Globalization processes have rendered non-state actors an integral part of global governance. The body of literature that has examined non-state actor involvement in global governance has focused mainly on whether and how non-state actors can influence states. Less attention has been paid to the comparative advantages of non-state actors to answer questions about agency across categories of non-state actors, and more precisely what governance activities non-state actors are perceived to fulfil. Using unique survey material from two climate change conferences, we propose that different categories of non-state actors have distinct governance profiles. We further suggest that the different governance profiles are derived from particular power sources and that agency is a function of these profiles. The study thereby contributes to a strand in the literature focusing on the authority of non-state actors in climate governance and broadens the methodological toolkit for studying the “governors” of global governance.

While increasing hopes are being attached to deliberate societal transformative change to achieve the targets of the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement, questions remain about whether and whereby such profound systemic change can be governed. This paper analyses how transformative changes are intended to be encouraged and achieved, where and when. The paper explores critical drivers and how they relate to leverage points at different places in the societal systems. The paper builds on a comprehensive sense-making analysis of scholarly literature, policy documents, including countries’ contributions to the Paris Agreement and national reviews of progress towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals, international news media and lay focus group discussions on five continents. There are great variations in how drivers were made sense of in the data. The many ongoing interacting transformations across societies involve different social, cultural, and political contexts, while the implementation of the 2030 Agenda also contains goal conflicts and unavoidable trade-offs. The paper highlights four categories of drivers as particularly important to consider in view of international transformation efforts: technological innovations, political economy redistribution, new narratives, and transformative learning. Four features are important for bringing clarity on how deliberate transformations can be encouraged: (1) the function of drivers in enabling and restricting transformations of societal systems characterised by detailed or dynamic complexity, (2) cultural and geographical contexts of transformations, (3) where in the systems the drivers are intended to intervene, and (4) the role of critical junctions in time, where transformative trajectories can branch out.

The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) was mandated to focus on: (i) institutional frameworks for sustainable development and (ii) the green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradiation. Analyzing the UNSCD from a historical perspective, we address three questions. First, what is the role of UN conferences on environment and development? Second, how were the UNCSD debates and outcomes connected to over forty years of environment and development cooperation? Third, how may the UNCSD shape ongoing efforts to forward the sustainable development agenda? We begin by summarizing the main arguments of supporters and critics of UN conferences. Next, we examines two sets of institutional frameworks issues: (a) institutional creation and reforms and (b) institutional complexity and participation. This is followed by an examination of two kinds of green economy issues: (1) state-centered economic debates and (2) human-development-focused debates. In the final section we examine opportunities and limitations for making progress on sustainable development. We argue that the UNCSD did little to advance institutional reforms, but that the initiative to formulate Sustainable Development Goals has the potential to significantly influence the sustainable development agenda.

Least developed countries often lack the requisite capacity to implement climate change adaptation projects. The Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) is a scheme where industrialized countries have (as of early 2016) disbursed $934.5 million in voluntary contributions, raised more than four times that amount in co-financing, and supported 213 adaptation projects across 51 least developed countries. But what sorts of challenges have arisen during implementation? Based on extensive field research in five least developed countries—Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, the Maldives, and Vanuatu—and original data collected from almost 150 research interviews, this article qualitatively explores both the benefits and challenges of LDCF projects in the Asia-Pacific. It finds that while LDCF projects do contribute to enhancing multiple types of infrastructural, institutional, and community-based adaptive capacity, they also suffer from uncertainty, a convoluted management structure, and an inability to fully respond to climate risks. Based on these findings, the study concludes that adaptation must be pursued as a multidimensional process; and that LDCF activities have tended to promote marginal rather than more radical or systematic transformations.

Societal transformation is one of the most topical concepts in sustainability research and policy-making. Used in many ways, it indicates that nonlinear systematic changes are needed in order to fully address global environmental and human development challenges. This paper explores what sustainability transformations mean for lay focus group participants in Cabo Verde, China, Fiji, Sweden, and the USA. Key findings include: (a) Tightly linked to interpersonal relationships, sustainability was seen as going beyond the Sustainable Development Goals to include a sense of belonging; (b) transformations were framed as fundamental changes from today’s society, but most participants stated that transformation pathways need to splice new structures into the old; (c) new technologies are key engines of change. Yet, the most common drivers were awareness, education, and knowledge sharing; and (d) regardless of whether state-centric or decentralized governance was preferred, personal action was seen as essential. The focus groups displayed a shared understanding across the geographical settings; a common realization of profound sustainability predicaments facing societies across the world; and a desire for fundamental change towards a more sustainable way of life.

Creating incentives to promote sustainable development with climate benefits as side effects is the aim of several policy proposals in international politics. Recently, such proposals surface in the negotiations of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions by developing countries (NAMAs). We label such policy instruments Sustainable Development – Policies and Measures (SD-PAMs) after a previously proposed mechanism in the negotiations. In this article an approach for analysing such policy proposals before they have been adopted is developed. The approach is based on reconstructing intervention theories of the proposal(s), highlighting the assumptions about the leverage mechanisms through which change is supposed to occur and the assumptions about the actions through which the interventions are presumed to be implemented. The use of value chains is applied to identify what aspects of a socio-technical system the policies and measures are targeting. Provided international and national institutions to register, control and support implementation, SD-PAMs are expected to provide incentive to voluntary mitigation actions and provide increased possibilities of financing or access to new technologies for implementation. SD-PAMs incentivized by the carbon credits require a too intricate institutional framework to make it effective, compared to those aiming for funding or technology transfer.