1932

Abstract

This review examines the promises and pitfalls of multistakeholder partnerships (MSPs) for sustainable development. We take stock of the literature on the creation, effectiveness, and legitimacy of MSPs and focus on recent research on MSPs committed to achieving the 2030 Agenda and United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The 2030 Agenda conceives of MSPs as vehicles to achieve large-scale sustainability transformations. Yet, research on MSPs under earlier sustainable development initiatives found that they had limited effectiveness and significant legitimacy deficits. We show that recent research on SDG partnerships suggests they reproduce many of the shortcomings of their predecessors and so are unlikely to foster synergies and minimize trade-offs between areas of sustainable development to deliver transformations on a global scale. We also examine recent research on the prospects of governing MSPs to enhance accountability and ensure better institutional designs for achieving transformations, highlighting challenges arising from international political contestation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-051823-115857
2024-10-18
2025-02-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/energy/49/1/annurev-environ-051823-115857.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-051823-115857&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Schäferhoff M, Campe S, Kaan C. 2009.. Transnational public-private partnerships in international relations: making sense of concepts, research frameworks, and results. . Int. Stud. Rev. 11::45174
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.
    Bull B, McNeill D. 2019.. From market multilateralism to governance by goal setting: SDGs and the changing role of partnerships in a new global order. . Bus. Politics 21::46486
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.
    Bäckstrand K, Koliev F, Mert A. 2022.. Governing SDG partnerships: the role of institutional capacity, inclusion, and transparency. . See Ref. 5 , pp. 4158
  4. 4.
    Leal Filho W, Wall T, Barbir J, Alverio GN, Dinis MAP, Ramirez J. 2022.. Relevance of international partnerships in the implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. . Nat. Commun. 13::613
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  5. 5.
    Murphy E, Banerjee A, Walsh PP, eds. 2022.. Partnerships and the Sustainable Development Goals. Cham, Switz:.: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.
    United Nations. 2015.. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. Rep. A/RES/70/1 , United Nations, New York:
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.
    Scoones I. 2016.. The politics of sustainability and development. . Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41::293319
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  8. 8.
    United Nations. 2023.. Political declaration of the high-level political forum on sustainable development convened under the auspices of the General Assembly. Rep. A/HLPF/2023/L.1 , United Nations, New York:
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.
    Widerberg O, Fast C, Koloffon Rosas M, Pattberg P. 2023.. Multi-stakeholder partnerships for the SDGs: Is the “next generation” fit for purpose?. Int. Environ. Agreem. Politics Law Econ. 23::16571
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.
    Andonova LB. 2017.. Governance Entrepreneurs: International Organizations and the Rise of Global Public-Private Partnerships. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.
    UN DESA (UN Dep. Econ. Soc. Aff.). 2015.. Partnerships for Sustainable Development Goals: a legacy review towards realizing the 2030 Agenda. Rep. , UN DESA, New York:
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.
    Stibbe D, Prescott D. 2020.. The SDG partnership guidebook: a practical guide to building high-impact multi-stakeholder partnerships for the Sustainable Development Goals. Rep. , Partner. Initiat./UN DESA, New York:
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.
    Raymond M, Denardis L. 2015.. Multistakeholderism: anatomy of an inchoate global institution. . Int. Theory 7::572616
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.
    Abbott KW, Faude B. 2022.. Hybrid institutional complexes in global governance. . Rev. Int. Organ. 17::26391
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.
    Clark WC, Harley AG. 2020.. Sustainability science: toward a synthesis. . Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 45::33186
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.
    Young OR, ed. 1999.. The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes: Causal Connections and Behavioral Mechanisms. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.
    Young OR. 2001.. Inferences and indices: evaluating the effectiveness of international environmental regimes. . Glob. Environ. Politics 1::99121
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.
    Underdal A. 2004.. Methodological challenges in the study of regime effectiveness. . In Regime Consequences: Methodological Challenges and Research Strategies, ed. A Underdal, OR Young , pp. 2748. Dordrecht, Neth:.: Kluwer Acad.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.
    Scharpf FW. 1997.. Economic integration, democracy and the welfare state. . J. Eur. Public Policy 4::1836
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.
    Scharpf FW. 1999.. Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.
    Bäckstrand K. 2006.. Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. . Eur. Environ. 16::290306
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.
    Mena S, Palazzo G. 2012.. Input and output legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives. . Bus. Ethics Q. 22::52756
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.
    Schmidt VA. 2013.. Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union revisited: input, output and ‘throughput. ’. Political Stud. 61::222
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.
    Tallberg J, Bäckstrand K, Scholte JA, eds. 2018.. Legitimacy in Global Governance. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.
    Neuner FG. 2020.. Public opinion and the legitimacy of global private environmental governance. . Glob. Environ. Politics 20::6081
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.
    Matson P, Clark WC, Andersson K. 2016.. Pursuing Sustainability: A Guide to the Science and Practice. Princeton, NJ:: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.
    Österblom H, Bebbington J, Blasiak R, Sobkowiak M, Folke C. 2022.. Transnational corporations, biosphere stewardship, and sustainable futures. . Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 47::60935
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.
    Grant RW, Keohane RO. 2005.. Accountability and abuses of power in world politics. . Am. Political Sci. Rev. 99::2943
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.
    Bäckstrand K. 2008.. Accountability of networked climate governance: the rise of transnational climate partnerships. . Glob. Environ. Politics 8::74102
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.
    Hale TN, Mauzerall DL. 2004.. Thinking globally and acting locally: Can the Johannesburg Partnerships coordinate action on sustainable development?. J. Environ. Dev. 13::22039
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.
    Mert A. 2015.. Environmental Governance Through Partnerships: A Discourse Theoretical Study. Cheltenham, UK:: Elgar
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.
    Bäckstrand K, Kuyper J, Nasiritousi N. 2021.. From collaboration to contestation? Perceptions of legitimacy and effectiveness in post-Paris climate governance. . Earth Syst. Gov. 9::100115
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.
    Indep. Group Sci. 2023.. Global sustainable development report 2023. Times of crisis, times of change: science for accelerating transformations to sustainable development. Rep. , United Nations, New York:
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.
    Salomaa A, Juhola S. 2020.. How to assess sustainability transformations: a review. . Glob. Sustain. 3::e24
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.
    Gjaltema J, Biesbroek R, Termeer K. 2020.. From government to governance… to meta-governance: a systematic literature review. . Public Manag. Rev. 22::176080
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.
    Meuleman L. 2018.. Metagovernance for Sustainability: A Framework for Implementing Sustainable Development Goals. London:: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.
    Meuleman L. 2022.. A metagovernance approach to multilevel governance and vertical coordination for the SDGs. . In Governing the Interlinkages Between the SDGs: Approaches, Opportunities and Challenges, ed. A Breuer, D Malerba, S Srigiri, P Balasubramanian , pp. 7189. London:: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.
    Beisheim M, Simon N. 2018.. Multistakeholder partnerships for the SDGs: actors’ views on UN metagovernance. . Glob. Gov. 24::497515
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.
    Derkx B, Glasbergen P. 2014.. Elaborating global private meta-governance: an inventory in the realm of voluntary sustainability standards. . Glob. Environ. Change 27::4150
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.
    Abbott KW, Genschel P, Snidal D, Zangl B. 2015.. Orchestration: Global governance through intermediaries. . In International Organizations as Orchestrators, ed. KW Abbott, P Genschel, D Snidal, Z Bernhard , pp. 336. Cambridge, UK:: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.
    Horan D. 2022.. Towards a portfolio approach: partnerships for sustainable transformations. . Glob. Policy 13::16070
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.
    Taggart J, Abraham KJ. 2024.. Norm dynamics in a post-hegemonic world: multistakeholder global governance and the end of liberal international order. . Rev. Int. Political Econ. 31::35481
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.
    Bäckstrand K, Kylsäter M. 2014.. Old wine in new bottles? The legitimation and delegitimation of UN public–private partnerships for sustainable development from the Johannesburg summit to the Rio+20 summit. . Globalizations 11::33147
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.
    Fritzsche F, Bäckstrand K. 2023.. Global diplomacy and multi-stakeholderism: Does the promise of the 2030 Agenda hold?. In The Palgrave Handbook of Diplomatic Reform and Innovation, ed. PW Hare, JL Manfredi-Sánchez, K Weisbrode , pp. 70329. Cham, Switz:.: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.
    Biermann F, Kanie N, Kim RE. 2017.. Global governance by goal-setting: the novel approach of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. . Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26/27::2631
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.
    Horan D. 2019.. A new approach to partnerships for SDG transformations. . Sustainability 11::4947
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.
    Marx A. 2019.. Public–private partnerships for sustainable development: exploring their design and its impact on effectiveness. . Sustainability 11::1087
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.
    Weiland S, Hickmann T, Lederer M, Marquardt J, Schwindenhammer S. 2021.. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: transformative change through the Sustainable Development Goals?. Politics Gov. 9::9095
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.
    Clough E, Long G, Rietig K. 2019.. A study of partnerships and initiatives registered on the UN SDG Partnerships Platform. Rep. , UN Dep. Econ. Soc. Aff., New York:
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.
    Glass L-M, Newig J, Ruf S. 2023.. MSPs for the SDGs—assessing the collaborative governance architecture of multi-stakeholder partnerships for implementing the Sustainable Development Goals. . Earth Syst. Gov. 17::100182
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.
    Widerberg O, Fast C, Koloffon M, Pattberg P, Koliev F, et al. 2023.. Nexus governance for transformative change: technical report of the Transform 2030 data set. Tech. Rep. , Inst. Environ. Stud. (IVM), Amsterdam:
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.
    Taggart J. 2022.. A decade since Busan: towards legitimacy or a ‘new tyranny’ of global development partnership?. J. Dev. Stud. 58::145977
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.
    Ruggie JG. 2004.. Reconstituting the global public domain—issues, actors, and practices. . Eur. J. Int. Relat. 10::499531
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.
    Andonova LB, Levy MA. 2003.. Franchising global governance: making sense of the Johannesburg Type II Partnerships. . In Yearbook of International Cooperation on Environment and Development, 2003–04, ed. OS Stokke, ØB Thommessen , pp. 1931. London:: Earthscan
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.
    Andonova LB. 2014.. Boomerangs to partnerships? Explaining state participation in transnational partnerships for sustainability. . Comp. Political Stud. 47::481515
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.
    Andonova LB, Hale TN, Roger CB. 2017.. National policy and transnational governance of climate change: substitutes or complements?. Int. Stud. Q. 61::25368
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.
    Reinsberg B, Westerwinter O. 2021.. The global governance of international development: documenting the rise of multi-stakeholder partnerships and identifying underlying theoretical explanations. . Rev. Int. Organ. 16::5994
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.
    Andonova LB, Faul MV. 2022.. The effectiveness of partnerships: theoretical framework. . In Partnerships for Sustainability in Contemporary Global Governance: Pathways to Effectiveness, ed. LB Andonova, MV Faul, D Piselli , pp. 2354. London:: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59.
    Barnett M, Finnemore M. 2004.. Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca, NY:: Cornell Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.
    Fleischer J, Reiners N. 2021.. Connecting international relations and public administration: toward a joint research agenda for the study of international bureaucracy. . Int. Stud. Rev. 23::123047
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  61. 61.
    Abbott KW, Snidal D. 2010.. International regulation without international government: improving IO performance through orchestration. . Rev. Int. Organ. 5::31544
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.
    Bexell M, Bäckstrand K, Ghassim F, Gregoratti C, Jönsson K, et al. 2022.. The politics of legitimation and delegitimation in global governance. . In Legitimation and Delegitimation in Global Governance: Practices, Justifications, and Audiences, ed. M Bexell, K Jönsson, A Uhlin , pp. 2546. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 63.
    Abbott KW. 2012.. Engaging the public and the private in global sustainability governance. . Int. Aff. 88::54364
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  64. 64.
    Gleckman H. 2018.. Multistakeholder Governance and Democracy: A Global Challenge. New York:: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 65.
    Pingeot L. 2016.. In whose interest? The UN's strategic rapprochement with business in the sustainable development agenda. . Globalizations 13::188202
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.
    Kramarz T. 2020.. Forgotten Values: The World Bank and Environmental Partnerships. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.
    Abraham KJ. 2022.. Modeling institutional change and subject-production: the World Bank's turn to stakeholder participation. . Int. Stud. Q. 66::sqac032
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.
    Hale T. 2016.. “ All hands on deck”: the Paris Agreement and nonstate climate action. . Glob. Environ. Politics 16::1222
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  69. 69.
    Long G, Clough E, Rietig K. 2022.. Global partnerships for the SDGs. . See Ref. 5 , pp. 2739
  70. 70.
    Berliner D, Prakash A. 2015.. “ Bluewashing” the firm? Voluntary regulations, program design, and member compliance with the United Nations Global Compact. . Policy Stud. J. 43::11538
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  71. 71.
    Gneiting U, Mhlanga R. 2021.. The partner myth: analysing the limitations of private sector contributions to the Sustainable Development Goals. . Dev. Pract. 31::92026
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  72. 72.
    Piotrowski SJ, Berliner D, Ingrams A. 2022.. The Power of Partnership in Open Government: Reconsidering Multistakeholder Governance Reform. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.
    Pattberg P, Widerberg O. 2016.. Transnational multistakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: conditions for success. . Ambio 45::4251
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  74. 74.
    Beisheim M, Liese A, eds. 2014.. Transnational Partnerships: Effectively Providing for Sustainable Development? London:: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 75.
    Stadtler L. 2016.. Scrutinizing public–private partnerships for development: towards a broad evaluation conception. . J Bus. Ethics 135::7186
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  76. 76.
    Berliner D, Ingrams A, Piotrowski SJ. 2022.. Process effects of multistakeholder institutions: theory and evidence from the Open Government Partnership. . Reg. Gov. 16::134361
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  77. 77.
    Andonova LB, Faul MV, Piselli D. 2022.. Conclusion. . In Partnerships for Sustainability in Contemporary Global Governance: Pathways to Effectiveness, ed. LB Andonova, MV Faul, D Piselli , pp. 25780. London:: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 78.
    Dellmuth LM, Tallberg J. 2015.. The social legitimacy of international organisations: interest representation, institutional performance, and confidence extrapolation in the United Nations. . Rev. Int. Stud. 41::45175
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  79. 79.
    Koliev F, Bäckstrand K. 2024.. The public legitimacy of multi-stakeholder partnerships in global environmental governance: evidence from survey experiments in Brazil, the UK and the US. . Glob. Environ. Politics 24::14669
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  80. 80.
    Nilsson M, Griggs D, Visbeck M. 2016.. Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. . Nature 534::32022
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.
    Weitz N, Carlsen H, Nilsson M, Skånberg K. 2018.. Towards systemic and contextual priority setting for implementing the 2030 Agenda. . Sustain. Sci. 13::53148
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  82. 82.
    Biggeri M, Clark DA, Ferrannini A, Mauro V. 2019.. Tracking the SDGs in an ‘integrated’ manner: a proposal for a new index to capture synergies and trade-offs between and within goals. . World Dev. 122::62847
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  83. 83.
    Long G, Clough E. 2022.. Analysis of partnerships for the SDGs, 2022. Paper presented at ECOSOC Partnership Forum, New York:
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.
    Pattberg P, Biermann F, Chan S, Mert A. 2012.. Introduction: Partnerships for sustainable development. . In Public-Private Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Emergence, Influence and Legitimacy, ed. P Pattberg, F Biermann, S Chan, A Mert , pp. 120. Cheltenham, UK:: Elgar
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.
    Gray B, Purdy J. 2018.. Collaborating for Our Future: Multistakeholder Partnerships for Solving Complex Problems. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 86.
    Biermann F, Chan S, Mert A, Pattberg P. 2007.. Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Does the promise hold?. In Partnerships, Governance, and Sustainable Development: Reflections on Theory and Practice, ed. P Glasbergen, F Biermann, APJ Mol , pp. 23960. Cheltenham, UK:: Elgar
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 87.
    Compagnon D. 2012.. Africa's involvement in partnerships for sustainable development: Holy grail or business as usual?. In Public-Private Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Emergence, Influence and Legitimacy, ed. P Pattberg, F Biermann, S Chan, A Mert , pp. 13763. Cheltenham, UK:: Elgar
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 88.
    Kramarz T. 2016.. World Bank partnerships and the promise of democratic governance. . Environ. Policy Gov. 26::315
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  89. 89.
    Bäckstrand K. 2012.. Are partnerships for sustainable development democratic and legitimate?. In Public-Private Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Emergence, Influence and Legitimacy, ed. P Pattberg, F Biermann, S Chan, A Mert , pp. 16582. Cheltenham, UK:: Elgar
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 90.
    Bäckstrand K, Campe S, Chan S, Mert A, Schäferhoff M. 2012.. Transnational public-private partnerships. . In Global Environmental Governance Reconsidered, ed. F Biermann, P Pattberg , pp. 12348. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 91.
    United Nations. 2017.. Repositioning the United Nations development system to deliver on the 2030 Agenda: our promise for dignity, prosperity and peace on a healthy planet. Rep. A/72/684-E/2018/7 , United Nations, New York:
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 92.
    UN Off. Intern. Overs. Serv. 2019.. Evaluation of United Nations entities’ preparedness, policy coherence, and early results associated with their support to Sustainable Development Goals. Rep. IED-19-001 , United Nations, New York:
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 93.
    United Nations. 2023.. Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals: towards a rescue plan for people and planet. Rep. A/78/80-E/2023/64 , United Nations, New York:
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 94.
    Beyers F, Leventon J. 2021.. Learning spaces in multi-stakeholder initiatives: the German partnership for sustainable textiles as a platform for dialogue and learning?. Earth Syst. Gov. 9::100113
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  95. 95.
    Breitmeier H, Schwindenhammer S, Checa A, Manderbach J, Tanzer M. 2021.. Aligned sustainability understandings? Global inter-institutional arrangements and the implementation of SDG 2. . Politics Gov. 9::14151
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  96. 96.
    Sondermann E, Ulbert C. 2021.. Transformation through ‘meaningful’ partnership? SDG 17 as metagovernance norm and its global health implementation. . Politics Gov. 9::15263
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  97. 97.
    Blicharska M, Teutschbein C, Smithers RJ. 2021.. SDG partnerships may perpetuate the global North–South divide. . Sci. Rep. 11::22092
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  98. 98.
    Koliev F, Bäckstrand K. 2022.. When are SDG partnerships transparent? The determinants of progress reporting. . See Ref. 5 , pp. 5969
  99. 99.
    Rubio-Jovel K. 2023.. The voluntary sustainability standards and their contribution towards the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals: a systematic review on the coffee sector. . J. Int. Dev. 35::101352
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  100. 100.
    Sanderink L, Nasiritousi N. 2020.. How institutional interactions can strengthen effectiveness: the case of multi-stakeholder partnerships for renewable energy. . Energy Policy 141::111447
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  101. 101.
    Erdem Türkelli G. 2021.. Transnational multistakeholder partnerships as vessels to finance development: navigating the accountability waters. . Glob. Policy 12::17789
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  102. 102.
    Pfisterer S, Van Tulder R. 2020.. Navigating governance tensions to enhance the impact of partnerships with the private sector for the SDGs. . Sustainability 13::111
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  103. 103.
    Veeger J, Westermann-Behaylo M. 2022.. Knowledge exchange within multi-stakeholder initiatives: tackling the Sustainable Development Goals. . In Research Handbook on Knowledge Transfer and International Business, ed. Z Khan, SR Nair, YK Lew , pp. 10835. Cheltenham, UK:: Elgar
    [Google Scholar]
  104. 104.
    Finnemore M, Jurkovich M. 2020.. The politics of aspiration. . Int. Stud. Q. 64::75969
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  105. 105.
    Bennich T, Weitz N, Carlsen H. 2020.. Deciphering the scientific literature on SDG interactions: a review and reading guide. . Sci. Total Environ. 728::138405
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  106. 106.
    Florini A, Pauli M. 2018.. Collaborative governance for the Sustainable Development Goals. . Asia Pac. Policy Stud. 5::58398
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  107. 107.
    Horan D. 2022.. A framework to harness effective partnerships for the sustainable development goals. . Sustain. Sci. 17::157387
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  108. 108.
    Hedlund J, Nohrstedt D, Morrison T, Moore M-L, Bodin Ö. 2023.. Challenges for environmental governance: policy issue interdependencies might not lead to collaboration. . Sustain. Sci. 18::21934
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  109. 109.
    Coenen J, Glass L-M, Sanderink L. 2022.. Two degrees and the SDGs: a network analysis of the interlinkages between transnational climate actions and the Sustainable Development Goals. . Sustain. Sci. 17::1489510
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  110. 110.
    Pradhan P, Costa L, Rybski D, Lucht W, Kropp JP. 2017.. A systematic study of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) interactions. . Earth's Future 5::116979
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  111. 111.
    Zürn M. 2018.. A Theory of Global Governance: Authority, Legitimacy, and Contestation. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  112. 112.
    Abbott KW, Bernstein S. 2015.. The high-level political forum on sustainable development: orchestration by default and design. . Glob. Policy 6::22233
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  113. 113.
    Boas I, Biermann F, Kanie N. 2016.. Cross-sectoral strategies in global sustainability governance: towards a nexus approach. . Int. Environ. Agreem. Politics Law Econ. 16::44964
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  114. 114.
    United Nations. 2017.. Repositioning the United Nations development system to deliver on the 2030 Agenda: ensuring a better future for all. Rep. A/72/124-E-2018/3 , United Nations, New York:
    [Google Scholar]
  115. 115.
    King IR. 2019.. Closing statement. Talk presented at 2019 ECOSOC Partnership Forum, New York:, April 11. https://sdgs.un.org/statements/he-ambassador-inga-rhonda-king-president-economic-and-social-council-16860
    [Google Scholar]
  116. 116.
    Mai L, Elsässer JP. 2022.. Orchestrating global climate governance through data: the UNFCCC Secretariat and the Global Climate Action Platform. . Glob. Environ. Politics 22::15172
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  117. 117.
    Eweje G, Sajjad A, Nath SD, Kobayashi K. 2020.. Multi-stakeholder partnerships: a catalyst to achieve Sustainable Development Goals. . Mark. Intell. Plan. 39::186212
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  118. 118.
    Al Sabbagh S, Copeland E. 2019.. Partnering for sustainable development: case study of a 10-year donor–recipient partnership. . Dev. Pract. 29::65161
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  119. 119.
    Beisheim M, Ellersiek A, Goltermann L, Kiamba P. 2018.. Meta-governance of partnerships for sustainable development: actors’ perspectives from Kenya. . Public Adm. Dev. 38::10519
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  120. 120.
    Tallberg J, Sommerer T, Squatrito T, Lundgren M. 2016.. The performance of international organizations: a policy output approach. . J. Eur. Public Policy 23::107796
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  121. 121.
    Lall R. 2017.. Beyond institutional design: explaining the performance of international organizations. . Int. Organ. 71::24580
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  122. 122.
    Sommerer T, Squatrito T, Tallberg J, Lundgren M. 2022.. Decision-making in international organizations: institutional design and performance. . Rev. Int. Organ. 17::81545
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  123. 123.
    Chan S, Amling W. 2019.. Does orchestration in the global climate action agenda effectively prioritize and mobilize transnational climate adaptation action?. Int. Environ. Agreem. Politics Law Econ. 19::42946
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  124. 124.
    Chan S, Hale T, Deneault A, Shrivastava M, Mbeva K, et al. 2022.. Assessing the effectiveness of orchestrated climate action from five years of summits. . Nat. Clim. Change 12::62833
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  125. 125.
    Fowler A, Biekart K. 2017.. Multi-stakeholder initiatives for Sustainable Development Goals: the importance of interlocutors. . Public Adm. Dev. 37::8193
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  126. 126.
    Widerberg O, Van Laerhoven F. 2014.. Measuring the autonomous influence of an international bureaucracy: The division for sustainable development. . Int. Environ. Agreem. Politics Law Econ. 14::30327
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  127. 127.
    Janus H, Weinlich S. 2018.. A mountain worth climbing: reforming the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Rep. , Ger. Dev. Inst., Bonn, Ger.:
    [Google Scholar]
  128. 128.
    Beisheim M, Fritzsche F. 2022.. The UN high-level political forum on sustainable development: an orchestrator, more or less?. Glob. Policy 13::68393
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  129. 129.
    Jütersonke O, Kobayashi K, Krause K, Yuan X. 2021.. Norm contestation and normative transformation in global peacebuilding order(s): the cases of China, Japan, and Russia. . Int. Stud. Q. 65::94459
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  130. 130.
    Ruipeng M. 2020.. China's growing engagement with the UNDS as an emerging nation: changing rationales, funding preferences and future trends. Rep. , Ger. Dev. Inst., Bonn, Ger.:
    [Google Scholar]
  131. 131.
    Fung CJ, Lam S-H. 2021.. Staffing the United Nations: China's motivations and prospects. . Int. Aff. 97::114363
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  132. 132.
    Tosun J, Lang A. 2017.. Policy integration: mapping the different concepts. . Policy Stud. 38::55370
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  133. 133.
    Ibhawoh B. 2011.. The right to development: the politics and polemics of power and resistance. . Hum. Rights Q. 33::76104
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  134. 134.
    Ferdinand P. 2014.. Rising powers at the UN: an analysis of the voting behaviour of BRICS in the General Assembly. . Third World Q. 35::37691
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  135. 135.
    Beisheim M. 2018.. UN reforms for the 2030 Agenda: Are the HLPF's working methods and practices “fit for purpose”? Rep. , Ger. Inst. Int. Secur. Aff., Berlin:
    [Google Scholar]
  136. 136.
    Beisheim M. 2021.. Conflicts in UN reform negotiations: insights into and from the review of the high-level political forum on sustainable development. Rep. , Ger. Inst. Int. Secur. Aff., Berlin:
    [Google Scholar]
  137. 137.
    Bexell M, Hickmann T, Schapper A. 2023.. Strengthening the Sustainable Development Goals through integration with human rights. . Int. Environ. Agreem. Politics Law Econ. 23::13339
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  138. 138.
    Brand A, Furness M, Keijzer N. 2021.. Promoting policy coherence within the 2030 Agenda framework: externalities, trade-offs and politics. . Politics Gov. 9::10818
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  139. 139.
    Ocampo JA, Gómez-Arteaga N. 2016.. Accountability in international governance and the 2030 development agenda. . Glob. Policy 7::30514
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  140. 140.
    Thérien J-P, Pouliot V. 2020.. Global governance as patchwork: the making of the Sustainable Development Goals. . Rev. Int. Political Econ. 27::61236
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  141. 141.
    Cooper N, French D. 2018.. SDG 17: Partnerships for the goals—cooperation within the context of a voluntarist framework. . In Sustainable Development Goals: Law, Theory and Implementation, ed. D French, LJ Kotzé , pp. 271304. Cheltenham, UK:: Elgar
    [Google Scholar]
  142. 142.
    Sun Y. 2022.. Certifying China: The Rise and Limits of Transnational Sustainability Governance in Emerging Economies. Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-051823-115857
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-environ-051823-115857
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error