How green are our laws? Presenting a normative coherence for sustainable development methodology

Abstract

Policy coherence for sustainable development (PCSD) has become a pillar of supranational sustainable development agendas, promoting "whole of government approaches." The concept of normative coherence for sustainable development (NCSD) has emerged as a new stage of policy coherence for sustainable development analysis. NCSD is a policy approach that aims to promote transformative development by examining the relationship between policies and key sustainability norms, such as those expressed in the sustainable development goals. Normative coherence for sustainable development is recognized in recent scholarship but it remains generalized, lacking operationalization. This article proposes an NCSD methodology for analysis of legal frameworks. Qualitative empirical research tested this approach in Mexico by focusing on federal laws as well as those in two states: Aguascalientes and Veracruz. The analysis which examined four dimensions of sustainable development (economic, social, security, and environmental) showed that the environmental dimension of Mexico's legal framework is the least prioritized, suggesting that this framework is not very "green" even though environmental laws are the most transversal in content, which indicate significant levels of mainstreaming. Sustainable development experts were then contacted by the research team to validate the findings and interpret the results. This normative coherence for sustainable development methodology aims to situate normative considerations at the center of evaluation in order to promote domestic transformative sustainable development strategies and the "greening" of legal frameworks.

A participatory framework to evaluate coherence between climate change adaptation and sustainable development policies

“…However, there is still a much room for a development of coherence analysis methods in the field of environmental sciences and studies. Koff, Challenger, et al (2022) also noted that policy silos still predominate in climate change and sustainable development thematic areas, while integration between these two environmental dimensions is missing but needed to promote successfully transformative development. Their dependency (i.e., their coherence) should be urgently addressed.…”

Organizing for Sustainable Development

“…These concepts also bring together discourses from different fields, as illustrated by the broad view taken in the SDGs (Ramos et al, 2020;UN General Assembly, 2015). Although definitions of sustainable development vary, often causing conceptual confusion that makes it difficult to put the concept into practice (Sheehy & Farneti, 2021), the SDGs are widely recognised as a normative compass for sustainable development policymaking (Fukuda-Parr, 2016; Koff et al, 2022).…”

“…There is a wide variety of concepts, names and characteristics of dimensions in the literature. Thus, for example, in publications devoted to the four dimensions, one can find at least five different statements on several industries (Cheng et al, 2009;Gallopín et al, 2014;Ke et al, 2021;Koff et al, 2022;R. Najjar, 2022).…”

“…4 Economic, social, environmental/ ecological, institutional (Ávila et al, 2017;Hersen et al, 2019;Laxe et al, 2017;Lizama-Pérez et al, 2018;Londoño-Pineda et al, 2021;Spangenberg, 2004;Toumi et al, 2017;UN-CSD, 2007;Valentin & Spangenberg, 2000) Economy, society, environment, coordination Economic, social, environmental, security (Koff et al, 2022) Environmental, economic, social, transportation efficiency (Ke et al, 2021) Economic, ecological, environmental, multidimensions (Cheng et al, 2009) Economic, social, ecological, political -institutional (Gallopín et al, 2014) Social, economic, environmental, cultural-historical (R. Najjar, 2022) 5 Economic, social, ecological, the built environment, political (Allen, 2009) Economic, social/ethical, environmental, technical and institutional (Bhattacharyya, 2012;Ebrahimi & Rahmani, 2019;Iddrisu & Bhattacharyya, 2015;Ilskog, 2008) New five-dimensional sustainability triangle: Place, Permanence, Persons (Iribarnegaray & Seghezzo, 2012;Seghezzo, 2009) Ecological, social, economic, cultural, safety (Tomaškinová et al, 2019(Tomaškinová et al, , 2021 6 Moral, ecological, social, economic, legal, technical, political (Pawłowski, 2008) 7 Ecological, political, ethical, socio-economic, democratic, cultural, theological Vogt and Weber (2019) Economic, social, environmental, legal, political, ethical and cultural (González et al, 2021) Source: Own elaboration.…”

“…Koff et al define sustainable development through the approach promoted by Agenda 2030, which includes economic aspects, social justice, environmental protection and human security (Koff et al, 2022;UN General Assembly, 2015). Although security is not traditionally considered a dimension in the SDGs, the authors included it because, on the one hand, the "securitisation" of sustainability (Raco, 2007) is increasingly occurring at the supranational and national levels, and on the other, it has a local context (and security can be a priority political issue).…”