No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Disclosing or obscuring? The politics of transparency in global climate governance
Abstract
Transparency is increasingly evoked within public and private climate governance arrangements as a key means to enhance accountability and improve environmental outcomes. We review assumed links between transparency, accountability and environmental sustainability here, by identifying four rationales underpinning uptake of transparency in governance. We label these democratization, technocratization, marketization and privatization, and assess how they shape the scope and practices of climate disclosure, and to what effect. We find that all four are discernible in climate governance, yet the technocratic and privatization rationales tend to overtake the originally intended (more inclusive, and more public-good oriented) democratization and marketization rationales for transparency, particularly during institutionalization of disclosure systems. This reduces transparency's potential to enhance accountability or trigger more environmentally sustainable outcomes.
... This includes, for example, allowing for public access to documentation, open deliberations, and public participation in decision-making. Transparency for governance or, as Gupta and Mason (2014 ) conceptualize it, "governance by disclosure," concerns the instrumental use of transparency as a mechanism to improve governance outcomes. Mitchell (2011Mitchell ( , 1882 describes transparency for governance as "the acquisition and dissemination of information to influence the behaviour of particular actors." ...
... In this regard, Gupta and Mason (2014 ) distinguish between the normative, procedural, and substantive effects of governance by disclosure. Normative effects are based on the idea that those potentially affected by an activity have a right to know. ...
... Given the critiques of transparency, it is all the more important that we gain a greater understanding of how transparency arrangements induce behavior change and in which circumstances that behavior is likely to be desirable. The pathways developed here could be used to test insights from "critical transparency studies" (e.g., Knox-Hayes and Levy 2014 ; Gupta and van Asselt 2019 ), for instance, by asking to what extent particular pathways correspond to the democratization, technocratization, marketization, and privatization rationales for transparency identified by Gupta and Mason (2016) . Moreover, further research could explore the extent to which certain pathways lead to transformative change as opposed to reinforcing structures of inequality (see Ciplet et al. 2018 ). ...
Transparency arrangements, in the form of regular reporting by nations and a review of the reported information, have become a backbone of international governance. They are often expected to bring about increased ambition and improved implementation to fulfill the aims of the multilateral agreement in which they are embedded. However, little is still known about how these arrangements result in such effects. In this article, we review compliance theories and use these to explain the various roles of transparency arrangements in changing state behavior. We distinguish between different compliance schools and show how they attribute subtly different functions to transparency. We examine these variations through the development of a framework made up of seven idealized causal pathways that offer plausible explanations for the mechanisms that allow transparency arrangements to induce state behavior change. We also illustrate how these pathways work in practice by providing several examples from existing multilateral transparency arrangements. In doing so, we seek to form a bridge between international regime theory, critical transparency studies, and empirical studies on the functioning of transparency arrangements in international governance.
... At the intersection with more critical visions, questions of legitimacy and legitimation are present in the debate about the credibility of the scientific record of the epistemic communities, especially after the controversies surrounding the IPCC praxis in terms of transparency (Gupta, 2012;Koetz, 2012;Beck et al., 2014;Gupta, 2016;Hoppe et al., 2017) or the logic underlying some 'technologies of government' such as environmental assessments (Assmuth and Lyytimäki, 2015;Cashmore et al., 2015). Indeed, there is an imperative of 'challenging the boundaries of science' (van Bommel et al., 2016) by focusing on co-production at the science-policy interface aiming at overcoming the linear model of knowledge production (Assmuth and Lyytimäki, 2015;Cashmore et al., 2015;van Bommel et al., 2016;Gupta, 2016). ...
... At the intersection with more critical visions, questions of legitimacy and legitimation are present in the debate about the credibility of the scientific record of the epistemic communities, especially after the controversies surrounding the IPCC praxis in terms of transparency (Gupta, 2012;Koetz, 2012;Beck et al., 2014;Gupta, 2016;Hoppe et al., 2017) or the logic underlying some 'technologies of government' such as environmental assessments (Assmuth and Lyytimäki, 2015;Cashmore et al., 2015). Indeed, there is an imperative of 'challenging the boundaries of science' (van Bommel et al., 2016) by focusing on co-production at the science-policy interface aiming at overcoming the linear model of knowledge production (Assmuth and Lyytimäki, 2015;Cashmore et al., 2015;van Bommel et al., 2016;Gupta, 2016). ...
... In summary, these authors highlight 'the influence of science geopolitical settings [and] the existence and dynamics of epistemic communities' (Cashmore et al., 2015: 92). They also analyse the power dynamics in a climate change governance context, where the nature of power and the political problem are respectively unorganized and unstructured (Robertson, 2010;Koetz et al., 2012;Vink et al., 2013;Gupta, 2016;Pasztor, 2017;Hoppe et al., 2017). In these realms, the classic paradigms of environmental management cannot be applied to a super wicked problem such as climate change (Patt, 2017). ...
The importance of science for climate governance has strengthened over time and the topic inspires prolific academic writing on the influence of scientists and scientific knowledge on policy decisions. One of the streams of research in the field is inspired by Cash´s (2003) seminal work highlighting how the role of scientists depends on perceptions of salience, credibility and legitimacy. Other views call for attention to the politics involved in scientific performance while influencing policy and on the local circumstances, considering the many ways in which societies relate to science and expertise. The role of scientists in climate governance is a contested issue, relevant for many research centres aiming to influence policy decisions given the urgency of the climate crisis. To better understand this role, we reviewed mainstream international literature and identified four main approaches, which we label: scientific usable knowledge, politics of science, critical approaches and hybrid approaches. We contrasted the results with the experience of scientists from a Chilean climate research centre, to provide a view from the South on the role of scientists in climate governance. Our results show that Cash´s approach was a common ground for Chilean climate scientists, upon which they build ideas on the importance of building long-term relationships between scientists and policy makers. However, they also acknowledged the need to take into consideration the role of politics in climate-related decisions and the power relations and actor´s interests.
... This brings under a critical radar that claim that transparency is an unequivocally positive governance goal that will lead to substantive enhancement of climate ambition. Gupta and Mason (2016), for example, list hurdles hampering the effectiveness of information disclosure in climate governance, including inadequate design of disclosure, the attributes of information disclosed (whether standardized, accurate and comprehensible), the quantity of disclosed information (complete or partial), and the influence of intermediaries, such as auditors and certifiers. With respect to the latter category, while the presence of some intermediaries is likely to decrease in the context of climate cryptogovernance, these may still exist as powerful actors in decentralized modes of system design and oversight (Campbell-Verduyn, forthcoming). ...
... Disclosure through blockchain-based solutions may not necessarily be in the interests of all stakeholders, despite the claim of advocates that transparency directly enhances trust, stakeholder engagement and (ultimately) more ambitious actions. This is because the ends to be secured via greater climate transparency are diverse and are connected to the ever more heterogeneous and fragmented nature of climate governance itself, which encompasses multiple state and non-state actors across scales (Gupta and Mason 2016). Such arrangements may render the rationales of 'governing through transparency' divergent and potentially contrary to one another, as a growing body of work in 'critical transparency studies' now shows (Ciplet et al., 2018;Gupta and Mason, 2016;Weikmans et al., 2020). ...
... This is because the ends to be secured via greater climate transparency are diverse and are connected to the ever more heterogeneous and fragmented nature of climate governance itself, which encompasses multiple state and non-state actors across scales (Gupta and Mason 2016). Such arrangements may render the rationales of 'governing through transparency' divergent and potentially contrary to one another, as a growing body of work in 'critical transparency studies' now shows (Ciplet et al., 2018;Gupta and Mason, 2016;Weikmans et al., 2020). Gupta and Mason (2016) identify, for example, four possible rationales for the uptake of transparency that embody quite different logics of climate governance: a democratization, marketisation, privatization, or technocratization rationale. ...
This article interrogates the assumed promises and perils of climate cryptogovernance or deployment of cryptographic technology (i.e., blockchain) within climate governance. We distill how climate cryptogovernance is
being discussed by influential climate policy actors, and the implications for reinforcing or challenging how climate governance currently occurs. Specifically, through discourse analysis, we explore how blockchain technology is presented in the communications of international organisations and multistakeholder initiatives in the climate policy space. We identify a dominant storyline being advanced that views blockchain as an enabler of ambitious climate action, through its potential to enhance the reliability, transparency, accountability, and
democratic quality of climate governance. We critically interrogate each of these component elements of the dominant storyline, arguing that, taken as a whole, they tend to privilege a technocratic, market-oriented approach to climate governance. We conclude by reflecting on whether this risks reinforcing a problematic ‘post-political’ turn in environmental governance in the future.
... De este modo, el modelo propuesto en este estudio hipotetiza que existe una relación positiva entre las prácticas de la gobernanza climática y su efecto sobre el desempeño de carbono en las empresas examinadas. Una vez delineado el modelo de estudio, se explora el efecto que tiene la supervisión de la junta directiva, la ejecución eficaz de la gestión, la divulgación pública, la contabilidad de emisiones, y la planeación estratégica sobre el desempeño de carbono, en donde cada una de estos mecanismos coadyuva a la reducción de dichas emisiones ( (Burke et al., 2017;Gasbarro et al., 2013;Gupta & Mason, 2016;Kumarasiri, 2017;Wolf & Floyd, 2017). ...
... De acuerdo con un estudio realizado por KPMG (2013) los reportes de sustentabilidad son implementados por el 93% de las empresas globales, siendo considerado un elemento fundamental de la actuación climática de la empresa, ya que integra indicadores ambientales, sociales, y de gobierno, reportes de responsabilidad social, riesgos comerciales relacionados al cambio climático, entre otros(Ben-Amar & McIlkenny, 2015;Guenther et al., 2015;Herold et al., 2018) La importancia en mantener informados a estos grupos de interés radica en la relevancia que poseen para dar continuidad a las operaciones de la empresa, ya que ellos tienen los recursos críticos, los cuales son necesarios para dicha continuidad, por lo que ninguna organización es capaz de sobrevivir sino satisface las demandas impuestas por dichos grupos(Guenther et al., 2015). Esta relevancia radica en el poder, la urgencia y la legitimidad con la que cuenten, ya que entre más atributos posean, mayor será la influencia ejercida sobre las empresas por lo cual, la identificación 83 de dichos grupos resulta fundamental para las empresas, ya que su influencia en la divulgación del desempeño climático es relevante(Deegan & Blomquist, 2006; Freedman & Jaggi, 2005;Mitchell et al., 1997;Reid & Toffel, 2009;Rodrigue, 2014).Por consiguiente, las empresas están empezando a desarrollar e implementar la transparencia de información referente a sus emisiones la cual, permite monitorear el desempeño de la empresa en la cuestión ambiental, recompensando o sancionando las acciones de mitigación climática implementadas por las empresas, siendo este mecanismo parte relevante de la gobernanza climática(Gupta & Mason, 2016;Halkos & Skouloudis, 2016;Lee et al., 2013). La implementación de este mecanismo permite eficientizar el desempeño corporativo creando beneficios económicos, tal como lo sugiereMatisoff (2013) al indicar que la transparencia de las emisiones de carbono de la empresa, mejoran la gestión empresarial en la cuestión climática, como el disminuir el consumo de energía, lo cual representa un decremento en las emisiones de carbono pertenecientes al alcance indirecto, implicando así una reducción en los costos.Además de estos beneficios, la legitimidad empresarial, es uno de los objetivos que buscan las empresas frente a sus grupos de interés, en donde los riesgos que implica el cambio climático, incrementa la consciencia social, motivando que las empresas reporten su información ambiental y así, hacer legitimas sus operaciones(Bansal & Roth, 2000;Hooghiemstra, 2000). ...
Las empresas han iniciado en la última década la implementación de distintas prácticas hacía la mejora de su desempeño de carbono para atenuar su impacto en el cambio climático. Sin embargo, la efectividad de estas prácticas en la reducción de las emisiones de carbono continúa siendo debatible. Esta investigación explora el efecto que tiene cinco prácticas de gobernanza climática, i.e. la supervisión de la junta, la ejecución eficaz, la divulgación pública, la contabilidad de emisiones, y la planeación estratégica sobre el desempeño de carbono en las empresas de la Bolsa Mexicana de Valores del 2014-2018. Basado en la perspectiva de los grupos de interés, así como en la lógica institucional, se argumenta teóricamente que las presiones por una mejora en el desempeño climático de las empresas promueven una transición de lógica económica hacia una sustentable, la cual contribuya a la reducción de las emisiones de carbono e incrementar la legitimidad de sus operaciones. Para comprobar las hipótesis de investigación, se realiza un análisis longitudinal mediante Mínimos Cuadrados Generalizados Factibles (FGLS) con datos recabados de Bloomberg, Thomson Reuters, y los reportes de sustentabilidad. Los hallazgos sugieren que sólo la divulgación pública tiene un efecto positivo en la reducción de las emisiones de carbono, mientras que la supervisión de la junta, la ejecución eficaz, y la planeación estratégica incrementan dichos gases. Esta evidencia sugiere la necesidad de integrar de manera substantiva las prácticas de gestión climáticas por parte de los responsables de la toma de decisión, evitando así la impostura verde (greenwashing) para una efectiva implementación. De esta forma se contribuye a la identificación de aquellos mecanismos que coadyuven a la reducción de las emisiones de carbono dentro de la literatura de la gestión ambiental.
... Transparency has been held up as a key driver for action in the bottom-up governance architecture of the Paris Agreement (see e.g. Ciplet & Roberts, 2017;Ciplet, Adams, Weikmans, & Roberts, 2018;Gupta & Mason, 2016;Jacquet & Jamieson, 2016;Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen et al., 2018; van Asselt, 2016). By revealing information on Parties' efforts towards mitigation, adaptation, and provision of support, the expectation is that transparency stimulates countries to increase the ambition of their NDCs. ...
... In addition, the ETF is likely to generate far more information than its predecessor. This may in turn lead to an 'information overload' for observers, who may end up overwhelmed by complex, incomparable, and sometimes irrelevant information (see Gupta & Mason, 2016). ...
... It can also help identify how CAG enhance, or not, adaptive capacities of stakeholders to climate change and illuminate how cross-scale governance and collaboration can take place including the question of how to facilitate collaboration between states and NSAs which is often a key aspect of this process in developing countries (Bäckstrand et al., 2013;Biermann et al., 2012;Challies et al., 2019;Nasiritousi et al., 2016). Adding empirical insights can also, and importantly, help identify issues concerning inclusion and representation of stakeholders engaged in CAG as well as concerns pivoting around transparency, accountability and access to project designs, methodologies and outcomes (Börzel and Risse, 2010;Blüdorn and Deflorian;Gupta and Mason, 2016). ...
... Climate change governance involves a state and NSAs across multiple scales, jurisdictions, and policy domains (Bulkeley and Newell, 2015;Bäckstrand et al., 2013). Environmental governance structures have expanded in response to such complexity, from hierarchical to bottom-up collaborative approaches that incorporate participatory measures based on equity, legitimacy, transparency and accountability (Lemos et al., 2013;Okereke et al., 2009aOkereke et al., , 2009bGupta and Mason, 2016). CAG approaches, understood to be a collaborative relationship between two or more stakeholders (e.g., state, non-governmental organizations and society) based on consensus-oriented and collective decision-making are regarded as attractive in this respect as they potentially enhance adaptation and adaptive capacity through better leveraging human and material resources for adaptation (Tompkins and Adger, 2004;Emerson et al, 2012;Rudnick et al., 2019). ...
Centralized state governance systems have been criticized for being ineffective and inefficient in tackling complex climate change challenges. Consequently, governance models that integrate collaboration among diverse stakeholders are seen as crucial in increasing adaptation efforts around the world. However, at present, there is little insight into the mechanics of collaborative adaptation governance (CAG) at the local, regional, national or global levels. Drawing on collaborative governance theory and literature on climate change adaptation, we use multiple qualitative research methods to identify and explore CAG in northern Ghana. We examine the conceptualization and implementation of CAG projects as well as the motivation behind them and their ensuing benefits. Results show that perceived climatic changes, diminishing agricultural livelihoods, adaptation resource needs and opportunities largely drive CAG. Local state actors and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) provide leadership in CAG, bridging gaps in access to adaptation resources through the provision of agricultural inputs, climate services, infrastructure and human capacity development. However, in parallel to these, there exist interwoven governance challenges that include questions of trust, commitment, transparency, accountability and the representation of diverse interests. We demonstrate how powerful state actors and NGOs set the agenda, frame problems, and implement rules and incentives that are contrary to the normative tenets of collaborative governance theory. Ultimately, the results of this study shows that CAG is attempted but the challenges of CAG in northern Ghana are large, while also providing insight into the extent to which CAG approaches can facilitate adaptation to climate change globally.
... Generally, greater transparency is widely assumed to be essential to realizing important environmental and climate governance outcomes, such as enhanced clarity, trust and accountability (for a discussion and critique, see e.g., Gupta, 2008Gupta, , 2010Mason, 2020). Yet, a growing body of 'critical transparency studies' literature is now revealing that the potential of climate transparency to realize more accountability, trust or improved outcomes is constrained by broader political conflicts in the climate regime (Gupta & Mason, 2016;Gupta & van Asselt, 2019;Konrad et al., 2022;Van Deursen & Gupta, 2024). ...
Developing countries’ ambitious climate action hinges on the provision of climate finance from developed countries. Yet, despite decades of debate and contestation over this, substantial controversies continue to persist over whether and how much climate finance is flowing, including whether it is ‘new and additional’ to existing development assistance, whether it targets climate mitigation or adaptation, and whether it is delivered as grants or loans. In this article, we draw on a little-examined source of self-reporting by countries to shed light on these persisting climate finance controversies. Elaborate transparency arrangements have been set up under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), whereby countries report on climate finance provided and received. We examine transparency reports submitted by 26 countries from 2014 to 2021 by both developed and developing countries, and international review of these reports, to ascertain the extent to which country self-reporting under the UNFCCC sheds light on the nature of climate finance flows between developed and developing countries. We find that both the reports submitted and the international review of these reports are not furthering clarity around climate finance provided and received. This is because of (a) a persisting lack of multilaterally agreed definitions of key aspects of climate finance provided, and a resulting heterogeneity of definitions used by countries to self-report; and (b) because international review of country self-reporting is subject to politically negotiated limitations. We conclude that clarity remains elusive on climate finance provided and received under the UNFCCC, a situation that seems likely to continue under the Paris Agreement’s enhanced transparency framework, due to be implemented in 2024.
... Further, ensuring transparency in reporting and accountability in policy implementation is essential for building trust and credibility in climate actions (Gupta & Mason, 2016). Transparent MRV systems allow for the clear communication of progress and challenges, both domestically and internationally. ...
This chapter explores the intersection of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and sustainable development goals in the context of South Asia, with an emphasis on net zero emissions. It provides an overview of NDCs and their role in global climate agreements like the Paris Agreement, emphasizing the significance of net zero emissions for mitigating climate change. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, the study uses a systematic literature review method to analyze fifty-six (56) articles and identify critical insights. The research investigates the current status of NDCs in South Asia, including country profiles, commitments, progress, and challenges. It also explores strategies for integrating Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with NDCs, sectoral approaches to net zero, policy frameworks, financial mechanisms, technology and innovation, monitoring and verification systems, and case studies of successful initiatives. We propose strategic policy recommendations for policymakers to enhance the alignment of NDCs with sustainable development goals. Additionally, areas for future research are identified, including impact assessment, technology innovation, policy integration, behavioral change, and climate justice. The paper concludes by emphasizing the importance of collective action and collaboration in advancing South Asia toward a sustainable and resilient future.
... Within the climate governance literature, it is common to find rationalist assumptions such as more information leads to better climate action (e.g. Gupta & Mason, 2016). There is also an assumption that the elaborate transparency provisions under the UNFCCC will enhance accountability, trust, and greater climate policy ambition (Konrad et al., 2021). ...
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the centre of the global policy response to climate change. The Paris Agreement, a legally binding treaty under the UNFCCC, has located climate change adaptation as a critical component of the global response to climate change. The Paris Agreement also establishes an enhanced transparency framework to track progress towards Parties climate change commitments. However, the UNFCCC has consistently maintained a marked difference in provisions for reporting climate change adaptation and climate change mitigation. Consequently, reporting on climate change adaptation lags far behind in detail when compared to that for reporting on climate change mitigation. Using literature review as the main method of analysis, this paper aims to understand the underlying factors that have resulted in the lack of specificity of reporting provisions of the UNFCCC for climate change adaptation and the consequences of non-mandatory provisions for reporting on climate change adaptation on national and global adaptation practice. The paper then highlights the benefits of regular reporting of climate change adaptation to the UNFCCC. It makes important contribution to the growing literature on global environmental governance, especially on national reporting of adaptation information, an under-studied and a poorly understood field.
... Australia's experience with HIR projects also highlights the importance of transparency 11,80 . From January 2013 until June 2023, no data on the location of credited areas were published under the scheme, which shielded projects from scrutiny. ...
Carbon offsets are a widely used climate policy instrument that can reduce mitigation costs and generate important environmental and social co-benefits. However, they can increase emissions if they lack integrity. We analysed the performance of one of the world’s largest nature-based offset types: human-induced regeneration projects under Australia’s carbon offset scheme. The projects are supposed to involve the human-induced regeneration of permanent even-aged native forests through changes in land management. We analysed 182 projects and found limited evidence of regeneration in credited areas. Changes in woody vegetation cover within the areas that have been credited also largely mirror changes in adjacent comparison areas, outside the projects, suggesting the observable changes are predominantly attributable to factors other than the project activities. The results add to the growing literature highlighting the practical limitations of offsets and the potential for offset schemes to credit abatement that is non-existent, non-additional and potentially impermanent.
... All business activity has environmental impacts. With greater or lesser economic impact, what is certain is that compliance with these environmental criteria is increasingly valued as efficiency, transparency, quality, and commitment of the company (Gupta et al., 2016). • Social risks are those that are based on the relationship of the company with society with special care with those with whom they have a more direct relationship: employees, shareholders, customers, suppliers, or those local communities where they generate their activity (Aula, 2010). ...
The application of environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria has now become a more than essential requirement in the financial world. Therefore, it is necessary to understand, select and assess the risks of these ESG criteria and evaluate how they can impact a product or investment decision. Thus, the main objective of this article is to analyze ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) indicators and their potential impacts in the framework of non-financial information. Current regulatory developments, such as the European Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), are pushing to make ESG indicators (within this triple perspective: social, environmental and governance risks) a key set of information to be used for reporters and users of information. This article will study in further detail the main implications these regulations will have in how corporations will reflect social and ecological footprint information in their external reporting. Since these ESG indicators could have relevant financial impacts on the financial drivers of a corporation, stakeholders will be concerned on how enterprises are dealing with these ESG risks. Therefore, this ESG data will increase transparency and would mean a better understanding on how companies and investors have a sustainability compromise to evolve to a neutral carbon economy. In order to understand a company’s commitment with these ESG criteria, stakeholders would have to assess different aspects of the information reported. In this sense, this article will focus on how credit rating agencies incorporate these risks in their assessments. Credit rating agencies are becoming important actors in the sustainability criteria, as they incorporate ESG risks in their assessments, transmitting the importance of these indicators to investors and to markets. This study will look into the different time horizons between financial profitability and sustainability indicators. Current tendency and huge demand of non-financial indicators do not have the same profoundness, framework and tradition as financial indicators. This could lead to a situation in which it would be necessary a period to adapt both worlds and make them join and connect together in a sense in which one need the other one.
... However, this diversity also poses challenges in terms of standardization and harmonization. Efforts are underway to standardize and globalize carbon markets, aiming to enhance their transparency and accountability [36]. This standardization is essential for creating a more unified and effective global response to climate change [37]. ...
The creation of the carbon market came forth as a tool for managing, controlling, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, combining environmental responsibility with financial incentives. Biochar has gained recognition as one of potential carbon offset solution. The practical and cost-effective establishment of biochar carbon credit standards is crucial for the integration of biochar into carbon trading systems, thus encouraging investments in the biochar industry while promoting sustainable carbon dioxide sequestration practices on a global scale. This communication focuses on the potential of biochar in carbon sequestration. Additionally, it spotlights case studies that highlight how biochar effectively generates carbon credits, as well as discussing the evolving carbon removal marketplace. Furthermore, we address knowledge gaps, areas of concern, and research priorities regarding biochar implementation in carbon credits, with the aim of enhancing our understanding of its role in climate change mitigation. This review positions biochar as a versatile and scalable technology with the potential to contribute significantly to carbon credits, aligning with sustainable development goals. It calls for continued research, transparency, and international cooperation to explore the full potential of biochar in climate change mitigation efforts.
... The result is that, unfortunately, there remains a real danger that "dirty firms" can appear "clean" through relatively easy-to-provide "climate talk" efforts (Pinkse & Kolk, 2009;Lyon & Maxwell, 2011). These symbolic efforts seem to be further enabled through CAPs, CCIs, and other bottom-up, private-led initiatives (Gupta & Mason, 2016;Talbot & Boiral, 2015). ...
Climate performance in publicly traded companies has become an important focus for climate action. Non–state actor–led initiatives have emerged as influential governors in this arena, intended to plug gaps in public climate change regulation. This article addresses the key question, are such non–state led climate initiatives exerting a positive influence on corporate climate performance? To answer this question, we empirically evaluate the effects of eighteen such climate initiatives on corporate climate performance, distinguishing between “internal” and “external” initiatives. Based on an original data set of corporate climate initiatives that prioritize climate performance in the private sector, we find that each additional climate initiative has little to no impact on climate performance, modeled as scope 1 direct emissions, but does exert a positive influence on scope 2 indirect emissions. Our findings have implications for the trajectory of the private sector’s climate transition, as well as the potential of corporate initiatives to steward effective climate action.
... While the findings presented in this paper are specific to the livestock sector and do not necessarily offer a sufficient basis for generalization to other domains, our study allows us to confirm that variation in government systems for producing knowledge matters, and therefore, the findings remain relevant to discussions of adaptation tracking. Third, although the premise and application of this framework stem from the presumption that adaptation tracking will be instrumental in enhancing accountability and transparency among countries and in providing information for adaptation planning and decision-making, we also note longstanding arguments in the literature highlighting the limitations of governance-by-disclosure mechanisms in achieving their objectives (Gupta and Mason 2016;Weikmans et al. 2020) which we do not extensively address in this paper. Governance structure Federalized system with subnational administrative structure comprised of nine regional states that are further divided into zones, woredas (district), and kebeles ...
National contexts play a critical role in shaping the transposition of international laws and agreements, such as the Paris Agreement. However, the relevance of national contexts when assessing global progress in adaptation to climate change has received little theoretical and empirical attention. To bridge this gap, we conduct a comparative study of government systems for producing and using policy knowledge on the livestock sectors of three Eastern Africa countries. We find distinct features within and between countries, which may explain variations in how adaptation progress is tracked. In particular, our study shows that prevailing administrative structures influence horizontal and vertical coordination, with implications for the flow of knowledge within government. The extent of coordination and the establishment of knowledge production procedures and accountability mechanisms affect the compatibility of the various knowledge streams in each country which, in turn, determines the potential for integrating adaptation tracking across the various administrative units. Our findings suggest that the effectiveness and feasibility of tracking adaptation progress over time and space will depend on the adequacy and successful linkage of tracking programs with existing systems of knowledge production and use. These findings underscore the relevance of a fit-for-context approach that examines how adaptation tracking can effectively be integrated into existing structures and processes while developing strategies for improving knowledge production and use.
... The second cluster of approaches comprises those that operate under the assumption that the problem of climate change must be addressed by global governance. Although most of these approaches are of some importance to the national states that continue to play a central role, some of them reveal a great emphasis on developing comprehensive adaptation strategies in which the role of the scientific community becomes increasingly important (see, e.g., [41][42][43]). ...
This paper describes the macro-regional governance framework behind the climate adaptation policies that are currently in place in the Alpine area. Through this discussion, it specifically considers the implications of the regional governance of South Tyrol and Lombardy as case studies. Despite rising concern at the European level, there are still no specific guidelines in place for climate change governance at the macro-regional level. Macro-regions encompass multiple regions that have certain shared morphological characteristics. To address climate changes that occur here, they adopt optional larger-scale strategies without adequately considering territorial and governmental specificities at the regional level. Each individual region adopts specific climate adaptation strategies to deal with the challenges of the territories they govern, without considering the effects on their neighbours, decentralises climate policies to the lowest tiers of government, and encourages participation from individuals and non-governmental organisations. The Alpine macro-region is governed by three separate international/transnational institutions at the macro-regional level and is subject to different regulations from each of the 48 regions/autonomous provinces. One of these regions is Lombardy, which is particularly exposed to the effects of climate change due to having the highest values for land consumption and pollution in Italy. From the administrative point of view, it is an ordinary region, which means that it has the same legislative competences of the other Italian regions. South Tyrol is entirely mountainous. Being an autonomous province, it benefits from greater legislative autonomy than ordinary regions. Based on documental analysis of climate adaptation strategies, findings demonstrate that the preferred governance structure involves the presence of a coordinating institution (such as the province in South Tyrol or the region in Lombardy) that decides climate action, along with several other local institutions and stakeholders that have less decision-making power. Its preferred mechanism for addressing specific climate challenges is the definition of specific regulations and the draft of regional and mono-sectoral plans. These regulations do not relate strongly to wider-scale strategies at the macro-regional level, but are inspired by their principles and priorities. At both definition and implementation levels, the participation of local organisations is limited and not incentivised. Administratively, South Tyrol enjoys greater autonomy, whereas Lombardy must comply more closely with state regulations that limit its decision-making freedom.
... The reason is straightforward and intuitive: transparency is assumed to be vital to enhancing accountability, informed participation, and ultimately better environmental outcomes. Closer scrutiny suggests that such transformative promises associated with transparency are often not fulfilled, whether for the state-based or private disclosure initiatives now proliferating in the climate realm [3,4]. ...
... Finally, a distributed system of decision-making can generate systemic patterns that can more easily be identified by mapping the structure of and linkages among interdependent situations. Technically complex rules and reliance on expertdriven information present systemic challenges, underscoring technocratization trends in sustainability governance, and limiting broader participation among smallholder owners in this case, and among developing countries in the context of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD +) program (Gupta and Mason 2016). CARB and experts (developers, verifiers, and registries) steer the implementation of the program through their "power by design" and "pragmatic power" at the collectivechoice and operational levels, respectively (Morrison et al. 2017;Lubell and Morrison 2021). ...
As one of the leading programs and largest subnational carbon-crediting mechanism in the world, California’s Offset Program and carbon market reflect key aspects of polycentric governance, including public and private actors interacting in rule-governed relationships, multifaceted strategies for carbon reductions, multiple jurisdictions, and standards of accountability, legitimacy, and environmental integrity. Participation in California’s program, however, remains low particularly among private forest owners who own the majority (56%) of forests in the United States (Butler et al. Family forest ownerships of the United States, 2018: results from the USDA Forest Service, National Woodland Owner Survey. General Technical Reports NRS-199. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Madison. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-199). This paper therefore asks: what characteristics encourage or discourage participation in California’s program, and which interactions among related situations inform participation and the supply of forest offsets? To address these questions, the analysis adopts the network of action situations approach as a diagnostic tool for understanding interactions among related decisions for forest carbon commoditization under California’s system for climate mitigation. The analysis relies on policy documents, offset projects data, semi-structured interviews, and empirical literature. Findings show how technically complex rules designed to protect the environmental integrity of offsets create interdependencies via multiple long-term contracts and increase participation costs relative to uncertain future payoffs. Results also highlight the important role of expert and state actors, and suggest that experimentation with carbon accounting methodologies, issues of scale, and uncertainty are likely to shape the future of forest carbon governance.
... Typical (primary) energy and raw material inputs in the supply chain of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) using NG as fuel. Based on data from [4,[32][33][34][35]. 2 Founded in the beginning of this millennium, the CDP is a multistakeholder initiative meant to inform private investment decisions and enable accountability, representing institutional investors which according to CDP hold US$130 trillion in assets combined [37,38]. 3 The analysis includes companies listing their primary activity as agricultural chemicals, basic plastics, inorganic base chemicals, nitrogenous fertilisers, non-nitrogenous fertilisers, other base chemicals, speciality chemicals. ...
Chemicals is the industrial sector with the highest energy demand, using a substantial share of global fossil energy and emitting increasing amounts of greenhouse gasses following rapid growth over the past 25 years. Emissions associated with energy used have increased with growth in coal dependent regions but are also commonly underestimated in regions with higher shares of renewable energy. Renewable energy is key to reducing greenhouse gas emissions yet remains niche when considering corporate targets and initiatives aiming at emission reductions, which instead favour incremental energy efficiency improvements. These findings point to a risk for continued lock-in to fossil energy in the industry.
... The answer may lie in promoting good governance -a catchword which has received enormous attention in recent literature due to its ability to strengthen democracy and human rights, promote economic prosperity and social cohesion, reduce poverty, enhance environmental protection and the sustainable use of natural resources, and deepen confidence in government and public administration (Keping, 2017;Krawczyk & Sweet-Cushman, 2017;World Bank, 2010). Although there are several elements to good governance, transparency and access to information has been cited to be indispensable and remains a prerequisite for attaining most of the other elements of good governance (Forssbaeck & Oxelheim, 2014;Gupta & Mason, 2016;Quiroz & Vieyra, 2018). Literature is replete with information on how transparency improves the overall level of good governance by fostering trust which stimulates stakeholders' participation, improves resource mobilisation and reinforces capacity to ensure projects are well implemented while providing a basis for holding stakeholders accountable for their decisions and actions (Forssbaeck & Oxelheim, 2014;Keping, 2017;Koyama & Kania, 2014). ...
Scientists and policymakers are waking to the menacing impacts of deforestation on biodiversity and the livelihoods of the over one billion people reliant on forests. Concurrently, an upward trend in population and its corresponding rise in the global demand for feed, food, fuel, and fibre exerts new demands on limited land resources available to multiple stakeholders. As the competition over land intensifies, many farmers in the tropics employ several strategies to cultivate areas designated as forest reserves for their livelihoods, leading to further deforestation and conflicts with state forestry agencies. Moreover, despite decades of investments in institutions to directly fund smallholder farmers participation in rehabilitating deforested landscapes, little is known about the reach and performance of existing financial incentive mechanisms. This dissertation adds to filling these knowledge gaps based on qualitative case studies embedded in multiple analytical and data collection approaches in Ghana, which loses near 2% (135,000 ha) of its forests annually despite several efforts to overcome the challenge. Following a brief introduction and clarification of conceptual underpinning in Chapter 1, the knowledge gaps are addressed with three empirical publications (chapters 2-4). Chapter two examines why and how farmers in forest communities gain and secure access to their farmlands within forest reserves to produce food and cash crops against state law. Through process-net maps, focus group discussions, interviews, and field observation, data were gathered through an extended field stay in Ghanas Juabeso district. The findings unbridle the multiple structural and relational mechanisms farmers apply to evade state attempts to rein in illegal farming in the area and how institutional deficiencies, notably corruption and elite capture of farming benefits by native chiefs, reinforce farming in forest reserves. The chapter discusses the broader implications of the findings for the Ghanaian governments attempts to accelerate forest landscape rehabilitation, noting that such efforts will need to adapt to the multiple struggles and latent actor interests to succeed. Chapter three disentangles the narratives and experiences of forest communities and compares them with the current assumptions underlying forest policy in Ghana from the perspective of the most dominant forest policy actors. The results contend with current assumptions that portray forest communities as environmentally destructive. Alternatively, it reveals that while several factors combine to drive forest-dependent communities to cultivate forest reserves, the challenge of food insecurity is paramount but unconveyed to the forest policy arena. The chapter proposes a novel concept of food security corridors (FSCs) as a meta-narrative for harmonising competing actor interests in forest reserves. The chapter also discusses the feasibility of FSCs and calls for further efforts to refine and pilot the concept in the global search for solutions to forest and agriculture land-use conflicts in the tropics. Chapter four examines the governance of Ghanas Forest Plantation Development Fund as an incentive system instituted to attract smallholders into landscape rehabilitation based on interviews with tree growers, forestry officials and NGO staff. The study revealed that the legal provisions instituted to ensure the funds transparent operation were not implemented by fund administrators. Many stakeholders were clueless about the Fund and could neither access nor demand accountability in its administration. The chapter clarifies the information needs of various fund stakeholders, such as eligibility criteria, funding cycles, annual inflows and outflows, and a list of beneficiaries. It also discusses the implications of the findings, including mechanisms required to trigger the transparent running of the fund by its administrators. The thesis reveals new patterns of perennial land competition between state and traditional institutions. It demonstrates how prevailing institutional challenges reinforce this competition and enable unsustainable land use to flourish. At the same, it points to lapses in governance, including state failure to evolve its forest policies to meet changing demands and needs among contemporary actors and how the same challenges curtail access and ability to support forestation rehabilitation efforts in Ghana. Overall, the thesis notes that while tackling farming in forest reserves can be challenging due to its multiple drivers and the competing actor interests, FSCs have the potential to serve as an entry point that enables government and other actors to resolve their differences and find lasting solutions that enable local communities to achieve their livelihoods needs while contributing to sustainable land use. However, for this potential to be realised, actors need to invest in refining and piloting FSCs in specific localities.
... There is also the question of what institutional redesign of corporate disclosure systems is required to prevent 'dirty firms' from laundering their image through virtually costless climate 'talk' (Lyon & Maxwell, 2011;Pinkse & Kolk, 2009;Clark & Crawford, 2012 Doda et al., 2016;Dragomir, 2012). These weaknesses include the exploitation of schemes such as the GRI for impression management (Dragomir, 2012;Gupta & Mason, 2016;Talbot & Boiral, 2018), the institutionalisation of corporate sustainability (Boiral & Gendron, 2011), compounded by a lack of clear 'scientific' ...
This study conducts machine‐aided textual analysis on 725 corporate sustainability reports and empirically tests whether climate ‘talk’ within the sampled reports translates into performance ‘walk’, proxied by changes in greenhouse gas emissions over a 10‐year period. We find mixed results for the ‘talk–walk’ hypothesis, depending on the type of talk and the associated climate change actors involved. Indeed, our empirical models show that while some climate commitments are genuine, many constitute little more than ‘greenwashing’—producing symbolic rather than substantive action. We attribute this result to false signalling of climate transitioning in order to mislead due to misaligned incentives. An unexpected positive finding of the study is that talk about operational improvements is a significant predictor of climate performance improvement. On the other hand, reactive strategies are consistent with poor climate performance. Our findings highlight the significance of corporate climate strategies other than emissions reductions in assessing the effective contribution of business to the climate transition.
... As a ''critical transparency studies'' perspective has thus long argued, the uptake, institutionalization, and effects of environmental disclosure (including digitally enabled disclosure) need to be scrutinized within the broader normative and political contexts of its generation and use. 27,28,40 The examples of digital environmental monitoring in the issue domains of deforestation and over-fishing can help to illustrate some of the dynamics mentioned above. In each of these environmental grand challenges, digital, real-time monitoring helps to shine a light on the nature and extent of the problem at hand. ...
Digital technologies play an increasingly important role in addressing environmental challenges, such as climate change and resource depletion. Yet, the characteristics and implications of digitalized environmental governance are still under-conceptualized. In this perspective, we distinguish three dimensions of governance: (1) seeing and knowing, (2) participation and engagement, and (3) interventions and actions. For each dimension, we provide a critical perspective on the shifts that digital technologies generate in governance. We argue against the assumption that the use of digital technologies automatically results in improved outcomes or in more democratic decision-making. Instead, attention needs to be paid to the wider political and normative context in which digital technologies are proposed, designed, and used as environmental governance tools. We conclude with key questions for academics and policymakers to broaden the debate on responsible design and use of digital technologies in environmental governance.
... The digital data resulting from the proliferation of satellite remote sensing technology has been used for an increasing range of political and administrative purposes, including environmental governance. In this context, satellite data is often understood as a technological means to enhance transparency in environmental governance, which in turn is conceived as improving opportunities for participation in environmental decision-making and management (see generally Gupta and Mason, 2016;Mason, 2019;Gupta et al., 2020). In this perspective, transparency consists of the adoption of practices that allow public and private actors access to governmental information, making it possible to "see", and thus participate in and contest governmental exercises of power (Pinho, 2019;Georgiadou et al. 2014;Florini, 2007). ...
This paper analyzes the uses of digital satellite data on deforestation in the Amazon region, drawing on poststructuralist studies of scientific knowledge practices and Science and Technology Studies (STS). Focusing on changes under the government of President Jair Bolsonaro, we argue that populist right-wing rhetoric, policies, and practices towards deforestation in the Amazon must be understood in the context of a broad and sophisticated effort to discredit and dismantle pre-existing knowledge infrastructures and transparency regime. These structures had developed over time with the aim of making deforestation visible and manageable. The dismantling of these structures is part of the effort to establish a competing alethurgy, i.e an assemblage of procedures and rituals that claim to manifest the “truth” about the Amazon. This new alethurgy depends, crucially, on a regime of hypertransparency which enables practices of environmental counter-activism. This new alethurgy promotes an extractivist use of the Amazon in which deforestation is an acceptable price to pay for economic development.
... A critical aspect of the legitimacy of carbon market governance is the transparency of decision-making (Gupta & Mason, 2016), including the possibility for stakeholders to interact with the institution overseeing the system. Stakeholder consultations and grievance mechanisms are crucial to prevent negative impacts on sustainable development and environmental integrity. ...
Over the past two decades, the emergence of multiple carbon market segments has led to fragmentation of governance of international carbon markets. International baseline-and-credit systems for greenhouse gas mitigation have been repeatedly expected to wither away, but show significant resilience. Still, Parties to the Paris Agreement have struggled to finalize rules for market-based cooperation under Article 6, which are still being negotiated. Generally, there is tension between international top-down and bottom-up governance. The former was pioneered through the Clean Development Mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol and is likely to be utilized for the Article 6.4 mechanism, while the latter was used for the first track of Joint Implementation and will be applied for Article 6.2. Voluntary carbon markets governed bottom-up and outside the Kyoto Protocol by private institutions have recently gained importance by offering complementary project types and methodological approaches. The clear intention of some Parties to use market-based cooperation in order to reach their nationally determined contributions to the Paris Agreement have led to an ongoing process of navigating the alignment of these fragmented carbon market instruments with the implementation of nationally determined contributions and Paris Agreement’s governance architecture. We discuss emerging features of international carbon market governance in the public and private domain, including political and technical issues. Fragmented governance is characterized by different degrees of transparency, centralization, and scales. We assess the crunch issues in the Article 6 negotiations through the lens of these governance features and their effectiveness, focusing on governance principles and their operationalization to ensure environmental integrity and avoid double counting.
... This again implicates a different scope and extent of desired transparency. Detailed, quantitative information relating to GHG emissions is essential to participating in such markets (Gupta & Mason, 2016). Yet, not all countries are enthusiastic about nor equipped to generate such transparency, and market mechanisms are a highly contested topic within UNFCCC negotiations. ...
Elaborate transparency systems are now at the core of the 2015 Paris Agreement, with the assumption that this will enhance accountability, trust, and greater climate policy ambition. Much attention is now being devoted to increasing the capacity of developing countries to comply with climate transparency requirements. Contrary to viewing capacity building merely as a neutral ‘means of implementation’, our point of departure here is that capacity building has the potential to shape the nature and direction of climate transparency to be generated by countries. Key unasked questions are: What kind of transparency is facilitated through capacity-building efforts, and to further what climate policy ends? The potential steering effects of capacity building for transparency remain, in our view, largely unexamined. In addressing this research gap, we undertake a synthesis review of diverse perspectives on the ‘what, how and who’ of capacity building for transparency, as identifiable in (i) academic and grey literature; (ii) policy perspectives advanced by developed and developing countries; and (iii) emerging practices in two prominent capacity building for transparency initiatives. We draw on this three-part review to shed light on the scope and extent of climate transparency (to be) generated by developing countries in practice, with implications for the transformative potential of transparency in global climate governance.
Key policy insights
• Transparency about climate actions is central to the 2015 Paris Agreement.
• Efforts are underway to build capacities of developing countries to comply with transparency requirements.
• Rather than merely a neutral ‘means of implementation’, capacity building has the potential to influence the scope and extent of transparency generated by countries.
• To date, the focus has remained on building capacities to report on GHG emissions and mitigation, notwithstanding diverse additional priorities.
• There is a need for empirical analysis of capacity building’s steering effects in domestic contexts.
... The who question addresses the actors and institutions that partake in monitoring schemes (Waterman & Wood, 1993). To better understand monitoring actors, the distinction between the role of public (i.e., governmentdriven) and private (i.e., society-driven) policy monitoring actors has proven useful (Gupta & Mason, 2016). Many of the advantages and disadvantages of private and public actors that have been identified in the context of policy evaluation (see Schoenefeld & Jordan, 2017;Weiss, 1993) also apply to monitoring. ...
The European Green Deal (EGD) puts forward and engages with review mechanisms, such as the European Semester and policy monitoring, to ensure progress towards the long-term climate targets in a turbulent policy environment. Soft-governance mechanisms through policy monitoring have been long in the making, but their design, effects, and politics remain surprisingly under-researched. While some scholars have stressed their importance to climate governance, others have highlighted the difficulties in implementing robust policy monitoring systems, suggesting that they are neither self-implementing nor apolitical. This article advances knowledge on climate policy monitoring in the EU by proposing a new analytical framework to better understand past, present, and potential future policy monitoring efforts, especially in the context of the EGD. Drawing on Lasswell (1965), it unpacks the politics of policy monitoring by analysing who monitors, what , why , when , and with what effect(s) . The article discusses each element of the framework with a view to three key climate policy monitoring efforts in the EU which are particularly relevant for the EGD, namely those emerging from the Energy Efficiency Directive, the Renewable Energy Directive, and the Monitoring Mechanism Regulation (now included in the Energy Union Governance Regulation), as well as related processes for illustration. Doing so reveals that the policy monitoring regimes were set up differently in each case, that definitions of the subject of monitoring (i.e., public policies) either differ or remain elusive, and that the corresponding political and policy impact of monitoring varies. The article concludes by reflecting on the implications of the findings for governing climate change by means of monitoring through the emerging EGD.
... • Participation, representation and empowerment, grounded in a human rights and justice-based agenda (Fraser, 2009; see also Gaventa and Barrett, 2010 on citizenship; Pitkin, 1967 on representation; Evans et al., 2021 on social inclusion, empowerment); • Transparency (Mehrpouya and Salles-Djelic, 2019), while recognizing that this is embedded in power relations and can be used as an instrument to obscure actions (Kosack and Fung, 2014;Gupta and Mason, 2016); • Accountability, which aims to reduce power advantages, fostering the mechanisms and capacity, or 'countervailing power', for weaker actors to take strategic action on their own behalf (Agrawal and Ribot, 1999;Fung and Wright, 2003;Fox, 2020); • Justice and equality, as equally important as resource or climate goals (Menton et al., 2020;Martin et al., 2020; see Arora-Jonsson et al., 2019 on gender equality); and • Adaptive learning, assuring ongoing monitoring, reflection and adjustment to the course of action, thus recognizing, with humility, that we all have much to learn (Sarmiento Barletti et al., 2020;Ros-Tonen et al., 2014;Colfer et al., 2021). ...
We are living in a time of crisis on planet Earth. Urgent calls for transformational change are getting louder. Technical solutions have an important role to play in addressing pressing global challenges, but alone they are not enough. After all, who decides what kind of transformation is needed, of what, and for whom? What principles guide those decisions, and how are decision-makers held accountable? This commentary article argues that these governance questions are central in any solution, in order to simultaneously address the planetary crises of forest and biodiversity loss and degradation and growing inequality. To this end, we examine governance in forests and around trees, in landscapes and on farms, through the lens of power and social justice. For applied research aimed at actionable solutions to these global problems, we propose a governance research agenda for the next decade that is both transformative and just.
... Our study fills these gaps and investigates whether capital markets reward firms with greater overall carbon disclosure in both developed and developing countries. This research question is important because transparent carbon reporting is the first step toward improving GHG emissions management and enhancing firm accountability (Gupta and Mason, 2016), which require global efforts from both developed and developing countries. ...
Our study focuses on the value relevance of corporate voluntary carbon disclosure. Our sample includes firms from the United States (listed in the S&P 500) and firms from Brazil, Russia, India, and China that are targeted by the CDP. We examine whether the capital market rewards firms’ voluntary carbon disclosure. Voluntary carbon disclosure is measured as firms’ propensity to voluntarily disclose carbon information and the comprehensiveness and quality of their disclosure. We find that firms with greater carbon disclosure have higher firm value. Furthermore, the positive association between firm value and voluntary carbon disclosure is stronger in developing countries. We also find that large emitters with sufficient carbon disclosure experience a less negative valuation than firms with inadequate carbon disclosure. Furthermore, a subcomponent analysis suggests that the disclosure of specific types of climate risk and opportunity is rewarded by investors and can mitigate the valuation penalty of carbon emissions. These results have important implications for companies, investors, and regulators. Our analyses enhance understanding of the consequences of voluntary carbon reporting, which enriches the reporting of current financial information.
... While a full review of the environmental and resource governance-bydisclosure literature falls beyond the scope of this article (see, e.g., Gupta and Mason 2014;Zalik and Osuoka 2020), the main arguments have been that governance-by-disclosure reduces informational asymmetries and increases the capacity of stakeholders to evaluate performances, but that it falls short in actually enhancing capacity to change the status quo and modify behaviors and the power of incumbent decision makers (Mason 2020). Ciplet et al. (2018), for example, find that disclosure in climate finance implemented under the Paris Agreement did not translate into widespread accountability in emissions, possibly because of the propensity of transparency initiatives to foster technocratization rather than democratization (Gupta and Mason 2016)with empirical research on transparency identifying the "public" as the weak point of governance-by-disclosure (Fox 2015;Lujala et al. 2020). 1 A further challenge is that depending on the specific objective(s) of a governance-by-disclosure initiative and the context in which it is implemented, different kinds and types of information, disclosure avenues, and enabling conditions are required for it to be successful (Fenster 2015;Fox 2015;Heald 2006). For example, restraining extractive industry's environmental or social impact requires different types of information to be disclosed than the information that is supposed to form a basis for the public to demand reforms in national natural resource revenue governance (Bleischwitz 2014). ...
Transparency is now a core principle in environmental and resource governance. Responding to calls for a clearer identification of pathways from transparency to effective change, this article identifies three “Theories of Change” for governance-by-disclosure and applies them to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). Among the best known global transparency initiatives, the EITI has used an inclusive multistakeholder governance model and elaborate compliance standards, disclosing trillions of dollars in natural resource revenues. Yet, after two decades, the EITI is still largely without an explicit and proven theory. This study finds that a Theory of Change for the EITI is possible, valuable, and even necessary as the EITI risks becoming obsolete in some participating countries. The proposed Theories of Change provide valuable templates for environmental and resource governance, yet such models need to reflect national contexts, needs, challenges, and objectives to ensure fit and effective implementation, including measures enforcing accountability.
... Mas os limites da transparência tornam -se evidentes também quando se investigam os propósitos e racionalidades associadas à mesma, assim como os atores e interlocutores da transparência. Efetivamente, o ideal transformativo da transparência segundo o qual esta estaria associada a uma maior democratização e participação dos cidadãos, é posto em causa quando se revelam diferentes racionalidades da transparência na governança ambiental e mesmo um predomínio das lógicas de tecnocratização, marketização e privatização em vez de democratização (Gupta & Mason, 2016). A transparência globalizada, associada a fluxos transnacionais pode na verdade cingir -se à comunicação entre agentes económicos e privados e não ser destinada a uma maior abertura das organizações à comunidade e ao diálogo com os cidadãos. ...
O artigo faz uma discussão sobre a economia de plataforma, apresentando conceituações, expondo modelos a partir de uma revisão de literatura e abordando o surgimento de um fenômeno que denominamos monopólios digitais.
... Differentiated transparency requirements between developed and developing country Parties in the UNFCCC have been the subject of much contestation over the years, reflecting the reality that transparency is not seen merely as a technical matter involving neutral reporting but is a site of political conflict and negotiation (Gupta & Mason, 2016;Gupta & van Asselt, 2019). In particular, developing countries have resisted calls to increase their reporting obligations, and have their climate actions subject to international oversight. ...
Transparency is increasingly central to multilateral climate governance. In this article, we undertake one of the first systematic assessments of the nature and extent of compliance with transparency requirements under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Extensive resources are now being devoted to setting up national and international transparency systems that aim to render visible what individual countries are doing with regard to climate change. It is widely assumed that such transparency is vital to securing accountability, trust and thereby also enhanced climate actions from all. Yet, whether transparency lives up to this transformative promise remains largely unexamined. We generate a first systematic overview here of the nature and extent of country engagement with and adherence to UNFCCC transparency requirements. Drawing on extensive primary documents, including national reports and technical expert assessments of these reports, we generate ‘Transparency Adherence Indices’ for developed and developing country Parties to the UNFCCC. Our results reveal wide variations in adherence to mandatory reporting requirements and no clear general pattern of improvement since 2014. Our Indices help to illustrate trends and highlight knowledge gaps around the observed adherence patterns. This is timely since the 2015 Paris Agreement calls for an ‘enhanced transparency framework’ to be implemented by 2024 that builds on existing UNFCCC transparency systems. We conclude with identifying a research and policy agenda to help explain observed patterns of adherence, and emphasize the need for continued scrutiny of assumed links between transparency and climate action.
Key policy insights
• The UNFCCC and its 2015 Paris Agreement call for ever greater climate transparency from all countries.
• We develop ‘Transparency Adherence Indices’ that reveal frequency of engagement and adherence to reporting requirements of both developed and developing countries.
• Our findings reveal high engagement in transparency arrangements by developed countries and variable engagement from developing countries.
• We question what variable adherence to reporting requirements actually signifies, given how such adherence is assessed within UNFCCC technical expert reports.
• Further research to explain the range of observed adherence patterns is important, in light of the Paris Agreement’s requirements for enhanced transparency from all.
• The assumed link between enhanced transparency and climate action needs further analysis.
This article scrutinizes the role of transparency in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Specifically, it examines a widely heard claim that ‘transparency is the backbone of the Paris Agreement’, and the assumption that mandatory transparency (reporting and review) is essential to fill potential gaps in climate action left by voluntary, nationally determined climate targets. We subject this claim to critical scrutiny by tracing the political contestations around the desired role of transparency in the UNFCCC, with a focus on mitigation-related transparency. Our analysis shows that, despite developing countries expressing concerns during the pre-Paris negotiations, the Paris Agreement's enhanced transparency framework (ETF) is almost exclusively ‘enhanced’ (compared with earlier provisions) for developing countries, with some instances of regression for developed countries. Furthermore, the effects of such enhanced reporting are not straightforward and might de facto have an impact on countries’ autonomy to nationally determine their mitigation targets in diverse ways, even as all the detailed reporting does not facilitate comparability of effort. With implementation of the ETF due to start in 2024, our analysis provides a timely exploration of the extent to which transparency is really a backbone of the Paris Agreement, and for whom and with what implications for ambitious action from all under the international climate regime. It calls into question whether the transformative potential of transparency, much extolled within the UNFCCC process, will materialize for all countries in a similar manner or rather will have an impact on countries differentially.
Recent regulatory interventions are beginning to mandate climate disclosure in listed firms. Although compelling, prior studies demonstrate that firms can symbolically commit to climate and environmental disclosures yet not undertake action. Neo-institutional theory (NIT) suggests that two strategies exist: the legitimacy perspective, which manifests in symbolic efforts, and the efficiency perspective, which is more consistent with substantive efforts. In this article, we apply NIT to assess the climate transition efforts in large, publicly traded firms in five countries with similar regulatory and economic profiles (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States). We gauge climate efforts by membership in corporate climate initiatives (CCIs) and the integration of climate action plans (CAPs). Of the eight CCIs and three CAPs investigated, we find that only two CCIs and one CAP help to improve emissions performance. The majority of firms in our sample, therefore, demonstrate the legitimacy perspective of NIT.
How might feelings toward the future shape how urban climate adaptation happens? I explore this question through the exemplary case of Miami, Florida. Notably, "data-driven, transparent decision-making" on climate change features as a key norm and practice across the city's adaptation efforts-a stark contrast to its longstanding, highly opaque styles of governance. Drawing on theories of affect, anticipatory government, and technopolitics, I argue that the transparency-oriented techniques of Miami adaptation efforts are intended to: (1) generate positive orientations toward the city's climate-changed future, (2) secure attachments to the city, and (3) preempt unplanned adaptation: sudden, mass property devaluations that will crater the city's economy and Miami's ability to weather coming storms. But the positive, economy-securing affective responses that officials seek to engineer are provisional, and have prompted significant pushback and counter demonstrations of climate transparency among activists, residents, and expert publics. In tracing these developments, the paper advances knowledge on (1) the centrality of governing feeling when governing urban climate futures and (2) an emergent, affective sphere of urban climate politics whose features and fissures will become increasingly important in cities around the world. ARTICLE HISTORY
The article “Governing through the nationally determined contribution (NDC): five functions to steer states’ climate conduct“ by Jernnäs (2023) is part of an important research effort to understand how climate governance under the Paris Agreement operates. The article succeeds in demonstrating that the adoption of the Paris Agreement did not resolve many of the long-standing differences between states, but further clarity is needed to accurately interpret its results. In this response, I outline five aspects to guide future research on NDCs as a governance instrument including the crucial distinction between exploring potential NDC functions based on submissions during the negotiation process and examining the actual NDC functions based on the adopted Paris rulebook and empirical observations. My response draws on participant observation at the United Nations climate change negotiations since 2015 (Leiter 2022, Langlet et al. 2023) and is further substantiated through literature on global climate change negotiations.
This study examines the influence of Turkish businesses on climate policies within the European integration framework. It emphasizes the need for businesses to address climate change and comply with the European Green Deal, considering its tangible effects and the current economic crisis in Turkey. This study highlights the importance of global climate finance and provides recommendations to improve climate lobbying practices, ensure compliance with green transformation regulations, and strengthen EU-Turkey relations. It emphasizes the crucial role of Turkish businesses in driving Turkey's green transformation and suggests that effective lobbying efforts can positively impact EU-Turkey relations in the evolving green landscape. Key recommendations include prioritizing the transition away from coal, promoting transparency, and advocating for stakeholder capitalism.
This study also explores how Turkey's green transformation can contribute to its EU
accession ambitions, particularly in the context of the global energy crisis caused by the war between Russia and Ukraine.
ISBN: 978-605-71291-4-7
While the world is still in the grasp of COVID‐19, countries are contemplating how to get their economies back on their feet. With a unique opportunity to do so in a sustainable manner, there is an urgent need to revisit the governance of climate change. Opportunities are clearly there: the resurgence in top‐down policies in the pandemic might spill‐over to climate governance; green economic stimuli might cause an increase in market‐based approaches; or an increased focus on solidarity, inclusion and collective buy‐in may drive more inclusive network‐based governance. Using the classic trichotomy of hierarchy, market and network governance, we have analysed the findings of 60 interviews with expert representatives from government, industry and third sector parties in the UK and the Netherlands. Their consideration of the key policies and measures needed to help the transition forward point towards a clear desire for a more hierarchical approach. In addition, mixing the three approaches, especially market and hierarchy, is considered the best way forward.
The article examines Kazakhstan, the largest economy in Central Asia, which, on the way to sustainable economic growth, adequately responds to systemic challenges and adapts the experience of advanced countries. The generalizing indicators of the effectiveness of state regulation of the processes contributing to the growth of the stability of the national economy are given. The reasons for the weak involvement of entrepreneurs and citizens in measures for the sustainable development of Kazakhstan have been identified. It has been substantiated that the development of a strategy for the country's sustainable development and the achievement of inclusive economic growth require coordination of the work of government bodies, business and civil society. It is shown that in Kazakhstan the main drivers for the implementation of the culture of sustainable development are large enterprises and the quasi-public sector. Private enterprises do not yet see the opportunity to profit from integrating sustainable development goals into business processes. The paper emphasizes that in order to increase the stability of the poorly diversified economy of Kazakhstan, emphasis should be placed on the transformation of the mining sector, which has the potential to maintain investment attractiveness, both for domestic and foreign investors. Based on the results of the study, the authors highlight the most important aspects of building a new model of sustainable development in the foreseeable future.
The paper examines a scenario exercise concerning deployment of solar geoengineering by a small group of states that are particularly vulnerable to climate change. Two groups of participants were each asked to provide expert decision-making advice to an alliance comprising great powers, and to propose a political response to the deployment initiative. This paper discusses the initial governance proposals and examines differences and exchanges between the groups throughout the exercise. The two groups delivered distinct governance proposals. The differences, which were driven largely by divergent worldviews and assumptions about the geopolitical context, provide insights into the complexities of responses to the “free-driver” of solar geoengineering deployment, internal functioning and cohesion of coalitions, and interactions among multiple responses to climate change.
Using Indonesia's energy sector as case study, we explore the effects of the domestic measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) system as a manifestation of national level climate transparency. We examine the ways in which MRV facilitates state actors' reflexive capacity to recognize, reflect on, and respond to the demand for mitigation-related information emanating from global climate governance processes. Our results show that engagement with Indonesia's domestic MRV system enhanced actors' capacities to reorganize institutional arrangements, including competing rules and practices; recalibrate data and information systems; reprioritize the deployment of available resources; and reformulate policy and strategy. These reflexive responses illustrate the range of potential MRV-associated effects that can be realized in a domestic context, beyond simply generating and reporting information. We conclude that while the generation of transparency has yet to directly enhance domestic mitigation action, it facilitates improvement of informational and executive systems and infrastructures that support mitigation policies.
This article consists of a critical review of the conceptual scholarship on the governance of climate finance and includes an overview of the institutional arrangements and governance logics that provide climate finance. New decentralized, polycentric structures allow for climate finance to more effectively reach the sub- and non-state actors most directly implementing climate change governance. However, the expansion of climate finance into market-inflected forms of blended finance, as well as debt-based financing, express a neoliberal logic that shifts power to market actors. This may challenge the efficacy of climate finance. We suggest that further research is needed on polycentric systems in climate finance, since an apparent expansion in the diversity of providers is also accompanied by a counter-intuitive concentration of decision-making power with financial fund managers. We join others in suggesting that the weight of scholarship advocates for a strong return to public authored finance and governance, under the auspices of Green New Deal programs and more widely.
This article is categorized under:
• Policy and Governance > Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance
Abstract
2017 and 2018 global climate finance flows, USD billions, values shown are average of 2 years' data. Source: Climate Policy Initiative.
This chapter introduces the first main part of this volume, on the overarching 'architecture' of global climate governance beyond 2012. In particular, the central question that guides all chapters in this part is about the causes and consequences of fragmentation versus integration of governance architectures. We ask which type of governance architectures promises a higher degree of institutional performance in terms of social and environmental effectiveness, and in particular whether a well-integrated governance architecture is likely to be more effective than a fragmented governance architecture. This question of increasing fragmentation of systems of global governance and of its relative benefits and problems has become a major source of concern for observers and policy-makers alike. Yet there is little consensus in the academic literature on this issue: in different strands of academic research, we find different predictions that range from a positive, affirmative assessment of fragmentation to a rather negative one (Zelli et al., this volume, Chapter 3). A key example is global climate governance, where advantages and disadvantages of a fragmented governance architecture have become important elements in proposals and strategies for future institutional development. Several proposals for a future climate governance architecture have been put forward that explicitly assert the value of fragmentation or diversity, or at least implicitly accept it. Others, however, remain supportive of a more integrated overall architecture. And yet, political science lacks a conceptual framework for the comparative study of different types and degrees of fragmentation of global governance architectures.
In recent years, carbon has been increasingly rendered 'visible' both discursively and through political processes that have imbued it with economic value. Greenhouse gas emissions have been constructed as social and environmental costs and their reduction or avoidance as social and economic gain. The 'marketisation' of carbon, which has been facilitated through various compliance schemes such as the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, the Kyoto Protocol, the proposed Australian Emissions Reduction Scheme and through the voluntary carbon credit market, have attempted to bring carbon into the 'foreground' as an economic liability and/or opportunity. Accompanying the increasing economic visibility of carbon are reports of frauds and scams - the 'gaming of carbon markets'(Chan 2010). As Lohmann (2010: 21) points out, 'what are conventionally classed as scams or frauds are an inevitable feature of carbon offset markets, not something that could be eliminated by regulation targeting the specific businesses or state agencies involved'. This paper critiques the disparate discourses of fraud risk in carbon markets and examines cases of fraud within emerging landscapes of green criminology.
The object of the present paper is to derive the solution of generalized kinetic equations of fractional order involving the Wright generalized Bessel function or Bessel-Mitland function. Results obtained by Chaurasia and Pandey [24] are derived more precisely through results obtained in the present paper in terms of K4 - function obtained by Sharma [12] belived to be new. Special case, involving the F-function is considered.
In this chapter, Arthur Mol elaborates on informational governance in the environmental domain. He assesses the achievements of transparency to date in enhancing democratic quality and promoting environmental effectiveness. As he shows, markets and states jostle to capture transparency arrangements for their own diverse ends, which are not necessarily aligned with assumed normative linkages between transparency, democracy and participation, as well as environmental reform. The chapter argues that transparency in governance has entered a reflexive phase, one in which secondarytransparency i.e. additional layers of transparency provided by information intermediaries, is key to making primary disclosure usable. Through assessing the promise, potential and pitfalls of governance by disclosure in the sustainability realm, Mol’s provocative conclusion is that transparency has “lost its innocence” as an arbiter of democratic and environmental gains.
Recent scholarship on transparency has been voluminous, and transparency policies continue to garner international adherents through global initiatives such as the Open Government Partnership. Yet extant scholarship has failed to address the empirical parameters for what constitutes 'transparency' and what does not. This lacuna gives way to misuses and abuses, jeopardizing the analytical utility of the term and the integrity of so-called 'transparency' policies. This article provides a framework and a vocabulary for identifying and evaluating transparency, which depends on two necessary and jointly sufficient conditions: the visibility of information, and its inferability --the ability to draw accurate conclusions from it. By disaggregating these two conditions for identifying transparency, this article provides a framework for the emerging research agenda on the quality of transparency.
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is the best-known framework for voluntary reporting of environmental and social performance by business worldwide. Using extensive empirical data, including interviews and documentary analysis, we examine GRI's organizational field and conclude that since its modest beginnings in 1999 GRI has been by several measures a successful institutionalization project. But the institutional logic of this new entity, as an instrument for corporate sustainability management, leaves out one of the central elements of the initial vision for GRI: as a mobilizing agent for many societal actors. This emergent logic reflects GRI's dominant constituency – large global companies and financial institutions and international business management consultancies – and not the less active civil society organizations and organized labor. We attribute these developments to factors such as building GRI within the existing institutional structures; the highly inclusive multistakeholder process; and the underdeveloped base of information users. From the institutional theory perspective, this case shows how the process of institutionalization is deeply affected by initial strategies of the founders, and how it reproduces existing power relations. From the governance perspective, this case leads us to question the power of commodified information to mobilize civil society and to strengthen governance based on partnerships.
This article examines the nexus between financial activism and global environmental governance, analyzing the emergence of what we call "“investor-driven governance networks"” (IGNs). Our paper seeks to probe the significance of IGNs as a particular manifestation of responsible investor activism and more generally as a financial instrument of environmental governance and sustain-ability. We argue that IGNs, many of which are concerned with climate change governance, have become important actors in the global economy and deserve more analysis by scholars concerned with new forms of authority in global environmental politics. As an example of emerging transnational private governance, IGNs utilize the power of the financial sector to shape the discourse on climate change within the business community and to link the long-term viability of environmental sustainability to the core strategic interests of corporations and investors. (c)© 2011 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
In this contribution, we explore the tensions that seem inherent in the claim that transparency policies "empower" the users of disclosed information vis-àvis those who are asked to provide the information. Since these tensions are particularly relevant in relation to voluntary disclosure, our analysis focuses on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) as the world's leading voluntary corporate non-financial reporting scheme. Corporate sustainability reporting is often hailed as a powerful instrument to improve the environmental performance of business and to empower societal groups, including consumers, in their relations with the corporate world. Yet, our analysis illustrates that the relationship between transparency and empowerment is conflictual at all four levels of activity examined in this article: in the rhetoric and policies of the GRI as well as in the actual reporting practice and in the activities of intermediaries in response to the organization's disclosure standard. (c) 2010 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The global promotion of transparency for the extractive sector-oil, gas and mining-has become increasingly accepted as an appropriate solution to weaknesses in governance in resource-rich developing nations. Proponents argue that if extractive firms disclose publicly their payments to governments, citizens will be able to hold governments accountable. This will improve the management of natural resources, reduce corruption, and mitigate conflict. These beliefs are embodied in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), initially a unilateral effort launched by Tony Blair that has evolved into a global program. Why has transparency become the solution of choice for managing natural resource wealth, and how has the EITI evolved? This article argues that intersecting transnational networks with complementary global norms facilitated construction of transparency as a solution for management of resource revenues. This in turn promoted the gradual expansion of the institutional architecture, membership, and scope of the EITI despite significant political barriers. (c) 2010 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The concepts of transparency and accountability are closely linked: transparency is supposed to generate accountability. This article questions this widely held assumption. Transparency mobilises the power of shame, yet the shameless may not be vulnerable to public exposure. Truth often fails to lead to justice. After exploring different definitions and dimensions of the two ideas, the more relevant question turns out tobe: what kinds of transparency lead to what kinds of accountability, and under what conditions? The article concludes by proposing that the concept can be unpacked in terms of two distinct variants. Transparency can be either 'clear'or 'opaque', while accountability can be either 'soft'or 'hard'.
The growth of pollution that crosses national borders represents a significant threat to human health and ecological sustainability. Various international agreements exist between countries to reduce risks to their populations, however there is often a mismatch between national territories of state responsibility and transboundary hazards. All too often, state priorities do not correspond to the priorities of the people affected by pollution, who often have little recourse against major polluters, particularly transnational corporations operating across national boundaries. Drawing on case studies, The New Accountability provides a fresh understanding of democratic accountability for transboundary and global harm and argues that environmental responsibility should be established in open public discussions about harm and risk. Most critically it makes the case that, regardless of nationality, affected parties should be able to demand that polluters and harm producers be held accountable for their actions and if necessary provide reparations.
Information disclosure is the most obvious manifestation of the transparency turn in global governance, as evident from a growing uptake of environmental disclosure practices by countries, corporations and international organizations. Any analytic examination of environmental disclosure measures needs to grasp their relation to wider configurations of political and economic authority. Highlighting these relations of power reveals that transparency measures do not necessarily overcome asymmetries in information access, and may even exacerbate them. (c) 2008 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
This paper examines corporate responses to climate change in relation to the development of reporting mechanisms for greenhouse gases, more specifically carbon disclosure. It first presents some background and context on the evolution of carbon trading and disclosure, and then develops a conceptual framework using theories of global governance, institutional theory and commensuration to understand the role of carbon disclosure in the emerging climate regime. Subsequently, a closer look is taken at carbon disclosure and reporting mechanisms, with a particular focus on the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). Our analysis of responses shows that CDP has been successfully using institutional investors to urge firms to disclose extensive information about their climate change activities. However, although response rates in terms of numbers of disclosing firms are impressive and growing, neither the level of carbon disclosure that CDP promotes nor the more detailed carbon accounting provide information that is particularly valuable for investors, NGOs or policy makers at this stage. As a project of commensuration, carbon disclosure has achieved some progress in technical terms, but much less with regard to the cognitive and value dimensions.
'How do the different international institutions addressing climate change interact? What are the actual and potential synergies and conflicts? What are the most effective strategies to manage institutional interplay? Harro van Asselt's expertise in both international law and international relations, as well as his intimate knowledge of the policy-making process, make him ideally equipped to address these fundamental questions. Based on detailed case studies, he provides a wide-ranging, lucid, and theoretically sophisticated study of climate change governance. Essential reading for international lawyers and international relations scholars alike'.
In this introductory chapter, Aarti Gupta and Michael Mason lay out the rationale for the in-depth examination of transparency-based global environmental governance arrangements undertaken in this volume. The chapter outlines how “governance by disclosure”, that is, targeted disclosure of information intended to steer behavioral change and achieve specific outcomes, is symptomatic of a transparency turn in this realm. It draws on various theoretical traditions in (global) environmental politics scholarship to outline a distinctive approach—critical transparency studies—that informs the analyses in this volume. This critical perspective underpins the analytical framework developed in the chapter to assess the uptake, institutionalization, and effects of transparency in global environmental governance. The framework includes propositions about the drivers of transparency’s uptake and its potential transformative effects, with which all empirical chapters engage. The chapter concludes with an overview of the contributions and summary of key findings. Its point of departure is that transparency’s effects are likely to manifest themselves in specific constellations of power, practice, and authority relationships, which shape its transformative potential. The chapter thus outlines a research agenda to begin exploring whether, and under what conditions, transparency’s emancipatory promise may be realized.
In this chapter, Janelle Knox-Hayes and David Levy analyse the role of multinational corporations in global environmental governance through the lens of corporate disclosure. They explore the premise that disclosure functions to reinforce the authority and legitimacy of corporations as increasingly important arbiters of (global environmental) governance. In assessing this claim, the authors document the rise of corporate non-financial sustainability reporting systems, including the Global Reporting Initiative and the Carbon Disclosure Project. The chapter argues that two competing institutional logics underpin the embrace and spread of non-financial disclosure: a logic of civil regulation, promoted by civil society actors and intended to secure greater corporate accountability, versus a functionalist corporate logic of sustainability management that highlights the instrumental benefits of disclosure to company managers, investors, and auditors. The chapter reveals how the growing ascendancy of a corporate instrumental logic shapes the quality and modalities of carbon and corporate sustainability disclosure.
Which SUVs are most likely to rollover? What cities have the unhealthiest drinking water? Which factories are the most dangerous polluters? What cereals are the most nutritious? In recent decades, governments have sought to provide answers to such critical questions through public disclosure to force manufacturers, water authorities, and others to improve their products and practices. Corporate financial disclosure, nutritional labels, and school report cards are examples of such targeted transparency policies. At best, they create a light-handed approach to governance that improves markets, enriches public discourse, and empowers citizens. But such policies are frequently ineffective or counterproductive. Based on an analysis of eighteen U.S. and international policies, Full Disclosure shows that information is often incomplete, incomprehensible, or irrelevant to consumers, investors, workers, and community residents. To be successful, transparency policies must be accurate, keep ahead of disclosers' efforts to find loopholes, and, above all, focus on the needs of ordinary citizens. © Archon Fung, Mary Graham, and David Weil 2007 and Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Transparency—openness, secured through greater availability of information—is increasingly seen as part of the solution to a complex array of economic, political, and ethical problems in an interconnected world. The “transparency turn” in global environmental governance in particular is seen in a range of international agreements, voluntary disclosure initiatives, and public-private partnerships. This is the first book to investigate whether transparency in global environmental governance is in fact a broadly transformative force or plays a more limited, instrumental role.
After three conceptual, context-setting chapters, the book examines ten specific and diverse instances of “governance by disclosure.” These include state-led mandatory disclosure initiatives that rely on such tools as prior informed consent and monitoring, measuring, reporting and verification; and private (or private-public), largely voluntary efforts that include such corporate transparency initiatives as the Carbon Disclosure Project and such certification schemes as the Forest Stewardship Council. The cases, which focus on issue areas including climate change, biodiversity, biotechnology, natural resource exploitation, and chemicals, demonstrate that although transparency is ubiquitous, its effects are limited and often specific to particular contexts. The book explores in what circumstances transparency can offer the possibility of a new emancipatory politics in global environmental governance.
This chapter focuses on the politics of measuring, reporting and verification systems (MRV) underpinning the REDD+ mechanism now being negotiated within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests, and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries) is a mechanism by which industrialized countries can compensate developing countries for reducing their forest carbon emissions. The authors, Aarti Gupta, Marjanneke Vijge, Esther Turnhout and Till Pistorius, analyze global negotiations around the scope and practices of REDD+ MRV systems, arguing that what should be measured, reported and verified, how, and by whom, are fundamentally political questions, although they are often portrayed as solely technical. This chapter pinpoints the role of transparency as a contested means to assess and reward environmental performance, in a broader context wherein forest carbon is becoming a valorizable yet unevenly distributed global commodity.
This article reviews critical social science analyses of carbon accounting and monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) systems associated with reducing emissions from deforestation, forest degradation and conservation, sustainable use and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+). REDD+ MRV systems are often portrayed as technical. In questioning such a framing, we draw on perspectives from science and technology and governmentality studies to assess how MRV systems may exercise disciplinary power (through standardization, simplification and erasing the local) but also mobilize counter-expertise, produce resistance and thus have necessarily contingent effects. In doing so, we advance the concept of 'carbon accountability' to denote both how forest carbon is accounted for in REDD+ and the need to hold to account those who are doing so.
This paper conceptualizes the REDD+ policy framework as the world's largest experiment in Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES). REDD+ promotes the commodification of ecosystems' carbon storage and sequestration functions on a global scale and it is consistent with market-based conservation approaches and the 'neoliberalization of nature'. REDD+ is therefore problematized on the grounds that, first, eases a transition from an ethically informed conservation ethos to a utilitarian one that simplifies nature and undermines socio-ecological resilience; second, relies on a single valuation language that may crowd-out conservation motivations in the short and long term; and, last, is sustained on a 'multiple-win' discourse that in practice lacks procedural legitimacy in many developing countries and reproduces existing inequities and forms of social exclusion. The argument is developed drawing on PES literature and insights from critical theorists and practitioners of nature conservation.
This study assesses the effectiveness of two types information disclosure programs – state-based mandatory carbon reporting programs and the voluntary Carbon Disclosure Project, which uses investor pressure to push firms to disclose carbon emissions and carbon management strategies. I match firms in each program to control groups of firms that have not participated in each program. Using panel data methods and a difference in differences specification, I measure the impact of each program on plant-level carbon emissions, plant-level carbon intensity, and plant level output. I find that neither program has generated an impact on plant-level carbon emissions, emissions intensity, or output. Placing this study in contrast with others that demonstrate improvements from mandatory information disclosure, these results suggest that how information is reported to stakeholders has important implications for program effectiveness.
During the 1990s, increasing transparency emerged as a key objective of those attempting to design the structures of contemporary global governance, touted as "the solution to everything from international financial crises to arms races to street crime".2 A wide array of social forces, non-governmental organisations, state and inter-state agencies have invoked the ideal of transparency in the making of the various structures of global governance. Transparency has featured in competing normative visions of global governance, taking on a range of contested meanings in differing contexts. Inquiry into the drive for increased transparency offers, then, a useful vantage point from which to consider the political processes associated with the making of the structures of contemporary global governance. This paper traces and accounts for the drive for increased transparency as it has been felt in global environmental governance (GEG). Scholars in International Studies (IS) concerned with GEG cast transparency as a norm that has become significant in transforming state behaviour. Increased transparency with regard to states' environmental performance assists in the implementation of inter-state environmental treaties. It is the contention of this paper that such a representation of the rise of transparency in GEG is at best narrow and partial and, at worst, misleading. The impact of transparency in GEG is not as clear as the existing research would suggest. Transparency has become significant not simply in terms of implementing inter-state environmental treaties, but is coming to permeate the structure of environmental governance in a broader and more pervasive manner. Transparency tends to prompt a belief in the desirability of a release of information concerning the environmental performance of institutionalised practices across both state and market institutions. Inquiry into this broader drive for transparency serves to illuminate important contested processes of change currently underway in the making of GEG.
In recent years, the number of transnational climate change governance arrangements has increased. Transnational corporations in partnership with governments, intergovernmental organizations, and non-governmental actors have established a variety of schemes that aim to govern the global climate arena. This article argues that while the effectiveness of transnational climate governance arrangements in reducing greenhouse gas emissions is hard to measure, the question of the legitimacy of these arrangements should receive greater attention. To assess the legitimacy of transnational climate governance arrangements, we analyse (1) their inclusiveness and openness, (2) their accountability and transparency mechanisms, and (3) their discursiveness. We address these questions with regard to three transnational climate governance arrangements that have gained relevance in climate governance over the last years: the Global Gas Flaring Reduction Partnership, the Carbon Disclosure Project, and the Chicago Climate Exchange. We conclude that even though at present most transnational schemes lack either proper legitimacy, accountability, or transparency, such schemes have placed a number of responsibilities on corporations, which in the long run could lead to behavioural change and contribute to successful global climate change governance.
One of the most contentious issues at the 2009 UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen, and one which has persisted in the successive rounds of negotiation since then, is, in diplomatic lingo, ‘MRV’ (monitoring, reporting and verification). Expanding the MRV regime to include mitigation actions is an opportunity to support, rather than burden, developing countries in their efforts to improve their climate performance over time, consistent with sustainable development—if done in a sensible way. The article reviews the essence of this debate and suggests one pragmatic approach to ensure that national actions are indeed measurable, reportable and verifiable, namely adopting a certification scheme for national climate management systems (NCMS, which would require countries to establish a climate policy, set national goals and timetables, secure resources to implement related national actions and track their progress over time). Based on the high level of agreement among Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on the need for comprehensive frameworks to facilitate forestry and energy sector mitigation by developing countries, supported by financial resources, technology and capacity building, an NCMS certification scheme is well suited to add value to the existing MRV regime both for developed and developing countries.
The last two years have witnessed a flurry of diplomatic activity on climate change. In addition to the 16 weeks of scheduled inter-governmental negotiations under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), meetings, many at a Ministerial level, were convened by the G-8, the Major Economies Forum, the UN Secretary General, and Denmark, the host of the 15th Conference of Parties (COP-15) to the FCCC. Notwithstanding regular and intense engagement at the highest-level many fundamental disagreements remained in the lead up to COP-15, including on the future (or lack thereof) of the Kyoto Protocol, the legal form and architecture of the future legal regime, and the nature and extent of differential treatment between developed and developing countries.
Transparency is a highly regarded value, a precept used for ideological purposes, and a subject of academic study. The following critical analysis attempts to show that transparency is overvalued. Moreover, its ideological usages cannot be justified, because a social science analysis shows that transparency cannot fulfill the functions its advocates assign to it, although it can play a limited role in their service. We shall see that in assessing transparency, one must take into account a continuum composed of the order of disutility and the level of information costs. The higher the score on both variables, the less useful transparency is. Moreover, these scores need not be particularly high to greatly limit the extent to which the public can rely on transparency for most purposes.
This article examines the governance of international carbon offsets, analyzing the political economy of the origins and governance of offsets. We examine how the governance structures of the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism and unregulated voluntary carbon offsets differ in regulation and in complexity of the chain that links consumers and reducers of carbon, with specific consequences for carbon reductions, development, and the ability to provide “accumulation by decarbonization.” We show how carbon offsets represent capital-accumulation strategies that devolve governance over the atmosphere to supranational and nonstate actors and to the market.
Within the context of broader debates on the potential of more open, inclusive and deliberative approaches to decision-making, this paper examines the influence that enhanced access to environmental information has had on the governance of industry in the UK. After considering the extent to which information on emissions from industrial sites is practicably accessible to stakeholders, it examines the strategies that the different actors have adopted as a response to the provision of enhanced access to environmental information. In so doing, it highlights the pros and cons of greater transparency and more open engagement from the perspective of regulators, industry, community and pressure groups. It then assesses the impacts of access to information, both on the governance networks through which the different actors interact in an attempt to influence the emissions of the chemicals sector and on the environmental outcomes associated with these networks. It concludes that the provision of access to information has been associated with the emergence of new forms of engagement between regulators, industry and stakeholder groups and that this has coincided with (but has not been the main cause of) dramatic improvements in the environmental performance of the associated firms. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
Regulatory transparency-mandatory disclosure of information by private or public institutions with a regulatory intent-has become an important frontier of government innovation. This paper assesses the effectiveness of such transparency systems by examining the design and impact of financial disclosure, nutritional labeling, workplace hazard communication, and five other diverse systems in the United States. We argue that transparency policies are effective only when the information they produce becomes “embedded” in the everyday decision-making routines of information users and information disclosers. This double-sided embeddedness is the most important condition for transparency systems' effectiveness. Based on detailed case analyses, we evaluate the user and discloser embeddedness of the eight major transparency policies. We then draw on a comprehensive inventory of prior studies of regulatory effectiveness to assess whether predictions about effectiveness based on characteristics of embeddedness are consistent with those evaluations. © 2006 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
This article examines the potential effectiveness of socially responsible investment (SRI) and investor environmentalism through carbon disclosure in terms of their key goal of creating real financial incentives, through share price performance, for firms to pursue climate change mitigation. It does so by theoretically assessing the two main assumptions which underpin investor environmentalism as promoted by SRI funds and NGOs such as the Carbon Disclosure Project: those concerning the power of institutional investors, and the "“business case"” for climate change mitigation. In doing so, it argues that the potential of using institutional investors to create real financial incentives for climate change mitigation, in the form of share price performance, has been considerably overestimated and that there is not even a strong theoretical case for why carbon disclosure should work in this regard. This is argued based on the structural constraints faced by most institutional investors, as well as the fundamentally incorrect assumption about climate change, that it is a form of market failure, which theoretically underpins these initiatives. (c)© 2011 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
This introductory article draws on the contributions to this special issue to consider the implications of a transparency turn in global environmental and sustainability governance. Three interrelated aspects are addressed: why transparency now? How is transparency being institutionalized? And what effects does it have? In analyzing the spread of transparency in governance, the article highlights the broader (contested) normative context that shapes both its embrace by various actors and its institutionalization. I argue that the effects of transparency-whether it informs, empowers or improves environmental performance-remain uneven, with transparency falling short of meeting the ends many anticipate from it. Nonetheless, as the contributions to this issue make clear, transparency has indeed come of age as a defining feature of our current and future politics. (c) 2010 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Despite great advances in carbon cycle research during the past decade the climatic impact of terrestrial ecosystems is still highly uncertain. Although contemporary studies suggest that the terrestrial biosphere has acted as a net sink to atmospheric carbon during the past two decades, the future role of terrestrial carbon pools is most difficult to foresee. When land use change and forestry activities were included into the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the requirements for scientific precision increased significantly. At the same time the political expectations of carbon sequestration as climate mitigation strategy added uncertainties of a social kind to the study of land-atmosphere carbon exchange that have been difficult to address by conventional scientific methods. In this paper I explore how the failure to take into account the effects of direct human activity in scientific projections of future terrestrial carbon storage has resulted in a simplified appreciation of the risks embedded in a global carbon sequestration scheme. I argue that the social limits to scientific analysis must be addressed in order to accommodate these risks in future climate governance and to enable continued scientific authority in the international climate regime.
Although transparency is a key concept in the social sciences, it remains an understudied phenomenon in global environmental governance. This paper analyzes effectiveness of ‘governance by transparency’ or governance by information disclosure as a key innovation in global environmental and risk governance. Information disclosure is central to current efforts to govern biosafety or safe trade in genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Through analyzing the dynamics of GMO-related information disclosure to the global Biosafety Clearing House (BCH), I argue that the originally intended normative and procedural aims of disclosure in this case—to facilitate a GMO-importing country’s right to know and right to choose prior to trade in GMOs—are not yet being realized, partly because the burden of BCH disclosure currently rests, ironically, on importing countries. As a result, BCH disclosure may even have market-facilitating rather than originally intended market-regulating effects with regard to GMO trade, turning on its head the intended aims of governance by disclosure.
Although transparency is a key concept of our times, it remains a relatively understudied phenomenon in global environmental politics. The link between transparency and accountable, legitimate and effective governance is assumed, yet the nature and workings of this link require further scrutiny. Transparency via information disclosure is increasingly at the heart of a number of global environmental governance initiatives, termed "governance-by-disclosure" here. The article identifies two assumptions that underpin such governance-by-disclosure initiatives, and calls for comparative analysis of the workings of such assumptions in practice, as a way to illuminate the nature and implications of a transparency turn in global environmental governance and its link to accountable, legitimate and effective governance. (c) 2008 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The climate end-game in Cancun: Sunita Narain
- Cse Center
- Science
- Environment
CSE [Center for Science and Environment]:The climate end-game
in Cancun: Sunita Narain. New Delhi: CSE, December 9 2010,
available at http://www.cseindia.org/node/1936 (accessed
14.06.14).
Outcome of Doha Climate Negotiations
CI [Conservation International] Outcome of Doha Climate
Negotiations. 2013 At http://www.conservation.org/Documents/
CI_analysis_Doha_Outcomes_2012_26Nov-8Dec.pdf (accessed
14.06.14).
Sharing the Stage: State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets
- Ecosystem Marketplace
Ecosystem Marketplace. Sharing the Stage: State of the Voluntary
Carbon Markets 2014, Washington, DC: Ecosystem Marketplace
http://www.forest-trends.org/vcm2014.php; 2014.
Climate Capitalism: Global Warming and the Transformation of the Global Economy
- P Newell
- M Paterson
Newell P, Paterson M: Climate Capitalism: Global Warming and the
Transformation of the Global Economy. Cambridge University
Press; 2010.
The Right to Know: Transparency for an Open World. Columbia University Press
- A Florini
Florini A (Ed): The Right to Know: Transparency for an Open World.
Columbia University Press; 2007.
An authoritative and comprehensive account of the role of 'targeted transparency' in domestic regulation
- A Fung
- M Graham
- D Weil
Fung A, Graham M, Weil D: Full Disclosure: The Perils and Promise
of Transparency. Cambridge University Press; 2007.
An authoritative and comprehensive account of the role of 'targeted
transparency' in domestic regulation, in the national context of the United
States.
UNFCCC: Bali Action Plan
- A Mol
Mol A: Environmental reform in the Information Age: The Contours
of Informational Governance. Cambridge University Press; 2008.
26. UNFCCC: Bali Action Plan. Report of the Conference of the
Parties on its Thirteenth Session, held in Bali from 3 to 5 December
2007 FCCC/CP/2007/6/Add. 2007.