The Politics of Sustainable Finance for Forests: Interests, beliefs and advocacy coalitions shaping forest sustainability criteria in the making of the EU Taxonomy
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 , C. Dolriis , A. Onatunji , C. Chimisso , 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.
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.