Topic 3: Who puts environmental problems

on political agendas?
Lecture 3 outline
Four main actors:
• Nation states (and governments)
• Civil society organisations/NGOs
• Businesses
Big names

• International actors
parties/ players
EPS Part I
• Topic 1: Why do we study ‘environment’,
‘politics’ and ‘society’ together?
• Topic 2: What is an environmental
problem?
• Topic 3: Who puts environmental
problems on political agendas?
• Topic 4: Why does it matter how we frame
an environmental problem?
A paradox…
Increasing awareness of
environmental problems across
the world
BUT
Limited success in addressing
them
Actors…
• States: national governments; sub-national authorities
• International organisations: UNFCCC, CBD, World Bank, IMO
• Businesses: corporations and finance – energy majors, heavy industry,
asset managers, rating agencies, investors, shareholders
• Civil society: NGOs, movements, Indigenous organisations, unions,
faith groups
• Epistemic communities: IPCC authors, scientific networks, expert
bodies (e.g. Climate Change Committee, UK)
• Courts and quasi-judicial bodies: national courts, ECtHR, WTO panels
• Hybrid/transnational networks: C40 Cities, Race to Zero, commodity
roundtables
Pluralism = complexity of environmental governance = authority is
dispersed rather than centralised
actors are 各⾃為政
…and the power they exercise
• Regulatory power: law, policy, standards
• Financial power: funding, investment, conditionality
• Discursive power: framing problems and solutions
• Knowledge power: scientific authority, data, expertise
• Normative power: legitimacy, moral claims, rights
• Litigative power: court rulings, accountability
• Network power: partnerships, coalitions, diffusion
 value action gap

A paradox…
Increasing awareness of environmental problems across the world
BUT
Limited success in addressing them

Individual Level: Value-action gap (also known as Key environmental actors

Attitude-behaviour gap)

1. Limited cognition: lack of knowledge and 1. States: articulate and commit but: competing
awareness (Portus et al. 2024) economic interests, political pressures, and the
2. Perceived Risks and Psychological Distance (Vieira complexities of international diplomacy.
et al. 2023) 2. NGOs: crucial role but encounter significant
3. Social Comparison and Norms (Barr 2006) difficulties (example: ‘Rightwing MEPs threaten
4. Sunk Costs and Habitual Behaviours (Barr 2006) huge funding freeze for environmental NGOs’)
5. Ideological Beliefs (Vieira et al. 2023) 3. International organisations: crucial but
Responses: environmental education + promoting effectiveness is limited by the need for consensus
social norms + structural changes among member states (remember our definition of
Politics?)
4. Corporations: gap between goals and practices
States
 States: Different
characteristics

• Centralised / decentralised
(unitary / federal)
• Economy
• Political and social context;
level of stability
• Political regime:
authoritarian / democracy
Example: National dependency on resource extraction
A report by The United Nations University World Institute for Development
Economics Research
[Link]

Key message: economic structure may (and often does) limit environmental action
An ‘environmental state’?
• Environmental state: a form of governance where
environmental protection is a core and enduring
responsibility of government (Duit, Feindt and
Meadowcroft 2016)
• Reflects the institutionalisation of environmental
policy: dedicated ministries, laws, budgets, and
agencies.
• Today, almost all states can be described as
environmental
• However, some are “more environmental” than others,
depending on their capacity, commitment, and
coherence.
• Comparable to the welfare state, but centred on
ecological protection and sustainable development.
How the Environmental State Evolved
• Origins: 1960s–1970s – Environmental degradation
and social movements push states to act. Creation of
ministries, agencies, and framework laws.
• Integration phase: 1980s–1990s – Environmental
goals embedded across policy areas (environmental
policy integration).
• Globalisation phase: 2000s–present – Expansion
through international agreements, market instruments,
and climate governance.
• Evolution is incremental: environmental functions are
layered onto existing state structures, not replacing
older priorities.
• Result: States are both drivers of ecological protection
and managers of economic growth, creating enduring
tensions.
What Does the Environmental State Do?
Regulatory function:
• Sets and enforces environmental laws, standards, and targets.
• Uses authority to manage pollution, resource extraction, and land use.
• Addresses collective-action problems (e.g. emissions, overfishing).
Administrative function:
• Establishes ministries, inspectorates, and agencies.
• Plans, monitors, and coordinates environmental programmes.
• Builds technical capacity and ensures policy continuity.
Knowledge and ideational function:
• Produces and funds environmental research and data.
• Shapes public understanding of ecological risks and solutions.
• Frames environmental protection as a legitimate state goal.
Political and mediating function:
• Serves as a forum for negotiation among competing interests (state, business,
NGOs, citizens).
• Balances environmental aims with economic and social priorities.
Environmental actors beyond the state…

“a postrealist consensus which holds that [even though] international institutions do

matter, world politics is much more than intergovernmental politics and includes a
wider range of actors than states, and world politics is not only about power and
material interests but is also about nonmaterial interests, ideas, knowledge, and
discourses” (Zürn, 1998: 619)

Global environmental politics = multi-actor and multi-level

NGOs
What Are Environmental NGOs?
• Definition: Organisations operating independently
of government to advocate for environmental
protection, sustainability, and justice.
• Origins: From 19th-century nature preservation to
global advocacy in the late 20th century.
• Growth: Thousands worldwide – from local
conservation groups to global networks like
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and WWF.
• Roles: Campaigning, lobbying, litigation, public
education, and direct action.
• Distinctiveness: Link local and global scales; act
where state action is limited.

60s-70s NGOs started most

Evolution and Institutionalisation
• 1970s–1980s: Rapid growth; rise of
transnational ENGOs; entry into international
negotiations (e.g. Stockholm 1972, Rio 1992).
• 1990s–2000s:
• Institutionalisation – formal roles in policymaking
• Professionalisation
• Stable funding
• Partnerships with governments and the EU
• Post-2008: Challenges of austerity,
depoliticisation, and shifting priorities.
• Today: ENGOs face a strategic crossroads –
• Work within institutions to influence policy, or
• Reclaim radical activism to confront systemic
inaction.
Functions and Strategies of ENGOs
• Advocacy & Lobbying: Shape policy agendas,
push legislation (e.g. UK Climate Change Act
2008).
• Knowledge & Expertise: Produce reports,
data, and policy analysis (e.g. ClientEarth
litigation on air quality).
• Public Mobilisation: Campaigns, protests,
awareness-raising (e.g. Stop Ecocide, Fridays
for Future collaborations).
• Direct Action: Disruption to highlight urgent
issues (e.g. Greenpeace ship interventions).
• Transnational Networking: Build coalitions
(e.g. Climate Action Network).
Overall: material resources + ideational power
Businesses
(Some) Frameworks for Understanding Business Roles in
Environmental Degradation

1. Neoliberalism (Girdner and Siddiqui 2008, Stoner 2021)

- Market-Driven Environmental Policies
- Deregulation and Resource Exploitation:
2. Environmental Neocolonialism (Philip 2001)
- Resource Extraction in Developing Countries
- Imposition of Environmental Policies
3. Green Grabbing (Fairhead et al. 2012)
- Appropriation of Land for Environmental Ends
- Exploitation of Carbon Markets
‘The Treadmill of Production’ and Green Crime (Long et al. 2024)
The Treadmill of Production (Schnaiberg 1980):
- capitalist economies continuously extract resources and generate
pollution to sustain economic growth – production out on a treadmill
which keep on accelerating
- ToP intensifies ecological destruction, leading to "ecological
disorganization", where ecosystems struggle to regenerate.
Capitalism’s core logic: prioritizes profit over environmental
sustainability, economic expansion worsens environmental harm.
Green crime: acts that cause significant ecological harm in pursuit of
capital accumulation, whether legal or illegal (Lynch et al. 2017).
Examples: Industrial pollution, large-scale deforestation, and
excessive carbon emissions by corporations that legally operate but
cause irreversible environmental damage.
Neoliberalism, Neocolonialism, and Unequal
Exchange
Neoliberalism: When governments step back and let markets lead.
• Example: Bolivia’s Water War (1999–2000) – water privatisation caused
price hikes and protests.
• Example: Zambia’s Copperbelt – mine privatisation increased pollution as
rules weakened.
Neocolonialism: When rich countries and corporations still control
resources in poorer nations.
• Example: Ghana’s cocoa boom – export growth under IMF/World Bank
reforms led to deforestation.
• Example: Niger Delta (Nigeria) – oil spills and gas flaring leave lasting
damage.
• Example: E-waste in Ghana & Nigeria – toxic dumping from Europe harms
local communities.
Unequal Exchange: Profits flow north, pollution stays south.
→ Resources and waste move from poorer to richer countries.
Regulating Business — what helps, and
why it’s still not enough
What regulators try:

• Rules and standards – set legal limits on pollution and waste

• Money signals – tax the bad, subsidise the good

• Transparency – make firms measure and publish impacts

• Due diligence – make firms responsible for harms in supply chains

• Voluntary moves – pledges, labels, partnerships

But:

• Current policies fall short of global climate goals (IPCC, 2023)

• Disclosure helps only when backed by strong enforcement (Christensen et al.,

2021)

• Carbon pricing cuts emissions but too slowly on its own (Rafaty et al., 2020)

• Voluntary initiatives often make limited difference (Coglianese & Nash, 2021)
International
organisations
Why We Need International
Cooperation
Environmental problems cross borders

From national to global:

• States act locally, but issues are global

• NGOs and businesses can’t create binding rules

• International organisations provide shared frameworks

What they bring:

• Common goals (e.g. SDGs)

• Neutral forums for negotiation

• Scientific knowledge and monitoring

• Funding and capacity support

Key International Organisations
Broad-scope bodies:

• European Union (EU) – integrates environment into trade and

law

• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD) – data, peer reviews, policy advice

• United Nations (UN) / United Nations Environment Programme

(UNEP) – global agendas (e.g. SDGs, Montreal Protocol)

Environment-specific bodies:

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) –

assesses climate science

• International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) –

biodiversity tools, Red List

Core functions: agenda-setting • knowledge • rule-making •

capacity-building • monitoring
Networks and Support Actors
Transnational Advocacy Networks (TANs) – “activists beyond
borders” (Keck & Sikkink, 1998)

• Share information, lobby, and mobilise public opinion

• Example: NGO coalition for the High Seas Treaty (2023)

Donors and Finance Mechanisms

• Governments, foundations, multilaterals funding action

• Example: Global Environment Facility (GEF) – biodiversity &

climate projects

Epistemic Communities – expert networks with shared beliefs

(Haas, 1989)

• Build consensus through science and policy advice

• Example: Mediterranean Action Plan – scientists guiding

regional pollution controls
International organisations: Strengths
and Limits
Strengths

• Provide legitimacy and continuity

• Translate science into policy

• Pool funds and expertise

• Encourage learning and trust

Limits

• Depend on state funding and consent

• Consensus slows decisions

• Weak enforcement powers

• “Lowest-common-denominator” outcomes

International cooperation is essential but insufficient; real

progress still hinges on domestic action and political will.
Summary
States Business
• Economic & political characteristics • Neoliberalism and neocolonialism
• Role of stability & democracy • May pay a positive role but only when
• Evolution of ‘environmental state’ makes economic sense or when
(Meadowcroft 2012) regulated /penalised for not complying
• Green parties • Green crime and and the treadmill of
production
NGOs
• Rapid growth in numbers International organisations
• Wide variation in size, scope, • Large general organisations &
objectives, funding, governance environmentally-focused ones
• Concerns about governance and co- • Networks of activists
optation • Epistemic communities
References
•Barr, S. (2006). Environmental action in the home: Investigating the 'value-action' gap. Geography, 91(1), 43–54. [Link]
•Christensen, H. B., Hail, L., & Leuz, C. (2021). Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: Economic analysis and literature review. Review of Accounting
Studies, 26(3), 1176–1248.
•Coglianese, C., & Nash, J. (Eds.). (2001). Regulating from the inside: Can environmental management systems achieve policy goals? Washington, DC:
Resources for the Future.
•Duit, A., Feindt, P. H., & Meadowcroft, J. (2016). Greening Leviathan: the rise of the environmental state?. Environmental politics, 25(1), 1-23.
•Fairhead, J., Leach, M., & Scoones, I. (2012). Green grabbing: A new appropriation of nature? The Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(2), 237–261. https://
[Link]/10.1080/03066150.2012.671770
•Girdner, E. J., & Siddiqui, K. (2008). Neoliberal globalization, poverty creation and environmental degradation in developing countries. International Journal
of Environment and Development, 5(1), 1–27.
•Haas, P. M. (1989). Do regimes matter? Epistemic communities and Mediterranean pollution control. International Organization, 43(3), 377–403.
•Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2023). Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (H. Lee & J. Romero, Eds.). Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.
•Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Cornell University Press.
•Philip, K. (2001). Seeds of neo-colonialism? Reflections on ecological politics in the new world order. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 12(2), 3–47. https://
[Link]/10.1080/104557501101244910
•Portus, R., Aarnio-Linnanvuori, E., Dillon, B., Fahy, F., Gopinath, D., Mansikka-Aho, A., … McEwen, L. (2024). Exploring the environmental value action gap
in education research: A semi-systematic literature review. Environmental Education Research, 30(6), 833–863. [Link]
10.1080/13504622.2024.2314060
•Rafaty, R., Dolphin, G., & Pretis, F. (2020). Carbon pricing and the elasticity of CO₂ emissions (INET Working Paper No. 140). Institute for New Economic
Thinking.
•Schnaiberg, A. (1980). The environment: From surplus to scarcity.
•Stoner, A. M. (2021). Things are getting worse on our way to catastrophe: Neoliberal environmentalism, repressive desublimation, and the autonomous
ecoconsumer. Critical Sociology, 47(3), 491–506. [Link]
•Vieira, J., Castro, S. L., & Souza, A. S. (2023). Psychological barriers moderate the attitude-behavior gap for climate change. PLOS ONE, 18(7), e0287404.
[Link]
•Zürn, M. (1998). The rise of international environmental politics: A review of current research. World Politics, 50(4),617–649.