To Örebro University

Corporate accountability is central for dealing with environmental and health effects in complex supply chains. When companies hold their suppliers accountable to certain rules or standards, these become disseminated in the supply chain. This study analyses how voluntary restrictions of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in paper-based food packaging in Sweden are translated as they travel down the supply chain and their relationship to supplier practice. The multidisciplinary approach draws on both interviews with key actors and chemical analysis of PFAS in food packaging. It shows how demands for accountability for chemicals are translated both horizontally in the industry and vertically in supply chains resulting in a set of interrelated voluntary standards and rules. The chemical analysis detected PFAS in almost half of the samples, but at levels indicating non-intentional use, thereby complying with the disseminated rules. The result shows that the standards largely institutionalize established practices in support of “laggards” rather than push the industry to more radical phase-out of PFAS.

Policy integration is a key strategy for promoting sustainability, yet recent research calls for more actor-centric approaches to understand it in practice. This article addresses this gap by theorizing on systemic, organizational and individual-level factors that influence how Swedish Sustainability Coordinators engage with critical tasks to integrate sustainability in local governance. Our framework demonstrates how sustainability and governance ideas and norms, organizational positioning, and individual role perceptions influence their use of five key action strategies to integrate sustainability: connecting, problem-solving, protesting, leading and subversive actions. By better understanding what conditions these actors' courses of action, we add important pieces of the theoretical puzzle for understanding processes of policy integration, bring broader insights on local environmental governance, and promote critical reflection among practitioners.

Governing sustainability challenges such as climate change or biodiversity loss presents a profound democratic dilemma. Although democratic practices and procedures are widely regarded as essential for collectively addressing complex sustainability issues, liberal democracies have been criticized by some scholars for their inability to effectively tackle global environmental threats like climate change. We reconcile these positions by outlining how the emerging field of democratic innovations can help to address the critical challenges that democracies face when governing sustainability transformations. We focus on three issues liberal democracies are confronted with: reformist incrementalism, (de)politicization, and imaginary boundaries. We then exemplify how democratic innovations such as deliberative mini-publics, participatory budgeting, and material participation can help address these challenges. Our review suggests that democratic innovations hold the potential to address political concerns, find compromises between extreme positions, reconnect people's everyday lives with the grand sustainability challenges they face, and allow for alternative visions of a desirable future society. However, we also address cautionary tales, discuss the limitations of democratic innovations, and outline avenues for future research, which we believe can help further elaborate and develop participatory approaches to critical sustainability challenges.

The autonomy of public organizations is a central aspect of academic and policy debates on how to come to grips with some of the world’s most pressing societal challenges. It not only raises key issues regarding governance but also draws attention to fundamental tensions between politics and administration in democratic societies. To understand how and why public organizations gain and maintain autonomy it is important to treat this as inherently political processes, shaped by struggles over how public authority is to be exercised in society. In this chapter two broad strands of research that analyze organizational autonomy from an explicitly political perspective are contrasted: Bureaucratic politics, understanding organizational autonomy as resulting from a tug-of-war within and between public organizations over power, resources, and critical tasks, and depoliticization, seeing organizational autonomy as a political response to handle problems generated by democratic politics. The chapter brings attention to important factors and mechanisms behind organizational autonomy, such as public organizations' exclusive expertise and constituency support as well as the role of structural politics, the need for credible policy commitments and political blame avoidance. The chapter concludes that the analytical lenses are complementary, helping to bring researchers' attention to different important mechanisms and political forces behind autonomy. The chapter ends by raising some critical questions about how to approach organizational autonomy, both as a research object and as a political phenomenon in democratic government. 

Regulatory intermediaries—organizations that operate between regulators (public and private) and target groups—perform a range of important functions. While most previous research has focused on intermediaries that have been delegated official authority, in this paper we focus on unofficial and informal intermediary functions aiming to advance the governance of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) chemicals. Chemical pollution is a growing environmental and health concern, leading to both public and private regulatory initiatives. By studying a particular segment—paperboard food packaging in Sweden—the study generates insights into critical functions performed by unofficial intermediaries (Svenskt Vatten and ChemSec) in this regulatory regime, which extend and expand regulatory reach in various ways. The study also shows the importance of different types of intermediaries that interact in dynamic ways, and the role of material artifacts in processes of intermediation. These unofficial functions are arguably important for the functioning of complex, hybrid forms of governance, but they also prompt critical questions about the effectiveness, legitimacy, and role of intermediaries in generating needed transformative change.

Biodiversity decline undermines the conditions for life on Earth resulting in calls for transformative governance of biodiversity. Under the Convention on Biological Diversity, national biodiversity strategies provide the primary mechanism through which governments demonstrate their conservation efforts. With many countries due to develop new strategies under the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, it is timely to assess existing ones to identify policy design elements that could be ‘ratcheted up’ to meet the transformative agenda. This article analyzes andc ompares the policy designs of national biodiversity strategies in Australia, France and Sweden. We cover problem framing, policy goals, targeted groups, implementing agents, and policy instruments, to draw lessons on how national strategies can be designed to further support transformation of biodiversity governance. We identify elements in these strategies that can be used to inspire future ones: a negotiated framing of biodiversity and participatory processes in France, nested and integrated goals, targets and measures in Sweden, and an engagement with indigenous knowledge in Australia. However, to bring about transformative change, the analysis also shows the need for novel and fundamental re-designs to successfully target indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, shift power relations, and make biodiversity conservation a priority rather than an option.

The Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has played an important role in assessing knowledge and raising awareness of biodiversity loss, and it is now also mandated to assess and support processes of transformative change. This perspective paper argues that the transformative change assessment entails key elements of transformative agency, which, along with the performative role of IPBES, makes it relevant to re-conceptualize the organization as a transformative agent. This new role will change IPBES and brings attention to risks related to undermining the credibility, relevance and legitimacy of IPBES, but it also brings opportunities for innovations that may strengthen the organization, including furthering public reasoning, acknowledging ambiguities and disagreements, ensuring scientific autonomy and balancing governmental power in the organization. As IPBES takes on the fundamental challenge of transformative change, critical scrutiny and democratic debate regarding its function as a political actor are more important than ever.

Collaboration has become a key element of governments’ efforts to address complex policy problems as well as of attempts to revitalise democracy. Depending on what public agencies want to achieve by engaging in collaboration – whether collaboration is intendedto gain support for public policymaking, induce voluntary actions by stakeholders, or something else – collaborative governance will have to mean very different things.Collaborative governance needs to be made fit for purpose. Drawing on the literature and a case study of road safety governance in Sweden, the article theorises on the interplay between strategic purpose and institutional design in collaborative governance and shows how two types of strategic purposes – policy support and voluntary actions – determine appropriate choices of institutional designs. This generates important insights that contribute to understanding institutional diversity and factors important to the success or failure of collaborative governance, and can aid practitioners who are designing collaborative forums within various policy fields.

Consequences of public officials’ policy influence have been at the center of debates on political–administrative relations. Based on a survey of public managers in Swedish local government (N = 1,430), this study examines whether policy politics hollows out political neutrality. The analysis shows that although managers are highly involved in policy politics, attitudinal support for the neutrality principle is strong. The enquiry into behavioral intentions shows more variation. In relation to a set of dilemmas, most managers would defend neutral competence, but significant minorities would also act for more partisan reasons. However, we find no empirical evidence that policy influence undermines political neutrality.