Cities and local governments are increasingly under pressure to accelerate transformative change in energy and climate transitions. To help cities in their climate actions, the European Commission (EC) has established the EU Cities Mission, which aims for climate neutrality by 2030 for participating cities. The literature argues that one of the main obstacles to accelerating decarbonization lies in organizational divisions and other forms of structural silos. One of the possible ways to address these challenges and accelerate transformation is through governance innovations. The EU Cities Mission is a governance innovation that aims to incentivize and support climate and energy transitions in cities. In this paper, we critically assess the EU Cities Mission’s framework and implementation plan in terms of its potential and possible gaps in addressing different types of silos. To do so, we develop an analytical framework based on academic literature that outlines types of silos and strategies for addressing them. Our results show that key EU Cities Mission documents include several strategies to bridge silos, but that some silos are less frequently addressed. This is particularly the case for silos that rely on political leadership. The paper concludes by drawing out the implications of our findings for the scholarly literature and practice.

Institutional reforms are crucial to meeting growing transboundary challenges. However, the scholarship recognizes that institutions are often sticky due to path dependencies. This paper aims to contribute to the literature on institutional reform by highlighting the web of processes interacting to enable or prevent change from happening. The paper argues that a framework for understanding prospects for reform must combine perspectives about agency and architecture in order to gain insights into the coming together of the supply and demand of reform proposals. An international institution that faces growing calls for reform is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This paper examines UNFCCC reform options through an interview study with a range of stakeholders. The interviews reveal factors that can advance or block reform. The paper concludes by discussing its findings and implications for understanding the politics of institutional reform.

Governing sustainability challenges such as climate change or biodiversity loss presents a profound democratic dilemma. Although democratic practices and procedures are widely regarded as essential for collectively addressing complex sustainability issues, liberal democracies have been criticized by some scholars for their inability to effectively tackle global environmental threats like climate change. We reconcile these positions by outlining how the emerging field of democratic innovations can help to address the critical challenges that democracies face when governing sustainability transformations. We focus on three issues liberal democracies are confronted with: reformist incrementalism, (de)politicization, and imaginary boundaries. We then exemplify how democratic innovations such as deliberative mini-publics, participatory budgeting, and material participation can help address these challenges. Our review suggests that democratic innovations hold the potential to address political concerns, find compromises between extreme positions, reconnect people's everyday lives with the grand sustainability challenges they face, and allow for alternative visions of a desirable future society. However, we also address cautionary tales, discuss the limitations of democratic innovations, and outline avenues for future research, which we believe can help further elaborate and develop participatory approaches to critical sustainability challenges.

The Paris Agreement ushered in an era of climate governance underpinned by a polycentric theory of change, emphasizing experimentation, collaboration, and innovation while downplaying political contestation, power asymmetries, and the need for regulatory action by the state. This article explores the roles the state plays in polycentric climate governance, focusing on the tension between the regulatory state, where authorities set, monitor, and enforce rules, and the orchestrating state, which facilitates collaboration with nonstate actors to induce behavioral change. Using decarbonization in Sweden as an illustrative case study, the article synthesizes the results of two research projects evaluating the promises and limits of polycentric climate governance. The results problematize the view that Sweden is a forerunner in climate governance, suggesting that while the Swedish government has mobilized support from important industries and cities in favor of decarbonization, that support may be insufficient to achieve necessary societal transformation for deep decarbonization. Finally, the study reflects on the conditions necessary for polycentric governance to effectively decarbonize society, highlighting the pivotal role of the regulatory state.

This chapter employs a survey to ask whether the efforts of various climate networks as part of collaborative climate governance are perceived as effective. Sweden is known for being a corporatist state in which dialogue with stakeholders is a key feature of policy development. This can also be seen in the way that the Swedish government has developed its policies for decarbonization by establishing the multi-stakeholder initiative Fossil Free Sweden as a flagship. However, there are numerous other climate networks that are led by non-state and sub-state actors and operate independently of state action. This chapter outlines a set of multi-actor networks that work to contribute to achieve Sweden’s climate targets and assesses them in terms of perceived effectiveness. By studying the perceptions of key stakeholders, this chapter seeks to understand the contributions of various climate networks to Swedish decarbonization beyond measurable emission reductions, thereby paving the way for critical reflections about the role of collaborative climate action in broader governance arrangements.

This chapter provides an overview of the aims and research questions guiding this book. It introduces key terms and concepts and outlines the main contributions of the book. The chapter explains why the complex relations between state and non-state actors are crucial to understanding the implementation of the Paris Agreement. It provides a background to understanding the role of collaborative climate governance in the post-Paris governance landscape by highlighting the international context and describing Sweden’s climate policy framework. Finally, it provides a brief overview of each chapter in the book.

How can the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) be made more effective? This paper argues that in order to make the UNFCCC fit for purpose, there is a need to identify the specific institutional reforms that can create ripple effects to accelerate climate action across governance levels and relevant organisations. Longstanding calls to reform the UNFCCC have targeted inefficient procedures with the intent to promote effective outcomes and - after entry into force of the Paris Agreement - to transform the UNFCCC towards holding more implementation-focused deliberations. Despite such calls, UNFCCC reform has been modest, at best. Central to the failure of reform proposals are vested interests with conflicts of interest that seek to obstruct climate action. Without addressing these elephants in the room, reform proposals will make modest contributions to overcoming key challenges. It is due time to start retargeting institutional reform from addressing procedural inefficiencies at the UNFCCC towards addressing vested interests. We propose a new research agenda to understand ways to undermine incumbent actors seeking to preserve business as usual and support new entrants that facilitate climate action through green spiralling. A reform process addressing vested interests could improve both procedural efficiency and implementation.

This chapter examines Sweden’s emissions trends and the evolution of climate policy in an international perspective by focusing on its role and interdependent relationship with climate action in the EU and with international climate coalitions. The chapter examines the assumption that Sweden is a front-runner and role model in setting and implementing ambitious climate policy. The emission trends across sectors suggest that Sweden has been able to swiftly reduce its emissions, in particular from industry and energy conversion, but that current reduction rates are insufficient to reach its decarbonization target. Reducing emissions in agriculture and transport poses perhaps the greatest challenges for the Swedish state. The chapter also discusses the limits and possibilities for the State to implement its decarbonization target while being dependent on the climate policies in the EU, notably the Emission Trading Scheme (ETS). It also looks at Sweden’s role in international climate governance by zooming in on its role in international climate collaborations and clubs. Finally, the chapter provides three reasons for caution when it comes to Sweden’s reputation as a role model. First, that the rate of GHG reduction has declined significantly. Second, that consumption-based approaches to counting GHG emissions demonstrates that Sweden remains a high-emitting country. Third, that Sweden’s consumption-levels are far above the global average and its current consumption patterns should not be emulated by other countries.

This chapter advanced the analytical framework of the book, which revolves around the role of the state in governing large-scale decarbonization through collaborative climate governance with interactions of non-state and sub-state actors, networks and multi-stakeholder partnerships in the various governance relations. We provide a coherent framework rooted in theoretical and conceptual debates on the multitude of relations between the state and non-state actors in the governance of climate change. By connecting these governance relations to three evaluative themes of the politics of decarbonization (justice, effectiveness, and legitimacy), we theorize how the state shapes decarbonization processes in a landscape of non-state and sub-state climate action. The chapter situates the book’s contributions to the wider scholarship and highlights the theoretical debates that the empirical chapters will revisit.