Refine
Undertaking local actions, such as implementing public (sustainability) policy, plays a crucial role in achieving sustainable development (SD) at the municipal level. In this regard, indicator-based assessment supports effective implementation by measuring the SD process, based upon evidence-based outcomes that indicators produce. Over the last decade, using subjective indicators, which rely on an individual’s self-perception to measure subjects, has gained its significance in sustainability assessment, in line with the increasing importance of signifying individual’s and community’s well-being (WB) in the context of SD. This study aims to discuss and clarify the scope and functions of subjective sustainable development indicators (SDIs) conceptually and theoretically while examining the usability of such indicators employed in the practice of assessing sustainability policy and action process in a Japanese municipality. Furthermore, the potential usability of using subjective SDIs in monitoring a municipal initiative of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is also explanatorily examined. The present paper consists of a framework paper and three individual studies.
In the framework paper, Section 1 introduces the global transition of SD discourse and the role that local authorities and implementing public policy play in achieving SD while outlining how WB positions in the SD context. Section 2 provides a brief overview of the major scope of overall SDIs at the conceptual and theoretical levels. Section 3 defines WB in the study’s own right while exploring the scope of indicators measuring WB. In addition, this study strives to further clarify the peculiar scope of SDIs, measuring WB by synthesising the findings. Section 4 overviews how SD at the municipal level in Japan is practiced while acknowledging the extent to which residents perceive WB and SDGs in policymaking. Section 5 provides a brief yet extensive summary of the three individual studies. Section 6 discusses the findings while presenting implications for further study and practices of subjective SDIs.
Furthermore, the three individual studies provide a thorough and in-depth discussion of the study subject. Study 1 illustrates the SD trend at the municipal level in Japan and the growing recognition of using subjective SDIs in public (sustainability) policy assessment in exploring comparative SDI systems to municipality groups. The findings, in turn, raise the need for a further study on subjective SDIs. Study 2 extensively discusses the concept of WB as the overarching subject to be measured while examining varying approaches and scopes of SDIs. It identifies three differentiated WB (i.e., material and social objective WB as well as subjective WB) and distinctive approaches of subjective SDIs (i.e., expert-led and citizen-based approaches) alongside objective SDIs. The findings suggest that these SDIs identified are, conceptually, most capable of measuring associated WB; for instance, citizen-based subjective SDIs can most optimally measure subjective WB. Finally, Study 3 examines the usability of (citizen-based) subjective SDIs in a practice of assessing public policy, aiming at municipal SD, and the potential usability of using such indicators in monitoring a municipal SDG initiative. The findings highlight the determinants and obstacles of using subjective SDIs as well as signifying WB in measuring progress of a municipal SD practice.
In political and academic debates, there are increasing voices for a sustainable transformation that culminates in the demand for collaborative human action. Collaborative governance is a promising approach to address the difficult challenges of sustainability through global public and private partnerships between diverse actors of state, market and civil society. The textile and clothing industry (hereafter: textile sector) is an excellent example where a variety of such initiatives have evolved to address the wicked sustainability challenges. However, the question arises whether collaborative governance actually leads to transformation, also because the textile sector still faces various sustainability challenges such as the violation of workers' rights, agriculture and water pollution from toxic chemicals, and emissions from logistics that contribute significantly to climate change.
In this dissertation, I therefore question whether and how collaborative governance in the textile sector provides space for, or pathways to, sustainability transformation. In three scientific articles and this framework paper, I use a mixed-methods research approach and follow scholars of sustainability science towards transformation research. First, I conduct a systematic literature review on inter-organizational and governance partnerships before diving into a critical case study on an interactive collaborative governance initiative, the German Partnership for Sustainable Textiles (hereafter: Textiles Partnership). The multi-stakeholder initiative (MSIs) was initiated by the German government in 2015 and brings together more than 130 organizations and companies from seven stakeholder groups. It aims at improving working conditions and reducing environmental impacts in global textile and clothing supply chains. In two empirical articles, I then explore learning spaces in the partnership and the ways in which governance actors navigate the complex governance landscape. For the former, I use a quantitative and qualitative social network analysis based on annual reports and qualitative interviews with diverse actors from the partnership. Then, I use qualitative content analysis of the interviews, policy documents and conduct a focus group discussion to validate assumptions about the broader empirical governance landscape and the social interactions within. Finally, in this framework paper, I use theories of transformation to distinguish forms of change and personal, political and practical spheres of transformation, and reflect on the findings of the three articles in this cumulative dissertation.
I argue that collaborative governance in general and MSIs in particular provide spaces for actors to negotiate their diverse interests, values and worldviews, which is a valuable contribution to social learning and interaction for transformation. However, private governance structures and the diversity and unharmonized nature of initiatives in the landscape hinder the realization of the full potential of such partnerships for practical transformation. My case study shows that in such partnerships, structures emerge that impede the full engagement of all actors in constructive conflict for social learning because they create structures in which few are actively involved in making decisions. This traces back to a practical trade-off between learning and achieving governance outcomes. I argue that decisions should not be rushed, but space should be provided for the confrontation of different values and interests to arrive at informed solutions. Additionally, actors in such partnerships are completely overwhelmed by the multiplicity of different and mostly voluntary initiatives and partnerships, which bring different, non-harmonized commitments, so that actors take on varying and sometimes conflicting roles. MSIs are thus limited by the need for stronger state regulation, which in Germany is now leading to the implementation of the Due Diligence Act in June 2021. Collaborative governance initiatives are thus critical platforms where different actors are able to negotiate their values and political interests. However, they need to be embedded in governmental framework conditions and binding laws that transcend national borders, because the industry's challenges also transcend borders. Only in this way can they contribute substantively to transformation. Further research should focus on the interplay between state and private regulation through further case studies in different sectors and foster inter- and transdisciplinary research that allow for spaces for social interaction and learning between science and practice.
