Case Studies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case Studies VII Networks, Club Goods, and Partnerships for Sustainability: The Green Power Market Development Group Liliana B. Andonoa Colby College Introduction Multi-stakeholder partnerships are now a significant domain of envi- ronmental governance.1 Over a period of the last 10-15 years, the number of environmental partnerships, involving a variety of corporate, advocacy, public, or local actors have skyrocketed. This phenomenon is furthermore broad and diverse. There are several large international programs that either support or showcase hundreds of partnerships. The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) and subsequently the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) have endorsed and reg- istered over 330 partnerships for sustainable development.2 The United Nations Fund for International Partnerships supported 140 environmental partnership projects between 1998 and 2005.3 The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) through its Small Grants Program has financed over 9,000 multi-stakeholder projects at the local level for climate change, biodiversity, land degradation, international waters, and persistent organic pollutants.4 The SEED Partnership and the Equator Initiative, in turn, have held annual I am grateful to Alexander Perera and Robert Heilmayr from the WRI for discussing with me the history and experience of GPMDG and facilitating contact with member companies; as well as to Lars Lundahl, Tetra Pak, and Dan Usas, Johnson & Johnson, for sharing insights from the experience of their companies with GPMDG and green power. Steve Erario provided timely and detailed research assistance, for which I am much obliged. All analysis, interpreta- tion of data, and arguments expressed in the report are that of the author. http://webapps01.un.org/dsd/partnerships/public/welcome.do. http://www.un.org/unfip/YPAEnironment.htm. http://sgp.undp.org/index.cfm?module=ActieWeb&page=WebPage&s=IntheSpotlight. 65 66 ENHANCING THE EFFECTIVENEss OF SUSTAINABILITY PARTNERshIps or bi-annual competitions and awards for grass-roots partnerships, draw- ing hundreds of applications from around the world.5 In parallel, many prominent non-governmental organizations and associations such as the World Economic Forum, the World Business Council for Sustainable Devel- opment, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Clinton Foundation, the World Resources Institute, the World Wildlife Fund for Nature, the World Conservation Union, and others have announced multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainability. And this is only the tip of the partnership iceberg in a sea of 21st-century governance options. How is the academic community to approach a subject of sustainability governance so amorphous, seemingly unbounded, and rapidly evolving? So far, there have been a number of case studies of multi-stakeholder partner- ships, highlighting their functional advantages as a mode of governance (Kaul 2005; Reinicke 1999; Reinicke and Deng 2000). The WSSD partner- ships have also drawn a fair amount of analysis, some of which examine with greater scrutiny the characteristics of partnership entrepreneurs, and issues of legitimacy and accountability (Andonova 2006a; Andonova and Levy 2003; Hale and Mauzerall 2004; Witte et al. 2003). There has been little effort, however, to link research projects in order to address important cross-cutting questions about the diverse origins and structures of partner- ships, and the mechanisms through which they influence (or fail to influ- ence) sustainability. Detailed and comparative analysis of the impacts and effectiveness of partnerships is in particularly short supply. Indicative of the fragmentation of research are the many terms used to conceptualize partnerships as a governance phenomenon: “public policy networks” (Reinicke 1999), “multi-sectoral networks” (Benner, Reinicke, and Witte 2003), “learning networks” (Ruggie 2002), and public-private institutions (Andonova 2006a). Each of these concepts emphasizes a some- what different aspect in the functions of partnerships as well as the com- monality of their network structure. More recently, Andonova, Betsill, and Bulkeley (2007) have proposed a broader framework for conceptualizing network governance and a typology to facilitate a more systematic exami- nation of its role in transnational climate change politics. The typology is particularly useful for the purposes of the present study since it distin- guishes between governance networks on the basis of two criteria: the types of actors involved in the network and its primary function. In terms of stakeholder participation, three network types are identified: largely “private networks” (e.g., where members are non-state actors), “public net- works” (involving a variety of public organizations across jurisdictions and scales), and “hybrid networks” (in which both governmental and non-state actors participate). In terms of functional focus, the typology distinguishes See http://www.seedinit.org/ and http://www.undp.org/equatorinitiatie/. ThE GREEN POWER MARKET DEVELOPMENT GROUP 6 between “information sharing,” “capacity building and implementation,” or “rule-setting” networks on the basis of their primary governance objec- tive, while also recognizing that a single network could involve several of these functions (Andonova, Betsill, and Bulkeley 2007). This study uses the concept of “multi-stakeholder partnerships,” which is the one most widely employed in the policy literature and practice. Part- nerships are defined as governance networks based on voluntary agreements between actors representing at least two different sectors (business, govern- ment, or non-profit), which steer its membership to act by establishing a common a set of norms, rules, practices of information and capacity diffu- sion, and implementation procedures. Partnerships can be thus described as agreements of the willing, establishing flexible, network-based systems of governance in areas of common interest. The partnership examined in this report, the Green Power Market Development Group (GPMDG), exemplifies a particular type of governance network in terms of the typology discussed above. Structurally, it fits the category of “private networks” as it involves collaboration among private (in the sense of non-state) actors—large commercial companies and a non- profit environmental think tank. The primary functional objective of the partnership is the implementation of a specific sustainability good, green power, which is also supported through information diffusion and learning functions. The report advances the argument that this particular type of partnership network is well suited to provide a set of sustainability “club goods” for its members in terms of supporting their capacity to implement sustainable outcomes by leveraging knowledge and other resources. The voluntary, non-hierarchical nature of the organization facilitates member inputs and the tailoring of the “club goods” to the collective and indi- vidual needs of participants. It thus facilitates collective action and self- enforcement of partnership goals. At the same time, these “club goods” are intended to support broader societal and public objectives, in the specific instance of GPMDG—increasing the share of renewable energy in U.S. energy markets as a means of addressing global climate change and other environmental externalities associated with the burning of fossil fuels. The case study examines the organizational characteristics of this particular partnership type, its results, and the factors which contributed to its suc- cess in linking multiple interests and sources of information to advance the implementation of renewable technologies. The report proceeds as follows. The first section provides a background of the GPMDG partnership. The analysis then examines the incentives of its main stakeholders to engage in a network of learning and the provision of sustainability goods. The structure and internal governance of GPMDG is then discussed, providing a basis for illuminating some of the similarities and differences between this and other types of multi-stakeholder networks, 6 ENHANCING THE EFFECTIVENEss OF SUSTAINABILITY PARTNERshIps as well as a comparison with other, non-network-based institutions for link- ing science, technology, and environmental practice. The section on imple- mentation examines the outcomes of GPMDG and seeks to identify through counterfactual analysis the partnership impacts on social processes, and the ways in which these impacts were facilitated by the multi-stakeholder structure. An assessment of the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the club-goods model of partnerships is followed by a conclusion on possible directions for future research. Context The GPMDG initiative was launched in 2000 by the World Resources Institute (WRI), a non-profit environmental organization, in cooperation with 10 U.S. corporations—Alcoa Inc.; Cargill Dow, LLC; Delphi Cor- poration; DuPont; General Motors; IBM; Interface; Johnson & Johnson; Kinko’s, Inc.; and Pitney Bowes. The main goal of the partnership was to engage major commercial consumers of energy in the development of green power markets.6 The concept of “green power” was summarized as “both renewable and clean energy sources that are commonly accepted as having a relatively low impact on human, animal, and ecosystem health.”7 The net- work established as its central objective to provide a specific good: “1,000 megawatts of new, cost-competitive green power by 2010 in