar
Hulme, D. (2010). Lessons from the making of the MDGs: Human development meets results-based management in an unfair world. IDS Bulletin, 41 (1), 15–25.Google Scholar
Ivanova, M. H. (2013). Reforming the institutional framework for environment and sustainable development: Rio+20’s subtle but significant impact. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 12 (3), 211–31.Google Scholar
Jordan, A., Huitema, D., van Asselt, H., & Forster, J. (eds.) (2018). Governing climate change: Polycentricity in action? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kabeer, N. (2010). Can the MDGs provide a pathway to social justice? The challenge of intersecting inequalities. New York: Institute of Development Studies and MDG Achievement Fund.Google Scholar
Kamau, M., Chasek, P., & O’Connor, D. (2018). Transforming multilateral diplomacy: The inside story of the sustainable development goals. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kanie, N., & Biermann, F. (eds.) (2017). Governing through goals: Sustainable Development Goals as governance innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kanie, N., Bernstein, S., Biermann, F., & Haas, P. M. (2017). Introduction: Global governance through goal setting. In Kanie, N, & Biermann, F (eds.), Governance through goals: Sustainable Development Goals as governance innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, R. O. (2011). Global governance and legitimacy. Review of International Political Economy, 18 (1), 99–109.Google Scholar
Kim, R. E., & Bosselmann, K. (2015). Operationalizing sustainable development: Ecological integrity as a Grundnorm of international law. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 24, 194–208.Google Scholar
Kim, R. E., & Bosselmann, K. (2013). International environmental law in the Anthropocene: Towards a purposive system of multilateral environmental agreements. Transnational Environmental Law, 2, 285–309.Google Scholar
Kim, R. E. (2016). The nexus between international law and the Sustainable Development Goals. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 25 (1), 15–26.Google Scholar
Koehler, G. (2015). Seven decades of ‘development’, and now what? Journal of International Development, 27 (6), 733–51.Google Scholar
Langford, M., & Winkler, I. (2014). Muddying the water? Assessing target-based approaches in development cooperation for water and sanitation. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 15 (2–3), 247–60.Google Scholar
Langford, M. (2010). A poverty of rights: Six ways to fix the MDGs. IDS Bulletin, 41 (1), 83–91.Google Scholar
Le Blanc, D. (2015). Towards integration at last? The Sustainable Development Goals as a network of targets. Sustainable Development, 23, 176–87.Google Scholar
Lodefalk, M., & Whalley, J. (2002). Reviewing proposals for a world environmental organisation. The World Economy, 25, 601–17.Google Scholar
MacFeely, S. (2019). The big (data) bang: Opportunities and challenges for compiling SDG indicators. Global Policy, 10 (S1), 121–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merry, S. E. (2019). The Sustainable Development Goals confront the infrastructure of measurement. Global Policy, 10 (S1), 146–8.Google Scholar
Meuleman, L., & Niestroy, I. (2015). Common but differentiated governance: A metagovernance approach to make the SDGs work. Sustainability, 7, 12295–321.Google Scholar
Patel, Z., Greyling, S., Simon, D., Arfvidsson, H., Moodley, N., Primo, N., & Wright, C. (2017). Local responses to global sustainability agendas: Learning from experimenting with the urban Sustainable Development Goal in Cape Town. Sustainability Science, 12 (5), 785–97.Google Scholar
Pattberg, P., & Widerberg, O. (2016). Transnational multistakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Conditions for success. AMBIO, 45 (1), 42–51.Google Scholar
Pedersen, C. S. (2018). The UN sustainable development goals (SDGs) are a great gift to business! Procedia CIRP, 69, 21–4.Google Scholar
Persson, Å., Weitz, N., Nilsson, M. (2016). Follow-up and review of the Sustainable Development Goals: Alignment vs. internalization. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 25, 59–68.Google Scholar
Poddar, A., Narula, S. A., & Zutshi, A. (2019). A study of corporate social responsibility practices of the top Bombay Stock Exchange 500 companies in India and their alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 1–22.Google Scholar
Raustiala, K. (2005). Form and substance in international agreements. American Journal of International Law, 99 (3), 581–92.Google Scholar
Sachs, J. D. (2012). From Millennium Development Goals to Sustainable Development Goals. The Lancet, 379, 2206–11.Google Scholar
Sarwar, M. B., & Nicolai, S. (2018). What do analysis of Voluntary National Reviews for Sustainable Development Goals tell us about ‘leaving no one behind’? London: Overseas Development Institute.Google Scholar
Scheyvens, R., Banks, G., & Hughes, E. (2016). The private sector and the SDGs: The need to move beyond ‘business as usual’. Sustainable Development, 24 (6), 371–82.Google Scholar
Solberg, E. (2015). From MDGs to SDGs – The political value of common global goals. Harvard International Review, 37 (1), 58–61.Google Scholar
Spangenberg, J. H. (2017). Hot air or comprehensive progress? A critical assessment of the SDGs. Sustainable Development, 25 (4), 311–21.Google Scholar
Stevens, C., & Kanie, N. (2016). The transformative potential of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). International Environmental Agreements, 16, 393–6.Google Scholar
UNCTAD (2014). Investing in the SDGs: An action plan. UNCTAD: World Investment Report 2014.Google Scholar
Underdal, A., & Kim, R. E. (2017). The Sustainable Development Goals and multilateral agreements. In Kanie, N, & Biermann, F (eds.), Governing through goals: Sustainable Development Goals as governance innovation (pp. 241–58). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly (2012). The future we want. UN Doc. A/RES/66/288.Google Scholar
United Nations Global Compact (2019). United Nations Global Compact. Available at: www.unglobalcompact.org. Accessed: 17 June 2019.Google Scholar
Van der Hoeven, R. (2014). Full employment target: What lessons for a Post-2015 Development Agenda? Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 15 (2–3), 161–75.Google Scholar
Van Zanten, J. A., & van Tulder, R. (2018). Multinational enterprises and the Sustainable Development Goals: An institutional approach to corporate engagement. Journal of International Business Policy, 1 (3–4), 208–33.Google Scholar
Victor, D. G., Raustiala, K., & Skolnikoff, E. B. (eds.) (1998). The implementation and effectiveness of international environmental commitments: Theory and practice. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., & Verkooijen, P. (2013). The practice of interaction management: Enhancing synergies among multilateral REDD+ Institutions. Forest and Nature Governance World Forests, 14, 133–49.Google Scholar
Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Arts, B., & Glasbergen, P. (2011). Interaction management by partnerships: The case of biodiversity and climate change. Global Environmental Politics, 11 (4), 89–107.Google Scholar
Voß, J.-P., & Kemp, R. (2006). Sustainability and reflexive governance: Introduction. In Voß, J, Bauknecht, D, & Kemp, R (eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 3–30). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Weber, H. (2017). Politics of ‘leaving no one behind’: Contesting the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals agenda. Globalizations, 14 (3), 399–414.Google Scholar
Yamada, T. (2017). Corporate water stewardship: Lessons for goal-based hybrid governance. In Kanie, N & Biermann, F (eds.), Governing through goals: Sustainable Development Goals as governance innovation (pp. 187–209). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2017). Conceptualization: Goal setting as a strategy for earth system governance. In Kanie, N, & Biermann, F (eds.), Governance through goals: Sustainable Development Goals as governance innovation (pp. 31–52). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zelli, F., Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., & van Asselt, H. (2010). The consequences of a fragmented climate governance architecture: A policy appraisal. In Biermann, F, Pattberg, P, & Zelli, F (eds.), Global climate governance beyond 2012. Architecture, agency and adaptation (pp. 25–34). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×