Abstract:This is an introductory paper to a special issue on climate governance entrepreneurship, where entrepreneurship is understood as acts performed by actors seeking to ‘punch above their weight’. By contrast, actors who are merely doing their job are not ‘entrepreneurs’. In order to understand climate policy and governance, we need to learn more about the factors that condition variance in entrepreneurial activity, strategies and success. In this introduction, we present a comprehensive review of the literature o… Show more
“…Within the public policy literature several scholars focus on micro‐level processes, and particularly on the role of policy entrepreneurs. Whereas policy entrepreneurship has been mainly studied in relation to policies at the national level (Boasson and Huitema, ), we argue here that global collaborations are also likely to emerge as a result of policy entrepreneurs’ activities (Stone and Ladi, ). A few recent studies that have adopted Kingdon's multiple streams framework to explain the formation of collaborations, for example, point to the critical role of policy entrepreneurs in the process (see for instance, Cornforth et al., ; Lober ;Takahashi and Smutny, ).…”
Global collaborations across level, domain, and sector boundaries are on the rise. This article analyses policy entrepreneurship for the establishment of the Global Alliance for Climate‐Smart Agriculture (GACSA), a global multi‐actor collaboration to address climate change and foster food security and development. We explore policy entrepreneurship as a process embedded within specific contexts. To that end we focus on the strategizing process, consisting of conditions, activities, and implications. Through a congruence case study based on interviews, documents, survey, and observation we find that: (1) accommodating a varied global community requires flexibility and adaptability from entrepreneurs towards a dynamic and changing environment; (2) the variety of actors constituting GACSA compromises vigour of the collaboration, and confuses the meaning of CSA; (3) whereas collective entrepreneurship is often depicted as joint operation of multiple actors, it might also be characterized by conflicting activities and/or successive involvement; (4) policy entrepreneurship is useful to establish collaborations, but its role is temporary. Entrepreneurs must therefore be sensitive to their potential obsoleteness and withdraw at the right moment. Our results show that policy entrepreneurship is a useful lens to study global policy processes, while providing guidelines to inspire and support practitioners to engage with global policy processes.
“…Within the public policy literature several scholars focus on micro‐level processes, and particularly on the role of policy entrepreneurs. Whereas policy entrepreneurship has been mainly studied in relation to policies at the national level (Boasson and Huitema, ), we argue here that global collaborations are also likely to emerge as a result of policy entrepreneurs’ activities (Stone and Ladi, ). A few recent studies that have adopted Kingdon's multiple streams framework to explain the formation of collaborations, for example, point to the critical role of policy entrepreneurs in the process (see for instance, Cornforth et al., ; Lober ;Takahashi and Smutny, ).…”
Global collaborations across level, domain, and sector boundaries are on the rise. This article analyses policy entrepreneurship for the establishment of the Global Alliance for Climate‐Smart Agriculture (GACSA), a global multi‐actor collaboration to address climate change and foster food security and development. We explore policy entrepreneurship as a process embedded within specific contexts. To that end we focus on the strategizing process, consisting of conditions, activities, and implications. Through a congruence case study based on interviews, documents, survey, and observation we find that: (1) accommodating a varied global community requires flexibility and adaptability from entrepreneurs towards a dynamic and changing environment; (2) the variety of actors constituting GACSA compromises vigour of the collaboration, and confuses the meaning of CSA; (3) whereas collective entrepreneurship is often depicted as joint operation of multiple actors, it might also be characterized by conflicting activities and/or successive involvement; (4) policy entrepreneurship is useful to establish collaborations, but its role is temporary. Entrepreneurs must therefore be sensitive to their potential obsoleteness and withdraw at the right moment. Our results show that policy entrepreneurship is a useful lens to study global policy processes, while providing guidelines to inspire and support practitioners to engage with global policy processes.
“…5 Framing has been identified by the editors of this special issue as a key strategy of entrepreneurs that do not target authoritative decision-making but rather aim for normative change. Boasson and Huitema (2017) In 2017, shareholders of ExxonMobil have achieved, for the first time in history, a 62% majority in favor of a proposal calling on the company to assess and disclose how it is preparing its business for the transition to a low-carbon future (CERES, 2017). In a study from 2010 (CERES, 2010), the climate change proxy voting of 46 mutual funds in the US is analyzed and found to have grown from 14% votes in support in 2004 to nearly 27% in support in 2009.…”
Section: Analysis and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The empirical illustrations provided here have substantiated the claim that carbon disclosure has developed into a mature organizational field via the four stages of the model, driven by a range of entrepreneurial activities. A particularly interesting observation in this regard is that entrepreneurship in the carbon disclosure field has predominantly employed the second strategy introduced by Boasson and Huitema in the introduction to this special issue: entrepreneurship by aiming at 'altering or diffusing norms and cognitive frameworks, worldviews or institutional logics' (Boasson and Huitema, 2017). Table 1 summarizes the dominant role of governance entrepreneurs in each stage.…”
Section: Conclusion: the Role Of Governance Entrepreneurs In Institumentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the introduction to this special issue, Boasson and Huitema (2017) introduce two key characteristics of entrepreneurship that help to determine whether or not an actor/ organization acts entrepreneurial. First, entrepreneurship includes acts that are targeted at 'enhancing governance influence by altering distribution of authority and information' (Boasson and Huitema, 2017).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, entrepreneurship includes acts that are targeted at 'enhancing governance influence by altering distribution of authority and information' (Boasson and Huitema, 2017). And second, entrepreneurship includes acts 'aimed at altering or diffusing norms and cognitive frameworks, worldviews or institutional logics' (Boasson and Huitema, 2017).…”
An innovative approach to mitigating climate change beyond the international negotiations and hardlaw approaches is governing by disclosure -the acquisition and dissemination of information to influence the behavior of particular actors. This paper analyzes the institutionalization of carbon disclosure as an organizational field, focusing in particular on the role of governance entrepreneurs in this process. The emergence of carbon disclosure is scrutinized along four distinct stages of transnational institutionalization: start-up; competition and growth; convergence and consolidation; integration into international public policy. For each phase, the role and relevance of governance entrepreneurs is analyzed. The article finds that during the first stage, entrepreneurs mainly acts as innovators and ''out-of-the-box'' thinkers; in stage 2, entrepreneurs can be characterized as flexible adaptors and opportunity seekers, while in stage 3, the role of meta-governors in dominant. Finally, the last stage, entrepreneurs acts as connectors and bridge-builder between the transnational sphere of carbon disclosure and the wider international governance arena.
The shift towards sustainable development is argued to be achieved by a circular disruption triggered or supported by circular economy (CE) policies. CE policies can pressure the disruption of currently predominant linear socio-technical systems across sectors towards a circular paradigm. Knowledge on how these policies appear on the agenda is essential to accelerate the circular disruption. Several works highlight the importance of policy entrepreneurs as agenda setters. However, they were not explored by the scholarly community on CE yet. Therefore, this article analyses the characteristics and strategies of CE policy entrepreneurs in Portugal as a circular frontrunner in the European Union (EU). Two groups of policy entrepreneurs were distinguished based on their different characteristics and strategies. Successfully driving the adoption of national CE policies required ambitious, tenacious and perfectionist CE expert(s) who create a CE vision, derive concrete solutions and gather support for their ideas, the CE initiator. Influencing CE implementation and evaluation required politically savvy CE implementers who openly and tenaciously develop projects and secure the continuous development of the policy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.