Multistakeholder partnerships (MSPs) have been advocated as new global governance mechanisms that could address implementation and emission gaps. Yet, there is limited knowledge of how citizens evaluate MSPs as means to policy implementation, especially in comparison with governance arrangements led by traditional actors like governments and corporations. This study examines how citizens evaluate climate policy proposals involving MSPs. Does it matter for citizens who are implementing policies? If so, do citizens prefer policies implemented by MSPs or other actors, such as governments or private companies? We argue that citizens are more likely to show support for climate policies that are implemented by MSPs than for policies implemented by single actors such as governments and business. To test our expectations, we conduct a population-based conjoint survey experiment fielded to over 6000 respondents in Brazil, the UK, and the US. Our main findings are three-fold. First, in line with our expectation, we find that citizens have greater support for global climate policies if they are implemented by MSPs rather than by governments or the private sector. Second, we find that support for MSPs in the implementation of climate policies is stronger among citizens who support collaboration between different societal actors. Third, we find that citizens – regardless of their political ideology, attitudes to the environment, and confidence in their government – prefer climate policies implemented by MSPs. In addition to these results, we also find that citizens generally prefer highly ambitious and cost-effective climate policy proposals. We conclude by providing some substantial implications for our understanding of MSPs.

The aim of the European Green Deal and the EU’s climate and energy legislation is to accelerate decarbonization to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement. This paper examines how public and democratic legitimacy affect the prospect for implementing the EU’s Fit for 55 package by comparing climate ambition and policy performance in Denmark and Sweden. While Sweden suffers from an implementation deficit, Denmark is on the way to reach its 2030 targets and emerged as a climate front-runner for stronger 2040 targets. Through an illustrative comparative case study of Denmark’s and Sweden’s implementation of the EU’s 2030 targets, this paper examines how public and democratic legitimacy affect climate ambition, policy performance and implementation. While public legitimacy of the EU’s climate policy is robust despite the rise of populist parties in Denmark and Sweden, democratic legitimacy to enhance accountability, transparency and participation is stronger in Denmark.

The Paris Agreement ushered in an era of climate governance underpinned by a polycentric theory of change, emphasizing experimentation, collaboration, and innovation while downplaying political contestation, power asymmetries, and the need for regulatory action by the state. This article explores the roles the state plays in polycentric climate governance, focusing on the tension between the regulatory state, where authorities set, monitor, and enforce rules, and the orchestrating state, which facilitates collaboration with nonstate actors to induce behavioral change. Using decarbonization in Sweden as an illustrative case study, the article synthesizes the results of two research projects evaluating the promises and limits of polycentric climate governance. The results problematize the view that Sweden is a forerunner in climate governance, suggesting that while the Swedish government has mobilized support from important industries and cities in favor of decarbonization, that support may be insufficient to achieve necessary societal transformation for deep decarbonization. Finally, the study reflects on the conditions necessary for polycentric governance to effectively decarbonize society, highlighting the pivotal role of the regulatory state.

This review examines the promises and pitfalls of multistakeholder partnerships (MSPs) for sustainable development. We take stock of the literature on the creation, effectiveness, and legitimacy of MSPs and focus on recent research on MSPs committed to achieving the 2030 Agenda and United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The 2030 Agenda conceives of MSPs as vehicles to achieve large-scale sustainability transformations. Yet, research on MSPs under earlier sustainable development initiatives found that they had limited effectiveness and significant legitimacy deficits. We show that recent research on SDG partnerships suggests they reproduce many of the shortcomings of their predecessors and so are unlikely to foster synergies and minimize trade-offs between areas of sustainable development to deliver transformations on a global scale. We also examine recent research on the prospects of governing MSPs to enhance accountability and ensure better institutional designs for achieving transformations, highlighting challenges arising from international political contestation.

International secretariats have increasingly turned toward orchestration as a mode of governance. This chapter analyzes the normative dimensions associated with orchestration, such as democratic values related to participation, accountability, transparency, and deliberation. It argues that orchestration as an indirect mode of governance muddles who should be held accountable for which actions, to which set of standards, and which agents have the right to demand said accountability. Orchestrators need to ensure that their own actions, and those of intermediaries, are democratically legitimated by affected stakeholders. The chapter applies this argument to orchestration by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat. While previous research on orchestration of the UNFCCC has predominantly focused on effectiveness nonstate action, this chapter shows how and why nonstate climate action requires democratic legitimation. It concludes by discussing the intrinsic and instrumental importance of evaluating orchestration through a democratic legitimacy lens and the implications for international secretariats.