Conference Agenda

The SDG Impact Assessment published in 2022 has shown that the political impact of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has so far largely been discursive. While the 17 global goals also had some normative and institutional effects, they have unfolded only limited transformative political impact thus far. The goals are at best slowly moving political processes forward, with much variation among countries, sectors and across governance levels. This suggests that scholars and policymakers alike must adjust their expectations regarding the steering effects of the SDGs and more political efforts are urgently needed to bring the SDGs into practice. Against this backdrop, this panel explores the areas where the SDGs had some effects and whether and under what conditions these developments can be scaled up to foster pathways to sustainable development up to 2030 and beyond.

Previous research on the implementation of the SDGs has shown that the SDGs in themselves have had only a limited transformative impact. Apart from some discursive effects, the SDGs in themselves seem unlikely to directly change institutions, resource allocation, and policies. However, there is growing evidence that the SDGs do not operate in isolation but are interwoven with existing sustainability governance arrangements and policies. When translated into local contexts (i.e., localized), the SDGs enter into multiple relationships with these governance arrangements and strategies. For example, they change the way they function, provide additional legitimacy, alter perceptions of problems and the framing of future visions, and thereby open up additional options for action. In this respect, the transformative capacity of the SDGs must be determined in conjunction with existing sustainability governance. In this paper, we would therefore like to broaden the perspective on the transformative impact of the SDGs by highlighting their embeddedness in and linkage to existing governance arrangements and policies. What is the specific role of the SDGs in and for existing governance arrangements and strategies? How are the SDGs linked to governance arrangements and, together with them, how do they contribute to transformative change?

Based on a review of existing literature on SDG implementation at the subnational/local level, we will create a typology of the general roles the SDGs can play with respect to local governance arrangements and policies. These roles and their transformative potential will be further specified using transformation concepts, such as leverage points. Drawing on several case studies from different contexts, we illustrate these roles and highlight specific place-based practices through which the roles are enacted. We discuss opportunities and limitations for strengthening the transformative roles of the SDGs. The findings can be enriched with observations and reflections from practitioners (policy makers, change agents) who are applying the SDGs “on the ground.” In this way, concrete and practically reflected recommendations for creating synergies between SDG implementation and ongoing transformation processes are outlined.

Following the launch of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the number of multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs) seeking to advance its realization has proliferated. This impacts the architecture of global sustainability governance in several ways, not the least with regard to legitimacy as power is dispersed and MSP accountability chains diffuse. In discourses emerging from both scholarly and policy fields, there is a persistent assumption that public-private collaboration and stakeholder diversity are key factors not only to achieve transformative change and implement the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), but also to ensure legitimate processes and outcomes. However, previous research on earlier generations of MSPs for sustainable development has shown that their legitimacy and effectiveness are contested. In UN circles these weaknesses were attributed to limitations of nationally bounded processes and silo-driven sectoral orientation. MSPs for the 2030 Agenda therefore seek to embrace a transnational and synergetic approach towards the SDGs.

In this paper, we identify and explore key legitimacy challenges of the new generation of MSPs for the 2030 Agenda. We do this on the basis of a theoretical framework that outlines potential sources of transnational legitimacy at the intersection of public and private realms. These sources stem from procedural values such as accountability, inclusion, and transparency, as well as from substantive goals of partnerships, such as equality, good health, or biodiversity preservation, and from problem-solving capacity. In addition, our framework emphasizes that legitimacy challenges are shaped by the institutional context and problem structure of the issue area in which a partnership operates. Next, we therefore empirically study and compare a selection of MSPs from two different issue areas: health and climate. For health, we consequently zoom in on transnational MSPs that aim to tackle SDG 3 on good health, and for climate, we select MSPs devoted to SDG 13 on climate action. We also include MSPs that aim to synergistically address both health and climate issues. What are the main legitimacy challenges for these partnerships and how do such challenges differ between issue areas? In whose eyes should partnerships be considered legitimate? What are the main structural obstacles towards legitimate, accountable, and synergistic MSP governance?

In analyzing legitimacy challenges of MSPs as part of the evolving institutional architecture for sustainability, we conclude by offering a broader assessment of the ways in which the new generation of MSPs may reinforce or constrain transformative governance across scales and decision-making arenas.

Local governments worldwide are taking the initiative to engage with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) despite the absence of a globally-coordinated practical guideline on local SDGs actions. Though local SDGs actions are often associated with localising global targets and indicators and reporting on them, recent evidence suggests that local governments engage with the SDGs in various local governance activities, from local community visioning, strategy and policy planning, to delivering on actions through advocacy and partnerships. With less than a decade until the 2030 deadline, local SDG actions need to be enabled in a more effective yet careful way. Effective—so that successful experiences can be optimally learnt by and adapted in other local governments, and careful—so that local contexts that underpin local SDG actions are adequately paid attention to.

In this paper, we argue that there is a need to look at the process of enabling local SDGs actions beyond a single and straightforward trajectory. Specifically, there is a need to demystify enablers to local SDG actions beyond a list of typical ‘good governance’ practices (e.g., improved capacity building, more participatory activities, data-driven process) which often being suggested without further examination on where and at what point these enablers work. As much as there is plurality in local SDG actions, we argue that there should also be plurality in enabling local SDG actions. Using Q-methodology, we explore different perspectives on what enables local SDGs actions among local government staff in Australia. Three approaches in enabling local SDG actions emerged from the study: 1) the whole-of-government approach, 2) the champions-driven approach, and 3) the joint stakeholder effort approach. In this study, we found that local governments’ framing of their roles and responsibility (vis-à-vis other actors such as state and the federal government) is especially salient in shaping local SDGs actions. By offering a more comprehensive picture of the plurality in enabling local SDG actions, we extend the conversation of how SDG can bring impact at the local government level. Finally, through this study, we also attempt to open a space where different scholarly approaches to advance the SDG—such as leadership for sustainability, network governance, sustainability innovation and experimentation—can be better contextualised in local SDG actions.

When the United Nations General Assembly agreed on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, 17 global challenges were identified. These challenges differ in the extent to which they have been institutionalized, with some having a clear institutional anchor, being led by an international organization or treaty secretariats, whereas others are governed by loosely coupled sets of institutions or governance networks. Although not every ‘institutionalized’ problem is given its proper attention, and overzealous multiplicity because of the proliferation of institutions and agreements might also be associated with increased global (policy) fragmentation, institutionalization that fills a clear institutional gap might cement and legitimize an issue in the global arena. In this study, we therefore look at the role of governing through goals in processes of institutionalization, taking the case of the issue area of Sustainable Consumption and Production, which is now also the topic of SDG 12. For this purpose, we first conceptualize a triangle of institutionalization. Thereafter, we use process tracing to determine the most important institutional developments in this sphere between 2012 and 2022. We do this based on the categories of authority, procedures and means discernable over time. We thereafter focus on tracing the role of SDG 12 in these developments. To trace these processes, we rely on (primary) documents, including (annual) reports, meeting minutes and evaluations of the One Planet Network, as well as a set of semi-structured expert interviews with members of the network secretariat, (independent) academics, actors from the private sector and members of a diverse range of international organizations. Combining our insights, we reflect on the potential of governing through global goals to (causally) contribute to the institutionalization of ‘neglected’ global issues.