The Politics of Sustainable Finance for Forests: Interests, beliefs and advocacy coalitions shaping forest sustainability criteria in the making of the EU Taxonomy

IF 8.6 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
A. Begemann , C. Dolriis , A. Onatunji , C. Chimisso , G. Winkel
{"title":"The Politics of Sustainable Finance for Forests: Interests, beliefs and advocacy coalitions shaping forest sustainability criteria in the making of the EU Taxonomy","authors":"A. Begemann ,&nbsp;C. Dolriis ,&nbsp;A. Onatunji ,&nbsp;C. Chimisso ,&nbsp;G. Winkel","doi":"10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2025.103001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The EU’s sustainable finance regulation classifying sustainable economic activities — known as “taxonomy” in short — has made headlines due to controversies about what can be considered a sustainable investment, and what not. This study investigates the evolution of advocacy coalitions and their strategies in the development of the taxonomy’s forestry criteria. It is built on an interpretive process tracing, involving 46 expert interviews conducted in 2019, 2021 and 2022, and an extensive document analysis. Our findings illustrate a complex process that is connected to a diversity of sectoral policies. This cross-sectoral nature of the policy process enables the emergence of cross-sectoral alliances, highlighting strikingly different policy beliefs and economic as well as bureaucratic/political interests connected to these. Owing to a rich set of strategies employed, and deals made at different policy levels, as well as an overall lack of transparency, the proclaimed “science-based” decision-making is de facto turned into a highly contested political minefield. Science – insofar involved – has contributed to the legitimisation of divergent beliefs rather than mediate among them. We conclude by arguing that the taxonomy’s potential to globally influence the regulation of sustainable finance as a “gold standard” is questionable because of the ambiguity resulting from the political struggle.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":328,"journal":{"name":"Global Environmental Change","volume":"92 ","pages":"Article 103001"},"PeriodicalIF":8.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Environmental Change","FirstCategoryId":"6","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937802500038X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The EU’s sustainable finance regulation classifying sustainable economic activities — known as “taxonomy” in short — has made headlines due to controversies about what can be considered a sustainable investment, and what not. This study investigates the evolution of advocacy coalitions and their strategies in the development of the taxonomy’s forestry criteria. It is built on an interpretive process tracing, involving 46 expert interviews conducted in 2019, 2021 and 2022, and an extensive document analysis. Our findings illustrate a complex process that is connected to a diversity of sectoral policies. This cross-sectoral nature of the policy process enables the emergence of cross-sectoral alliances, highlighting strikingly different policy beliefs and economic as well as bureaucratic/political interests connected to these. Owing to a rich set of strategies employed, and deals made at different policy levels, as well as an overall lack of transparency, the proclaimed “science-based” decision-making is de facto turned into a highly contested political minefield. Science – insofar involved – has contributed to the legitimisation of divergent beliefs rather than mediate among them. We conclude by arguing that the taxonomy’s potential to globally influence the regulation of sustainable finance as a “gold standard” is questionable because of the ambiguity resulting from the political struggle.
森林可持续金融的政治:利益、信念和倡导联盟在制定欧盟分类标准中塑造森林可持续性标准
欧盟对可持续经济活动进行分类的可持续金融监管——简称“分类法”——由于关于什么可以被视为可持续投资、什么不能被视为可持续投资的争议而成为头条新闻。本研究调查了倡导联盟的演变及其在分类法林业标准发展中的策略。它建立在解释性过程追踪的基础上,涉及2019年、2021年和2022年进行的46次专家访谈,以及广泛的文件分析。我们的研究结果表明,这是一个与多种部门政策相关的复杂过程。这种政策过程的跨部门性质使跨部门联盟得以出现,突出了截然不同的政策信念以及与之相关的经济和官僚/政治利益。由于采用了一套丰富的战略,在不同的政策层面达成了协议,以及总体上缺乏透明度,所谓的“基于科学的”决策实际上变成了一个高度竞争的政治雷区。科学——就其参与程度而言——促成了不同信仰的合法化,而不是在它们之间进行调解。我们的结论是,由于政治斗争造成的模糊性,分类法作为“黄金标准”在全球范围内影响可持续金融监管的潜力值得怀疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Global Environmental Change
Global Environmental Change 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
18.20
自引率
2.20%
发文量
146
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Global Environmental Change is a prestigious international journal that publishes articles of high quality, both theoretically and empirically rigorous. The journal aims to contribute to the understanding of global environmental change from the perspectives of human and policy dimensions. Specifically, it considers global environmental change as the result of processes occurring at the local level, but with wide-ranging impacts on various spatial, temporal, and socio-political scales. In terms of content, the journal seeks articles with a strong social science component. This includes research that examines the societal drivers and consequences of environmental change, as well as social and policy processes that aim to address these challenges. While the journal covers a broad range of topics, including biodiversity and ecosystem services, climate, coasts, food systems, land use and land cover, oceans, urban areas, and water resources, it also welcomes contributions that investigate the drivers, consequences, and management of other areas affected by environmental change. Overall, Global Environmental Change encourages research that deepens our understanding of the complex interactions between human activities and the environment, with the goal of informing policy and decision-making.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信