Suchergebnisse

With Agenda 2030, the UN adopted wide-ranging Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that integrate development and environmental agendas. This book focuses on the political tensions between the environmental objectives and socio-economic aspects of sustainable development. The collection provides an introduction to interlinkages, synergies and trade-offs between the 'green' and other goals, such as gender equality and economic growth. It also considers related goals on cities and partnerships as crucial for implementing environmentally sound sustainability. Identifying governance failures and responsibilities, it advocates for a shift towards cooperative economics and politics for the common good.

EPDF and EPUB available Open Access under CC-BY-NC-ND license.
With Agenda 2030, the UN adopted wide-ranging Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that integrate development and environmental agendas. This book focuses on the political tensions between the environmental objectives and socio-economic aspects of sustainable development.
The collection provides an introduction to interlinkages, synergies and trade-offs between the 'green' and other goals, such as gender equality and economic growth. It also considers related goals on cities and partnerships as crucial for implementing environmentally sound sustainability. Identifying governance failures and responsibilities, it advocates for a shift towards cooperative economics and politics for the common good.

Three central perspectives on power in global supply chains -- Private regulation in global supply chains -- The return of the state -- Transnational hybrid governance -- Conclusions: Power of alternatives in global supply chains.

Individuen kommt eine neue Macht in der globalen Politik zu. Besonders deutlich wird das, wenn Philanthropen an der Spitze globaler Stiftungen stehen. Aber auch Prominenten und Social Entrepreneurs gelingt es mitunter Wandel zu initiieren.Die Studie erarbeitet, erstens, die Spezifika der drei Typen. Zweitens greift sie den zentralen Topos der Macht auf und zeigt, dass ihre Macht insbesondere in der Verbindung von power over (Zwang und Manipulation) mit power with (Kooperation und Lernen) zugenommen hat. Drittens wird die Legitimität ihrer Macht kritisch diskutiert.Empirische Fallstudien sind Bono und Heike Makatsch (Prominente), Bill Gates und Michael Otto (Philanthropen) und Muhammad Yunus und Mathis Wackernagel (Social Entrepreneurs)

Individuen kommt eine neue Macht in der globalen Politik zu. Besonders deutlich wird das, wenn Philanthropen an der Spitze globaler Stiftungen stehen. Aber auch Prominenten und Social Entrepreneurs gelingt es mitunter Wandel zu initiieren. Die Studie erarbeitet, erstens, die Spezifika der drei Typen. Zweitens greift sie den zentralen Topos der Macht auf und zeigt, dass ihre Macht insbesondere in der Verbindung von power over (Zwang und Manipulation) mit power with (Kooperation und Lernen) zugenommen hat. Drittens wird die Legitimität ihrer Macht kritisch diskutiert. Empirisc.

Several supply chain-related laws have recently been passed in Europe and the United States as a result of successful NGO campaigns, which have addressed the challenges of accountability in a globalized world. Based on the analysis of campaign documents and semi-structured interviews, the article examines the accountability narratives used by NGOs in recent campaigns for an EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). The results show that the campaigns portray European corporations as perpetrators, people in producing countries as mere victims, and NGOs as heroic liberators. NGOs reproduce postcolonial trajectories by advocating a supply chain law in the Global North as the central solution to problems in the Global South. While rescue politics is thus the defining feature of NGO campaigns, there is no evidence of the strategic use of pseudo-causal narratives that are empirically inaccurate.

AbstractThe Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) demonstrate an integration of development and environmental agendas. However, none of the environmental sub‐targets, which were due by 2020, were accomplished. Global governance through goal setting requires functioning mechanisms of accountability. Based on a theoretical framework that differentiates between public, private and voluntary logic of accountability, the article illustratively explores accountability mechanisms concerning the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This allows to discuss the untapped potential for holding power wielders, such as governments, private companies, and norm champions, accountable. While the SDGs were adopted within public governance institutions, there are regulative means of accountability available that follow private and voluntary logic. Acknowledging this hybrid character of accountability in the implementation stage, the article concludes that there is a need for additional research to explore dimensions of non‐public accountability for goals agreed upon by the international community. SDG indicators should be mandatory for corporate reporting, and civil society organisations should report more comprehensively on the spread of environmental norms in global development.

AbstractOver the last few years, European NGOs were very successful in raising awareness about international trade in minerals funding armed conflicts around the world. In May 2017, after more than three years of negotiation, the European Union signed the new Conflict Minerals Regulation. At first glance, this Regulation demonstrates 'ethical' or 'normative' power: The EU uses its commercial power to promote norms of international peace and security, accepting prospectively higher prices for imports of minerals. The Regulation also supports a re‐centring of the state after two and a half decades of economic liberalization. However, the EU only follows and lags behind the 2010 US Dodd‐Frank Act section 1502. The article shows that the EU does not reject collective norms, but is incapable or unwilling to put a tight rein on domestic businesses. The new EU Conflict Minerals Regulation stands only for symbolic normative power.

Las celebridades son capaces de movilizar un sinnúmero de personas por todo el mundo. En su discurso de aceptación del premio Oscar, Leonardo DiCaprio conminó a su público internacional a trabajar juntos para combatir el cambio climático. Otro ejemplo del activismo de las celebridades son las campañas de Daryl Hannah a favor de los biocombustibles, por una parte, y en contra del oleoducto Keystone xl, por otra. Este artículo analiza la legitimidad del poder de sendas celebridades en el ámbito de las Relaciones Internacionales a la luz de tres criterios, a saber: influencia política, amplia participación, control y rendición de cuentas. Aunque las demandas de las celebridades sigan siendo imprecisas y no prosperen en el Concierto de las Naciones, el poder de éstas puede legitimarse, sin duda, por medio de su influencia política.

AbstractMark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, made media headlines at the end of last year when he announced his intention to donate most of his Facebook shares to charity. This article deals with the significance and potential of individuals, such as Zuckerberg, in a globalized world, to determine global policy agendas. Philanthropists who head global foundations are the most apparent. While philanthropists' involvement in international relations is based on their capital, celebrities increasingly use their fame to do political advocacy, and social entrepreneurs are sometimes able to initiate change based on new ideas. Contributing to the existing literature, the article compares the characteristics of these three categories and discusses their relevance against the background of the increasing delegation of authority to private actors in global governance. When dealing with non‐state actors in global governance, scholars have simply assumed these actors to be collective entities. In consequence, we have missed the fact that power has not only shifted away from state actors but also increasingly concentrates on very few individuals who possess respective resources of power. The individualization of global policy processes therefore causes new problems of democratic accountability and legitimacy.