Exploring International Organisations’ Positioning in the Possibility Space of Global Eco-Social Policymaking

Eco-social policy research has made great advances in examining the challenges of mutually reinforcing economic, social and ecological problems, the so-called ‘eco-social-growth trilemma’. International organisations (IOs) are also well aware of this trilemma. The EU’s Green Deal (EGD) mentions all three elements – growth, welfare and climate. The ILO suggests ‘just transition’, highlighting the intricate nature of the economic, societal and environmental sphere. Observing differences across IOs, we aim to conceptually disentangle and empirically examine their varying policy positions and underlying normative rationales. Starting from a theoretical discussion of this trilemma, we identify two dimensions that span the space of eco-social policy possibilities. The first dimension refers to the degree of regulatory capacity that is deemed necessary to balance the policy goals of the trilemma’s three poles. The second dimension refers to the notion of justice that underlies different IO policy claims addressing the trilemma. Combining both, we first arrive at a typology that describes the space of possibilities for IO eco-social policymaking: (1) green capitalism, (2) green constitutionalism, (3) public-private environmental governance and (4) sustainable welfare. In a second step, these conceptually derived approaches serve as benchmarks against which current IO eco-social policymaking is examined. We analyse key policy documents using interpretive policy analysis to understand how a range of IOs (EU, FAO, ILO, IRENA, OECD, UNCTAD and World Bank) frame their approach to eco-social policies. Based on the content and justifications of the policy mixes, we map the IOs’ positions in the possibility space. Our mapping shows that while IOs do not fully explore the entire spectrum of policy possibilities, some diversity in the institutionalised understandings of ‘just transition’ exists. Revealing these underlying normative and theoretical differences across IO eco-social policy approaches contributes to overcoming fragmentation problems amongst IOs in this policy area. Theoretically, the developed typology cannot only be applied to other global actors, but it further helps to shift current debates in the literature away from their normative focus towards an analytical orientation that highlights the underlying theoretical assumptions of each approach. Note to the organisers: While section 12 seems most appropriate for this contribution, we are open to placement in sections S01 or S56 if that better suits the programme.