IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ieaple/v22y2022i3d10.1007_s10784-021-09554-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cultivated ties and strategic communication: do international environmental secretariats tailor information to increase their bureaucratic reputation?

Author

Listed:
  • Linda Mederake

    (Ecologic Institute)

  • Barbara Saerbeck

    (Agora Energiewende)

  • Alexandra Goritz

    (Freie Universität Berlin
    Leipzig University)

  • Helge Jörgens

    (Iscte-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa and Cies—Centro de Investigação e Estudos de Sociologia)

  • Mareike Well

    (Freie Universität Berlin)

  • Nina Kolleck

    (Leipzig University)

Abstract

The past few years have witnessed a growing interest among scholars and policy-makers in the interplay of international bureaucracies with civil society organizations, other non-profit entities, and the private sector. This article extends the state of research by investigating whether and how secretariats try to strengthen their reputation within their respective policy regimes through information provision and alliance building. Based on reputation theory, the article argues that ties cultivated with stakeholders as well as appearance and presentation of information are decisive in this regard. Methodologically, the study implements a mixed-methods design that combines a quantitative survey with social network analysis and qualitative content analysis of interviews with stakeholders within the climate and biodiversity regime. We show that the secretariats of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) maintain relationships with a wide range of state and non-state actors to enhance their reputation. Moreover, different types of actors receive different types of information from the two secretariats studied. Our findings reveal that both secretariats use their limited resources for investing strategically into networks with different types of actors (in the broader transnational policy network), either via the tailored provision of information or through strategic networking with multipliers. They also indicate that reputation does not simply depend on characteristics of bureaucracies, but also on framework conditions and different communication strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Linda Mederake & Barbara Saerbeck & Alexandra Goritz & Helge Jörgens & Mareike Well & Nina Kolleck, 2022. "Cultivated ties and strategic communication: do international environmental secretariats tailor information to increase their bureaucratic reputation?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 481-506, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:ieaple:v:22:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s10784-021-09554-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10784-021-09554-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10784-021-09554-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10784-021-09554-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Torbjørg Jevnaker & Barbara Saerbeck, 2019. "EU Agencies and the Energy Union: Providing Useful Information to the Commission?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(1), pages 60-69.
    2. Nina Kolleck & Mareike Well & Severin Sperzel & Helge Jörgens, 2017. "The Power of Social Networks: How the UNFCCC Secretariat Creates Momentum for Climate Education," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 17(4), pages 106-126, November.
    3. Naghmeh Nasiritousi & Mattias Hjerpe & Björn-Ola Linnér, 2016. "The roles of non-state actors in climate change governance: understanding agency through governance profiles," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 109-126, February.
    4. Tana Johnson, 2016. "Cooperation, co-optation, competition, conflict: international bureaucracies and non-governmental organizations in an interdependent world," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(5), pages 737-767, September.
    5. Joanna Depledge, 2007. "A Special Relationship: Chairpersons and the Secretariat in the Climate Change Negotiations," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 7(1), pages 45-68, February.
    6. Steffen Bauer, 2006. "Does Bureaucracy Really Matter? The Authority of Intergovernmental Treaty Secretariats in Global Environmental Politics," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 6(1), pages 23-49, February.
    7. Katharina Rietig, 2011. "Public pressure versus lobbying � how do Environmental NGOs matter most in climate negotiations?," GRI Working Papers 70, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    8. Katharina Rietig, 2014. "‘Neutral’ experts? How input of scientific expertise matters in international environmental negotiations," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(2), pages 141-160, June.
    9. Kenneth Abbott & Duncan Snidal, 2010. "International regulation without international government: Improving IO performance through orchestration," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 315-344, September.
    10. Alexandra Conliffe, 2011. "Combating Ineffectiveness: Climate Change Bandwagoning and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 11(3), pages 44-63, August.
    11. Sikina Jinnah, 2011. "Marketing Linkages: Secretariat Governance of the Climate-Biodiversity Interface," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 11(3), pages 23-43, August.
    12. Barbara Saerbeck & Mareike Well & Helge Jörgens & Alexandra Goritz & Nina Kolleck, 2020. "Brokering Climate Action: The UNFCCC Secretariat Between Parties and Nonparty Stakeholders," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(2), pages 105-127, May.
    13. Thomas Hickmann & Joshua Philipp Elsässer, 2020. "New alliances in global environmental governance: how intergovernmental treaty secretariats interact with non-state actors to address transboundary environmental problems," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 459-481, September.
    14. Irja Vormedal, 2008. "The Influence of Business and Industry NGOs in the Negotiation of the Kyoto Mechanisms: the Case of Carbon Capture and Storage in the CDM," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 8(4), pages 36-65, November.
    15. Christoph Knill & Louisa Bayerlein & Jan Enkler & Stephan Grohs, 2019. "Bureaucratic influence and administrative styles in international organizations," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 83-106, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Barbara Saerbeck & Mareike Well & Helge Jörgens & Alexandra Goritz & Nina Kolleck, 2020. "Brokering Climate Action: The UNFCCC Secretariat Between Parties and Nonparty Stakeholders," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(2), pages 105-127, May.
    2. Thomas Hickmann & Joshua Philipp Elsässer, 2020. "New alliances in global environmental governance: how intergovernmental treaty secretariats interact with non-state actors to address transboundary environmental problems," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 459-481, September.
    3. Thomas Hickmann & Joshua Philipp Elsässer, 0. "New alliances in global environmental governance: how intergovernmental treaty secretariats interact with non-state actors to address transboundary environmental problems," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-23.
    4. Joshua Philipp Elsässer & Thomas Hickmann & Sikina Jinnah & Sebastian Oberthür & Thijs Graaf, 2022. "Institutional interplay in global environmental governance: lessons learned and future research," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 373-391, June.
    5. Chenaz B. Seelarbokus, 2014. "Assessing the Effectiveness of International Environmental Agreements (IEAs)," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(1), pages 21582440145, February.
    6. Harriet Thew, 2018. "Youth participation and agency in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 369-389, June.
    7. Michael W. Manulak, 2017. "Leading by design: Informal influence and international secretariats," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 497-522, December.
    8. Nina Kolleck & Mareike Well & Severin Sperzel & Helge Jörgens, 2017. "The Power of Social Networks: How the UNFCCC Secretariat Creates Momentum for Climate Education," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 17(4), pages 106-126, November.
    9. Philipp Pattberg & Cille Kaiser & Oscar Widerberg & Johannes Stripple, 2022. "20 Years of global climate change governance research: taking stock and moving forward," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 295-315, June.
    10. Thomas Maak & Nicola M. Pless & Christian Voegtlin, 2016. "Business Statesman or Shareholder Advocate? CEO Responsible Leadership Styles and the Micro-Foundations of Political CSR," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 463-493, May.
    11. Torbjørg Jevnaker & Barbara Saerbeck, 2019. "EU Agencies and the Energy Union: Providing Useful Information to the Commission?," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(1), pages 60-69.
    12. C. Randall Henning, 2019. "Regime Complexity and the Institutions of Crisis and Development Finance," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 50(1), pages 24-45, January.
    13. Avidan Kent, 2014. "Implementing the principle of policy integration: institutional interplay and the role of international organizations," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 203-224, September.
    14. Jens Heidingsfelder & Markus Beckmann, 2020. "A governance puzzle to be solved? A systematic literature review of fragmented sustainability governance," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 70(3), pages 355-390, August.
    15. Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, 2022. "Ordering global governance complexes: The evolution of the governance complex for international civil aviation," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 293-322, April.
    16. Kenneth W. Abbott & Philipp Genschel & Duncan Snidal & Bernhard Zangl, 2021. "Beyond opportunism: Intermediary loyalty in regulation and governance," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(S1), pages 83-101, November.
    17. Agata Gurzawska & Markus Mäkinen & Philip Brey, 2017. "Implementation of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) Practices in Industry: Providing the Right Incentives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-26, September.
    18. Nina Kolleck & Helge Jörgens & Mareike Well, 2017. "Levels of Governance in Policy Innovation Cycles in Community Education: The Cases of Education for Sustainable Development and Climate Change Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-16, October.
    19. Alexandra Goritz & Nina Kolleck & Helge Jörgens, 2019. "Education for Sustainable Development and Climate Change Education: The Potential of Social Network Analysis Based on Twitter Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-15, October.
    20. Ryan Federo & Angel Saz‐Carranza, 2020. "A typology of board design for highly effective monitoring in intergovernmental organizations under the United Nations system," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(2), pages 344-361, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:ieaple:v:22:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s10784-021-09554-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.