Search

A recent article in this journal (Jackson 2021) validly emphasized that debates about the Anthropocene need to recognize a diverse range of perspectives, worldviews, and forms of knowledge. In doing so, however, the author mischaracterized scholarship on earth system governance as being antithetical to a critical and pluralistic stance on the Anthropocene. In this commentary we address key concerns about the article: selective and misleading quotations regarding the earth system governance literature’s diversity; unwarranted insinuations that juxtapose the implications of this literature with those of slavery and holocausts; and neglect of the breadth and diversity of scholarship on earth system governance. We underscore the need for scholarly debates on the Anthropocene to be informed by a balanced and rigorous assessment of existing scholarship, and for a constructive dialogue between global and locally situated ways of understanding the earth.

Markets for plant-based protein products are experiencing unprecedented growth. However, the extent to which the wider diffusion of plant-based protein products is beneficial to human and planetary health is still a contested issue in public discourses. The study of media frames for plant-based protein products can serve as a basis for approaches of technology assessment, which aim to inform actors involved in innovation processes of important aspects of diffusion, including controversy and unexpected risks regarding societal reactions. In this paper, we conduct a frame analysis of three U.K. broadsheet newspapers (the Telegraph, the Guardian, and the Times) between 2010–2020 to explore how media frame plant-based protein products. The results show that overall media coverage for plant-based diets has adopted a positive stance. However, there is variation in how plant-based protein products and particularly meat and dairy substitutes are portrayed. The biggest stumbling block appears to be potentially adverse health implications associated with the consumption of meat and dairy substitutes. We therefore argue that the scope of strategic choices regarding product design should also focus on the development of products more analogous to whole plant-based foods. Moreover, we argue that the long-term resilience of the plant-based protein sector will require strategies that convincingly align with policy goals for food security and broader food system sustainability.

This chapter provides an overview of the multi-faceted landscape of methods used to study the steering effects of the Sustainable Development Goals. After a discussion of the political use of science and the complex relations between science and politics, the chapter showcases a selection of different methods that are employed to trace the steering effects of the Sustainable Development Goals. Selecting the most suitable method for a particular research question requires understanding their main characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. The chapter highlights that all methods and tools need to be combined to comprehensively assess the political impact of the goals, the progress towards their achievement, and their overall transformative potential. As data gaps and unequal geographical coverage still hamper a broader understanding of the political impact of the globalgoals, we need to build bridges across language communities, disciplines and methodological camps, which still work very much in isolation.

Private philanthropic foundations—nongovernmental, nonprofit organizations with assets provided by donors for socially useful purposes—have become key political actors in global sustainability governance. Their collective efforts amount to over USD 112 billion for the implementation of the United Nations (UNs)’s ambitious plan to deliver on seventeen interconnected Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This corresponds to about a quarter of governmental contribution through official development assistance for the same purposes. Many of these foundations implicitly or explicitly aim to foster global justice, through, for example, empowering women, reducing inequalities, and promoting democracy. They thus act as justice agents shaping the substance and practice of justice in global sustainability governance. But what does this direction of private money into supporting global justice norms really mean? This question deserves scrutiny, especially against a context of diverse and contested meanings of justice and because philanthropy—beyond an act of giving—is often an exercise of power. Using critical discourse analysis of texts produced by selected foundations that are key funders of the UN Sustainable Development Agenda, this paper examines how private foundations frame global justice and with what implications for sustainability governance. Les fondations philanthropiques privées - organisations non gouvernementales à but non lucratif dont les actifs sont fournis par des donateurs à des fins d'utilité sociale - sont devenues des acteurs politiques clés de la gouvernance mondiale de la durabilité. Leurs efforts collectifs s’élèvent à plus de 112 milliards de dollars pour la mise en œuvre du plan ambitieux de l'ONU visant à atteindre dix-sept objectifs de développement durable (ODD) interconnectés. Cela correspond à environ un quart des contributions gouvernementales apportées par le biais de l'aide publique au développement aux mêmes fins. Nombre de ces fondations visent implicitement ou explicitement à favoriser la justice mondiale, par exemple en renforçant l'autonomie des femmes, en réduisant les inégalités et en promouvant la démocratie. Elles agissent ainsi en tant qu'agents de justice façonnant la substance et la pratique de la justice dans la gouvernance mondiale de la durabilité. Mais que signifie réellement cette orientation de l'argent privé vers le soutien des normes de justice mondiale? Cette question mérite un examen approfondi, en particulier dans le contexte de significations diverses et contestées de la justice et parce que la philanthropie - au-delà de l'acte de don - est souvent un exercice du pouvoir. Cet article s'appuie sur une analyse critique du discours des textes produits par une sélection de fondations qui sont des participantes clés au financement du Programme de développement durable de l'ONU et examine la manière dont les fondations privées définissent la justice mondiale et ce que cela implique pour la gouvernance de la durabilité. Las fundaciones filantrópicas privadas (organizaciones no gubernamentales y sin fines de lucro que utilizan los activos que les proporcionan sus contribuyentes con propósitos útiles para la sociedad) se han convertido en actores políticos claves en la gestión de la sostenibilidad global. Sus esfuerzos colectivos equivalen a USD 112 000 millones aproximadamente para la implementación del ambicioso plan de la ONU que plantea cumplir con 17 Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) interconectados. Esto equivale a alrededor de un cuarto de la contribución gubernamental a través de la Ayuda Oficial al Desarrollo para los mismos propósitos. Muchas de estas fundaciones tienen como objetivo implícito o explícito promover la justicia global a través de, por ejemplo, el empoderamiento de las mujeres, la reducción de las desigualdades y el fomento de la democracia. Por lo tanto, actúan como agentes de justicia que configuran el fundamento y la práctica de la justicia en la gestión de la sostenibilidad global. Sin embargo, ¿cuál es el significado real del uso del dinero privado en el apoyo de las normas de justicia global? Esta pregunta debe analizarse especialmente en un contexto de significados diversos y cuestionados sobre la justicia y teniendo en cuenta que la filantropía, más allá de ser un acto caritativo, suele representar un ejercicio del poder. Mediante el análisis crítico del discurso de textos producidos por fundaciones seleccionadas que financian la Agenda sobre el Desarrollo Sostenible de la ONU, este documento analizará cómo las fundaciones privadas construyen la justicia global y cuáles son las implicaciones para la gestión de la sostenibilidad.