Green industries and companies provide crucial political support for ambitious environmental policy. In this article, I examine through which mechanisms green business interests influence international environmental negotiations. I theorize technology-based arguing as an influence mechanism that builds on combined technological and discursive power and can outstrip relational and structural business power rooted in material resources. I probe these propositions in a process-tracing case study of new wastewater regulations for ships in the Baltic Sea negotiated in the Helsinki Commission and International Maritime Organization. I find that green business built, expanded, and sustained state support for ambitious nutrient removal standards by persuasively arguing that advanced treatment was feasible. Provision of tangible evidence of technology development, availability, and uptake undermined the influence of reluctant and materially superior business interests. I conclude that even small green business actors can facilitate ambitious environmental policy when communication channels between innovators and policymakers are strong.

Calls for supporting sustainability through more and better research rest on an incomplete understanding of scientific evidence use. We argue that a variety of barriers to a transformative impact of evidence arises from diverse actor motivations within different stages of evidence use. We abductively specify this variety in policy and practice arenas for three actor motivations (truth-seeking, sense-making, and utility-maximizing) and five stages (evidence production, uptake, influence on decisions, effects on sustainability outcomes, and feedback from outcome evaluations). Our interdisciplinary synthesis focuses on the sustainability challenge of reducing environmental and human health risks of agricultural pesticides. It identifies barriers resulting from (1) truth-seekers’ desire to reduce uncertainty that is complicated by evidence gaps, (2) sense-makers’ evidence needs that differ from the type of evidence available, and (3) utility-maximizers’ interests that guide strategic evidence use. We outline context-specific research–policy–practice measures to increase evidence use for sustainable transformation in pesticides and beyond.

Chapter 20 explores the management of increased shipping activities in the Arctic Ocean, which is changing dramatically due to regional warming and declines in the extent and thickness of sea ice. Increased shipping, which has been made possible by climate change, poses new threats to Arctic Ocean ecosystems, including the growing danger of accidental spillage of fuel oil and emissions of black carbon – itself a contributor to climate change - into the atmosphere. In response to these threats, traditional state-based governance ap-proaches, notably in the context of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), are being supplemented by newer forms of transnational governance that involve nongovernmental and corporate actors. This combination of traditional approaches to marine environmental governance with newer innovative approaches can serve as an example for governing other marine environments affected by global change. The chapter advocates innovative governance involving nonstate actors in the region, which in turn can stimulate traditional state-oriented institutions to bring their resources to bear on addressing the impacts of global environmental change.

The objectives and challenges of the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development stress the need to generate new knowledge about ocean problems, involve multiple stakeholders, and develop solutions for sustainable ocean development. In this perspective article, I argue that Earth System Governance (ESG) research could contribute significantly to addressing these needs. First, it can identify salient frames for ocean problems that trigger policy action. Second, it can inform stakeholder involvement by mapping powerful and marginalized interests and suggesting pathways towards more inclusive participation. Third, it can support viable and effective ocean solutions based on insights into political support coalitions and governance design. To make these contributions, ESG needs to be mainstreamed into ocean science. Governance researchers can facilitate mainstreaming by (i) greater knowledge cumulation around ocean issues, (ii) stronger engagement with frameworks of actionable knowledge production, and (iii) proactive integration into inter- and transdisciplinary ocean research.

The article explores energy policy tradeoffs faced by states that expand renewable electricity production and are part of cross-border electricity systems. We develop the concept of an impossible energy trinity (IET), which posits that many states cannot simultaneously achieve energy security, sustainability, and sovereignty. We argue that these states have three options to cope with the challenge of intermittent electricity production from domestic renewables. The dirty option resorts to base or reserve electric generating capacity from non-sustainable sources. The insecure option accepts system stability risks and/or higher electricity prices. The non-autonomous option cedes control over domestic energy rules to pursue integration with neighboring electricity grids and markets. We empirically illustrate our novel concept using the case of Switzerland, which finds itself at the crossroads of the three options. The country has to choose whether to add conventional generation capacities, accept grid instabilities and higher electricity prices, or integrate with the EU electricity market and rules. We discuss generalizations to other countries and ways to manage the IET. We conclude that public pressure for decarbonization and economic pressure to maintain secure energy supply render the non-autonomous option most likely in many states. The operation and governance of transboundary grid structure thereby influence energy transitions on national and subnational scales.

This chapter explores the political influence of Switzerland as a non-EU country in European electricity governance. We argue that the influence of non-EU countries depends on their access to European governance institutions and their structural power resources. We further posit that the type of structural power resources circumscribes the specific areas of influence. The empirical analysis assesses these variables qualitatively based on interview and other primary data. First, it shows that Switzerland has relatively high access to important European governance bodies. Second, it reveals that Switzerland possesses structural power in serving as a European transit hub for electricity and an important source of technical expertise. Third, it confirms our theoretical expectation that Switzerland acts as a shaper in European electricity governance. Swiss influence is especially seen in matters related to grid management and cross-border electricity trade. Limitations to Swiss influence are often rooted in the legal principles of the EU internal market. Our findings qualify claims about a marginalization of Switzerland in European electricity governance. At the same time, we highlight uncertainties resulting from the present lack of an electricity agreement between Switzerland and the EU. Our chapter recommends Swiss policy-makers to strive for viable forms of energy cooperation with the EU and to strengthen the transit function and technical expertise of the country.