Earth System Governance 6 (2020) 100052

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Earth System Governance

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/earth-system-governance

Rights, equity and justice: A diagnostic for social meta-norm diffusion

in environmental governance
Sarah Lawless a, *, Andrew M. Song a, b, c, Philippa J. Cohen a, b, Tiffany H. Morrison a
a
ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia, 4811
b
WorldFish, Jalan Batu Maung, Batu Maung, 11960, Bayan Lepas, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
c
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, New South Wales, 2007, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Social meta-norms, including human rights, gender equality, equity and environmental justice, are
Received 23 October 2019 mainstream principles of good environmental governance. The permeation of social meta-norms
Received in revised form through global environmental goals, policies and agreements (e.g., the Sustainable Development
15 April 2020
Goals) is now generally accepted to be critical to the integrity of the Earth's system and to social dignity
Accepted 4 May 2020
Available online 4 June 2020
and opportunities for humanity. Yet, little is known about how globally articulated social meta-norms
lead to shifts in action at other scales of governance. Specifically, analysis of the discursive and dy-
namic nature of social meta-norm diffusion is lacking. To build a better understanding of what shapes the
Keywords:
Global norms
diffusion of social meta-norms across different scales of environmental governance, we provide a syn-
Natural resource governance thesis that bridges political and sociological theory and underscores the critical role of agency in the
Multiscale diffusion process. We identify eight drivers of diffusion along a spectrum that ranges from prescriptive
Norm diffusion drivers, which leave little space for norm negotiation, to discursive drivers, which provide an enabling
Social principles space for norm interpretation. We hypothesize these drivers intersect with a parallel spectrum of actor
responses, ranging from complete resistance to social meta-norms at one end, to complete internali-
zation of social meta-norms at the other. Our diagnostic of integrated drivers and responses is aimed at
advancing conventional norm diffusion theory by providing a better account of discursive forces in this
process. Applying these diagnostic elements to future empirical research has the potential to improve the
rationale, speed, mode and impact of social meta-norm diffusion in multiscale environmental
governance.
© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction social meta-norms form part of the environmental governance ar-

chitecture as principles that set the standards of expected behav-
There is growing recognition that to achieve environmental iour considered essential for environments and societies to flourish
outcomes, attention to the social dimensions of environmental (Biermann et al., 2009b; Kooiman and Jentoft, 2009). The integra-
sustainability is critical (Bennett et al., 2017; Biermann et al., 2012). tion of both environmental and social meta-norms within global
The way in which environmental and social spaces are navigated, environmental commitments and practice is considered crucial to
and outcomes are achieved, is shaped by governance. Environ- widespread achievement of strategic sustainable development
mental governance incorporates the formal and informal archi- agendas that support human dignity, opportunities and the integ-
tecture (i.e., rules, rule-making systems, institutions and processes) rity of the Earth's system (Berkes and Folke, 1998; Biermann et al.,
and agents (i.e., actors and networks) at all levels of decision- 2012; Raworth, 2017).
making, from global-to-local, relating to natural resources use Conventional examples of environmental meta-norms include
and management (Biermann et al., 2009a). Environmental and protection of biodiversity and preservation of ecosystems (Haas,
1999; Matulis and Moyer, 2017; Saunier and Meganck, 2007).
These norms manifest in global commitments such as the
* Corresponding author. Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), the World Heritage
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Lawless), andrew.song@uts. Convention (1972) and the Ramsar Convention (1975). Within these
edu.au (A.M. Song), [email protected] (P.J. Cohen), [email protected]
(T.H. Morrison).
commitments, humans are alternately framed as beneficiaries (or

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2020.100052
2589-8116/© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
2 S. Lawless et al. / Earth System Governance 6 (2020) 100052

destroyers) of ecosystem goods and services, or as an intrinsic part (e.g., Thomson, 1993). Analyses grounded in constructionism and
of social-ecological systems (Berkes and Folke, 1998; Mace, 2014). sociological institutionalism (e.g., Krook and True, 2010; Miller and
The increased consideration of human well-being in human- Banaszak-Holl, 2005), by contrast, focused on non-prescriptive
environment relationships has led to the emergence of ‘social’ drivers. We then turned our attention to norm responses. We
meta-norms in environmental governance such as the protection of identified, based on similar terminology (or synonyms), five
human rights, gender equality, social equity and environmental and response types (Fig. 2), which confirmed other response typologies
social justice (Kooiman and Jentoft, 2009; Moore, 2012; Okereke, built for different sectors (e.g., Zimmerman, 2016). Our develop-
2008a; Saunier and Meganck, 2007). Such social meta-norms ment of the response typology was largely guided by a construc-
now manifest in various forms at the global scale (e.g., the Sus- tionist epistemology as it allowed for a more nuanced view of
tainable Development Goals, and the Universal Declaration of Human responses (i.e., rather than just ‘uptake’ or ‘presence/absence’
Rights), and are reflected in the contemporary objectives of many which is the focus of conventional norm diffusion theory).
global environmental organizations. For example, the International Based on our review, we argue that the limited (actual) diffusion
Union for Conservation of Nature's 2017e2020 Programme pledges of social meta-norms in environmental governance is best under-
equity, social justice, transparency and inclusion to ensure that stood by drawing together conventional, discursive, and relational
‘natural resource governance at all levels enables delivery of strands of norm diffusion theory and multiscale environmental
effective conservation and equitable social outcomes by integrating governance scholarship. Conventional norm diffusion theory ex-
good governance principles and rights-based approaches’ (IUCN, plains why and how norms spread (or fail to) according to pre-
2017). scriptive formal regulatory and normative forces, such as the
While there has been sustained interest in the complex and strength of compliance and the economic ‘fit’ of a norm (Cortell and
subjective diffusion of environmental norms (e.g., Sandbrook et al., Davis, 2000). A newer strand of norm diffusion theory (drawing on
2019), the process of diffusion and the practical influence (i.e., constructionism, discursivism, and sociological institutionalism)
beyond written commitments) of social meta-norms remains underscores the agency of governance actors in the diffusion pro-
under-explored and largely unknown (Acosta et al., 2019; Okereke, cess and the meaning systems and cognitive frames shaping norm
2008a; Song et al., 2019). A review of global environmental interpretation. This newer perspective highlights multi-actor
governance literature conducted as part of this study reveals only translation, whereby actors are not passive recipients, rather they
three articles that explicitly explore the diffusion of social meta- shift the meaning and content of meta-norms through processes of
norms in environmental governance (see Acosta et al., 2019; interpretation and contestation (Elgstro € m, 2000; Krook and True,
Okereke, 2008a; Song et al., 2019). Specifically, Okereke, 2008a 2010; Lombardo et al., 2010; Wiener, 2009; Wiener and Puetter,
finds the diffusion of equity norms in global environmental re- 2009). A parallel strand of scholarship on multiscale environ-
gimes relies on the extent norms align with neoliberal ideas and mental governance highlights the relational space between distinct
structures. In the context of coastal fisheries, Song et al. (2019) find levels of governance (i.e., global, regional, national and local
global-level policy commitments on gender and human rights have including provincial and city governance structures) and probes the
gained minimal traction in national level policies of Pacific Island vertical movement and translation of environmental discourses
countries. Similarly, Acosta et al. (2019) find that while commit- across scales (Cash et al., 2006; Morrison, 2007). These various
ments to gender mainstreaming in Ugandan climate and agricul- conventional, discursive and relational aspects of norm diffusion
tural policies have been formally adopted at the national level, the have been considered in isolation until now which has limited our
‘gender equality’ norm is watered down at several stages of the full understanding.
policy cycle. Despite these findings, there has been little attempt to The paper proceeds as follows. First, we offer a conceptual
explain such incongruence more generally, especially to under- overview of norms and norm diffusion and highlight knowledge
stand the mechanisms through which social meta-norms diffuse gaps pertaining to the lack of integrated studies exploring both the
(or not) in environmental governance, making progress on the drivers and responses of social meta-norm diffusion in multiscale
uptake and impact of these norms difficult to assess and achieve. environmental governance (section 2). We then provide a synthesis
In this article, we seek to address this gap by developing a more of the drivers of diffusion, comprising both prescriptive and
robust understanding of how different drivers and responses shape, discursive drivers to reveal a more comprehensive range of the
and are shaped by, meta-norm diffusion. We first targeted peer- enabling and constraining mechanisms that shape how norms
reviewed environmental governance papers (covering various travel and become operationalized (section 3). Specifically, through
forms of natural resource management and multiscale environ- considering the role of discursivism in this synthesis, we highlight
mental regimes) that explicitly explored the diffusion of social the role of agency (i.e., of state actors and nonstate actors affiliated
meta-norms; however, as mentioned above, this search only with local, national, regional, global or transnational governance
returned three articles. We then expanded our search to include organizations) in the norm interpretation process. We then draw
broader governance literature on any form of social meta-norm from the synthesis to develop a typology of responses elicited by
diffusion (e.g., human rights, gender equality, women's and youth meta-norms in order to theorize the stages a norm passes through
rights, equity and justice) (n ¼ 73), in addition to examples of in the process towards internalization (i.e., reaching a point of in-
diffusion of broader meta-norms in environmental governance dividual actor conviction) (section 4). Finally, building on the evi-
(e.g., protection of biodiversity and preservation of ecosystems) in dence of discursive forces in norm diffusion, we hypothesize a
our original search (n ¼ 56). We identified 132 articles in total to be potential interaction between drivers and responses by drawing
included in our review. these elements together in a conceptual diagnostic (section 5). Our
We used an inductive approach to first identify eight common diagnostic provides a crucial first step in developing a more com-
drivers of social meta-norm diffusion from the literature (Fig. 1). plete understanding of the dynamics shaping social meta-norm
Through a process of consultation and validation between the co- diffusion in multiscale environmental governance.
authors, we then characterised the drivers thematically along a
spectrum ranging from prescriptive to non-prescriptive. This 2. Conceptualization of norms and norm diffusion
grouping revealed epistemological preferences within the litera-
ture. Analyses guided by conventional norm diffusion theory, for Global governance scholars have generally characterised three
example, focused on prescriptive or compliance oriented drivers types of norms; meta-norms, constitutive norms, and practical
 S. Lawless et al. / Earth System Governance 6 (2020) 100052 3

norms (adapted from Bjo € rkdahl, 2002; Hufty, 2011; Wiener, 2009). actors, to private or nongovernment agencies operating in various
Meta-norms are global principles considered to promote ‘justice multiscale relationships (Fejerskov, 2017; Morrison, 2017). Despite
and the good society’ (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998, p. 889). Also these developments, multiscale analyses remain less common.
referred to as fundamental, global or international norms, they are Meta-norms are conventionally framed as ‘good things’ (e.g.,
typically global principles that may manifest in the form of inter- Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998; Keck and Sikkink, 1998) that help
national agreements and guidelines or aspirational goals such as propagate cooperative liberal values throughout global governance
the Sustainable Development Goals. By comparison, constitutive systems. Sociological institutionalists contend that this assumption
norms (also referred to as organizing principles) are policy or po- views meta-norms as vehicles for the spread of hegemonic prin-
litical processes within governance agencies that provide norma- ciples into domestic contexts (Schofer et al., 2012; Wiener, 2006).
tive guidance for best practice (Wiener, 2009). Constitutive norms Governance actors are perceived as passive recipients of norms,
are non-prescriptive, leaving space for local reinvention of norm eliding the fact that the people (i.e., individual citizens) towards
content (Krook and True, 2010). Examples of constitutive norms whom meta-norms are targeted have their own voices, values and
include; legitimacy, transparency, inclusiveness, and adaptability interests. A more recent elaboration of norm diffusion literature has
(for an overview of constitutive norms in natural resource man- brought greater analytical focus to the actors that promote and
agement see Lockwood et al., 2010). In contrast, practical norms translate norms (Zimmermann, 2016; Zwingel, 2012). These theo-
(also referred to as standardized procedures or regulatory norms) rists argue the emergence and appropriation of social meta-norms
are, by design, relatively inflexible. Practical norms refer to the is highly contested, whereby norms rarely retain similar content, or
prescriptions, rules and regulations that delimit the conduct of the same intended effects across countries and time (Kardam,
individuals or groups, including sanctions and codes of conduct 2004; Krook and True, 2010; Okereke, 2008b; Roggeband et al.,
(Hufty, 2011). Examples of practical norms in environmental 2014; Zwingel, 2012). In this strand of scholarship, discursive, or
governance include the International Organization for Standardi- cultural-cognitive drivers, as described by (Scott, 2013) (i.e., cul-
zation 14000 standard for environmental management. Practical tural compatibility and norm source), are also important analytical
norms are also in the form of guidelines such as the Food and distinctions (Strang and Meyer, 1993). This perspective underscores
Agriculture Organization facilitated ‘Voluntary Guidelines for the way governance actors interpret and contest norms as a pivotal
Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food component of norm diffusion (Krook and True, 2010; Wiener,
Security and Poverty Eradication’, where practical norms become 2009). Specifically, actors use their cultural-cognitive frames to
manifestations of overarching meta-norms (FAO, 2015). negotiate norm meanings. This process is described elsewhere as
Global governance scholars use meta-norm diffusion theory to norm ‘bending’, ‘shrinking’, or ‘stretching’ (e.g., Lombardo et al.,
explore how norms emerge and travel across and between gover- 2010; Roggeband et al., 2014). However, while this body of schol-
nance scales (Bjo €rkdahl, 2002; Krook and True, 2010). Scholars arship is growing, the translation of meta-norms by governance
originally developed meta-norm diffusion models in the 1990s to actors remains under-researched. Consequently, the discursive
describe how nation-states socialize into international commu- nature of norm interpretation tends to be overlooked as a key
nities (Checkel, 1999; Meyer et al., 1997; Strang and Meyer, 1993). element of meta-norm diffusion (Zimmermann, 2016).
These scholars focus on the way meta-norms diffuse and whether Furthermore, while meta-norm diffusion scholarship spans
they achieve their intended outcomes (e.g., Finnemore and Sikkink, diverse disciplines and governance sectors (i.e., law, health, edu-
1998; Keck and Sikkink, 1998; Strang and Meyer, 1993). Such cation, humanities), the environmental governance sector has
characterizations emphasise the salience of political structures in received less analytical attention. Recent studies have explored the
shaping diffusion and tend to describe the process as linear and diffusion of global environmental policies, such as voluntary sus-
axiomatic, whereby norms first emerge, follow a global-to-local tainability standards (Derkx and Glasbergen, 2014) and policy
pathway, and eventually become internalized within local con- themes including gender and human rights-based approaches
texts. Increased recognition of women's political rights have (Song et al., 2019). These studies imply that both prescriptive
frequently been described this way whereby; ‘norm emergence’ drivers (i.e., regulations and sanctions) and discursive drivers (i.e.,
represented recognition of suffrage in Western countries, and in the extent and way norms resonate with actors in diverse social and
turn led to a global movement that reached a ‘tipping point’ of cultural contexts) are influential in shaping how norms diffuse.
support. This followed a ‘cascade’ of normative change within do- Although not explicitly framed as ‘diffusion of meta-norms’, envi-
mestic policies, whereby analysts have viewed suffrage as inter- ronmental governance scholarship offers rich empirical insights
nalized once widely accepted in local settings (Finnemore and into the range of both prescriptive and non-prescriptive drivers
Sikkink, 1998, p. 896; Keck and Sikkink, 1998). shaping how norms diffuse in the environment sector.
However, conventional norm diffusion theory has since been Thus, there are three knowledge gaps in conventional under-
critiqued for its tendency to view norms as static and consequently standing that limit understandings of the process shaping social-
failing to consider multidirectional influences on norm emergence meta-norm diffusion. First, the discursive nature of norm inter-
and appropriation (Bernstein and Cashore, 2012). Some scholars pretation and translation is undervalued in influencing meta-norm
have argued that the predominant focus on top-down diffusion has diffusion. Second, there is a lack of integrated studies looking at
overlooked the complexities of how norms travel and are negoti- both the drivers and responses shaping meta-norm diffusion.
ated across and between different hierarchical scales of governance Finally, there are few examinations of how social meta-norms
(Morrison, 2007; van der Vleuten et al., 2014). Greater analytical spread in the context of multiscale environmental governance. In
attention to the discursive nature of norm diffusion suggests that the remaining sections of this paper, we seek to overcome these
the pathways through which norms travel vary, and diffusion may gaps by emphasising the non-prescriptive nature of diffusion, and
occur top-down, laterally, bottom-up or in a dynamic and contested highlight the active role governance actors play in this process.
manner (van der Vleuten et al., 2014; Zwingel, 2012). There have
been several important meta-norm diffusion studies that focus on 3. Drivers of social meta-norm diffusion
global (Krook and True, 2010; Legro, 1997), regional (van der
Vleuten et al., 2014) and domestic (Bernstein and Cashore, 2012; Here we draw together the theories and critiques of meta-norm
Cortell and Davis, 2000) levels of governance. These studies have diffusion to date and develop a synthesis of the drivers that shape
also extended the focus on government and intergovernmental diffusion (Fig. 1). Drawing from diverse disciplines, we identify and
4 S. Lawless et al. / Earth System Governance 6 (2020) 100052

Fig. 1. Spectrum of drivers influencing social meta-norm diffusion ranging from those that are formal, prescriptive and rational to more discursive, intangible and informal. The
placement of the drivers along the continuum are for heuristic purposes only and are not yet a definite guide.

position eight drivers of diffusion on a spectrum ranging between Layer (1987), which was the first universally ratified treaty. How-
those considered prescriptive through to discursive. The different ever, scholars also caution that using prescriptive, and often puni-
drivers identified in the review are not intended as an exhaustive tive, mechanisms to drive the diffusion of social meta-norms is
set; instead they offer an alternative explanation for the state of difficult due to their moral or ethical character, making them more
social meta-norms. Although we present each driver as distinct for elusive in different contexts (Goetz and Diehl, 1992). Consequently,
analytic purposes, in reality they are inextricably connected or global quests to facilitate diffusion of social meta-norms through
evolving together, often in response to rapidly shifting political and compliance mechanisms alone have been found to yield limited
social contexts. Conventional meta-norm diffusion scholarship results (e.g., Kardam, 2004; Okereke, 2008a; Zwingel, 2012 who
often overlooks this variety of drivers, focusing in depth on regu- specifically explore gender equality, equity and human rights
latory and normative drivers, with limited analytical attention to norms). In these cases, formal legislation is perceived as futile. Hard
the discursive nature of norm diffusion. laws can be deliberately drafted to be ambiguous, allowing flexi-
We find that analyses guided by conventional norm diffusion bility in application but having no specific written obligations
theory predominantly present examples of formal and prescriptive directed at nation-states ratifying agreements (Sindico and Gibson,
(i.e., regulatory and normative) drivers which characteristically 2016). In fact, human rights treaties have been described as inef-
produce patterns of relatively predictable and/or stable behaviour fective and weak because they lack incentives for compliance
through regulation or conformity of action (Meyer et al., 1997). (Zwingel, 2012). Yet, enforcement of norms at the national scale is
These drivers often reflect visible top-down diffusion via formal still the dominant mechanism for effective multiscale governance
policies, compliance and enforcement mechanisms, economic in most countries.
ideologies, or through institutions and their associated normative Global environmental governance literature has been criticised
social rules. In contrast, articles grounded in constructionism and for its over-emphasis on hard law compliance mechanisms as a
sociological institutionalism tended to provide examples of causal driver of diffusion (Bernstein and Cashore, 2012). Using the
discursive drivers, which are more informal, and provide greater case of climate governance in the European Union, for example,
attention to actor agency and subjectivities (Krook and True, 2010; Jordan et al. (2012) illustrate the inconsistency between high policy
Lombardo et al., 2010). These drivers are often intangible and in ambition and weak implementation mechanisms. However, shifts
many cases are dependent on the way and the extent norms away from prescriptive compliance and enforcement methods to-
resonate with actors across diverse social and cultural contexts wards softer measures to shape environmental governance ar-
(Song et al., 2019). We explicate these drivers with examples from rangements are increasingly evident. Soft laws, such as codes of
environmental governance and/or explorations of social meta- conduct or voluntary guidelines, are argued to be less difficult to
norm diffusion from other sectors. establish and change and can facilitate cooperation among relevant
actors more so than hard laws (Skjærseth et al., 2006). Rather than
a weakness, the absence of coercive mechanisms when enforcing
3.1. Compliance mechanisms social norms may become an advantage as the notion of gover-
nance is to solve a problem through ‘mutual consultation and
Conventional theorists suggest that meta-norms are societal rules analysis, rather than an offence to be punished’ (Chayes and Chayes,
where compliance with the principles of a norm is an effective way to 1995, p. 26). Others argue the effectiveness of ‘soft law’ on envi-
achieve diffusion (i.e., through prescriptions and regulatory controls) ronmental norms increases when coupled with hard law rules
(Thomson, 1993). In this sense, the impact of a meta-norm is judged (Skjærseth et al., 2006). For example, the global climate regime
by the degree such rules affect state behaviour, placing emphasis on consists of both elaborate legally binding frameworks and soft laws
formal prescriptions as evidence (Bjo €rkdahl, 2002). In environmental providing guidance for a multitude of actors (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen
governance, examples of such compliance-based mechanisms and Kok, 2002) and can promote wider agreement on global
include various hard laws including legally binding environmental climate commitments.
treaties, conventions, policies and regulations that, for example, have
been applied to the protection of endangered species or regulations
on the use of chemicals and emissions (Bernstein and Cashore, 2012). 3.2. Economic benefit
These forms of compliance mechanisms use the ‘logic of conse-
quences’, which rewards conformity (i.e., through material and There is strong agreement that prevailing economic conditions
financial incentives) and punishes noncompliance (i.e., through affect meta-norm diffusion at all scales of governance (e.g., Cortell
sanctions or loss of international legitimacy) (Gilardi, 2013). and Davis, 2000; Dimitrov, 2016). Western industrialized countries
Such forms of compliance do work in some contexts, for have a commanding presence in global political economies and
example The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone tend to perpetuate meta-norms linked to neoliberal economic
 S. Lawless et al. / Earth System Governance 6 (2020) 100052 5

ideologies (Okereke, 2008b). Okereke (2008) explains that not only 3.4. Institutional normative environment
does promotion of economic ideologies assist in ensuring devel-
oped countries maintain their advantage over those less developed, Institutional architectures influence the spread of meta-norms
it also ensures that global environmental governance cooperation (Biermann et al., 2009b; Fejerskov, 2017). Institutional architec-
does not overtly challenge the values of these societies. The most tures refer to the practices or ‘cultures’ of governance agencies and
crucial driver determining ‘successful’ norm diffusion is argued to their associated normative ideologies (Haas, 1999; Meuleman,
be contingent on the degree to which norms promote economic 2010). Political predisposition to adhere to norms can shape the
growth (Elgstro € m, 2000), and whether norm requirements are normative fit of social norms (Cortell and Davis, 2000) and the
achievable within the scope of pre-existing neoliberal economic compatibility of the norm with specific sets of shared values, in-
order (Okereke, 2008b). As Dimitrov (2016) found during the 2015 terests and beliefs of the nation-state, governance agency or other
climate negotiations in Paris, arguments framed in terms of eco- influential groups (Checkel, 1999). To demonstrate the significance
nomic benefit were most persuasive among political elites in of institutional normative environments in social meta-norm
adoption of the agreement (a constitutive norm). However, while diffusion, Fejerskov (2017) uses the Bill and Melinda Gates Foun-
framing social meta-norms in economic terms may facilitate dation (BMGF) (an international nongovernmental development
diffusion, this may also promote instrumentalist and essentialist organization) as a case to document the process of institutional-
views of norms (see Leach, 2007 for an overview of the risks of izing gender equality and consequent changes in the discourse and
essentialist portrayals of gender through environmental develop- practices of the organization. In this study, the BMGF's efforts to
ment). Such perspectives risk promoting norm adoption at the keep pace with international development discourse required
expense of watering down the inherent qualities of a norm and bringing gender equality, a prominent social meta-norm, to the
simplifying governance problems. forefront of the organization's priorities. Such a shift in focus lead to
distinct changes in the political and social character of the orga-
3.3. Functional interaction nization. Yet, the high interpretability of gender equality meant
such transitions were not prescriptive and negotiated in keeping
Norm diffusion between more than two policy domains is with the organization's objectives.
complex (Morrison, 2017). Structuralist accounts of meta-norm The degree to which meta-norms converge with dominant
diffusion suggest the integration of ‘new norms’ such as gender ideologies and practices within governance agencies influences
equality arise in normative spaces where they must contend for diffusion (Keck and Sikkink, 1998). The importance of under-
support with other norms and priorities (Finnemore and Sikkink, standing normative ideologies is highlighted by Biermann et al.
1998). Increasing multi-lateral agreements in environmental (2009b) who reflect on the highly fragmented nature of environ-
governance have led to what is termed ‘treaty congestion’, com- mental governance, where underpinning ideologies influence how
pounded by ‘regime density’, where there is an intersection of norms are interpreted, success is measured, and the design and
norms, governance agencies, legal systems and policy domains application of management tools and approaches. Tensions be-
(Stokke, 2002, p. 147). Functional interaction between differing tween ideologies are illustrated by Lockwood and Davidson (2010)
treaties and policy domains arise when regimes deal with issues who explore the influence of three distinct ideologies (neoliber-
that relate (i.e., biodiversity and climate change) or due to regime alism, localism and ecocentrism) competing to establish their
overlap (i.e., where global and regional governance objectives and natural resource governance agendas in Australia. The results
jurisdictions intersect) (Visseren-Hamakers et al., 2011). It is highlight that normative ideologies can legitimize norms, leading
generally thought, the higher the structural density of governance to different meanings and inducing different responses. In some
regimes with intersecting policy domains (i.e., water, agriculture, cases, there may be some disagreement over the nature of out-
energy), the lower the likelihood of norm integration (Karlsson- comes where a diverse set of governance agencies and individual
Vinkhuyzen and Kok, 2002) and effectiveness of norms in influ- actors understand social-ecological functions and dynamics
encing behaviours (Bernstein and Cashore, 2012). In the case of differently (Leach et al., 2010). Other studies have found that
social meta-norm diffusion, the structural density of intersecting competing ideologies can also lead to the convergence of envi-
policy domains is a barrier to diffusion. Song et al. (2019) and ronmental governance goals (Morrison and Lane, 2006). Never-
Acosta et al. (2019) problematize this predicament in terms of lack theless, significant scope remains to explore the impact of
of willingness, interest and importance placed on the integration of normative ideologies to more clearly conceptualize and draw case
gender issues within fisheries, agriculture and climate policies comparisons on the drivers shaping meta-norm diffusion in com-
respectively. plex multiscale governance systems (Morrison et al., 2017).
Despite being a requirement for sustainable development,
functional interaction of differing policy domains presents a 3.5. Norm source
considerable analytical and practical challenge where successes are
few (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen and Kok, 2002). Achieving multidirec- Norm source refers to the person or group of persons promoting a
tional integration often necessitates a fundamental shift in consti- particular norm and those supporting the canvassing of its principles
tutive and/or practical norms, beliefs and behaviours of actors (Franck, 1990; Okereke, 2008a). In environmental governance, as in
within these systems (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen and Kok, 2002). The many other contexts, the perceived conviction or legitimacy of the
integration process is likely to cause conflicts with existing in- norm source correlates with the degree to which ideas are received
terests, challenge power relations and raise public concerns (Moore, 2012; Okereke, 2008a). By tracing the integration of equity
(Bernstein and Cashore, 2012). However, structural complexity can norms into the Law of the Sea Treaty (1970), Okereke (2008a) argues
also mask changes in norms (see Morrison, 2017), signalling the that the stature and presentation style of the Maltese Ambassador,
risks of relying on prescriptive drivers alone to explain and measure Arvid Pardo, a persuasive norm advocate, influenced the internali-
diffusion. There is significant potential to better manage the zation of this norm. By contrast, ‘norm receivers’ (i.e., actors to be
interplay of diffusion between functionally linked policy domains persuaded) may resist or obstruct norm diffusion if they see the
by focusing on collaboration and joint establishment of best prac- source of the norm as illegitimate. In many cases, norm resistance
tices among governance actors to foster integration and better ac- occurs when norm recipients perceive ideas as exogenous to them;
count for trade-offs (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen and Kok, 2002). that is, as universalistic world models ‘not strongly anchored in local
6 S. Lawless et al. / Earth System Governance 6 (2020) 100052

circumstances’ (Meyer et al., 1997, p. 156). For example, developing of governors are reflections of their cultures (Meuleman, 2010). Early
nation-states may perceive norms to be originating from Western norm diffusion research suggested that cultural resonance with a
states, and their views and assumptions of global values (Meyer et al., norm occurs when ‘the prescriptions embodied in an international
1997). Scholars have found this to be particularly true in the case of norm are convergent with domestic norms’ (Checkel, 1999, p. 97;
gender equality norms (e.g., Kardam, 2004). In many instances, ac- Legro, 1997). In cases where there is ‘no congruence’ with a norm, the
tors will be reluctant to engage in meaningful change strategies if domestic culture is perceived as a barrier to diffusion (Checkel, 1999,
they view norms as foreign in conception and propagation, or where p. 87). The extreme of this view then suggests that local culture
conviction for the norm is lacking. either provides resonance for a norm, or it does not (Zimmermann,
2016). However, the idea of resonance can present an essentialist
3.6. Norm issue framing depiction of local culture and domestic governance structures ‘as
both inhibiting change and resisting change themselves’
How actors frame a meta-norm and the nature of the issue-area (Zimmermann, 2016, p. 100). The Western ‘conservation ethic’ can be
influences the chance of norm internalization (Jordan et al., 2012; viewed as distinct from motivations playing out in indigenous cul-
Okereke, 2008a). Norm specificity is essential for governance actors tural practices (e.g., Johannes, 2002) even where cultural practices
to consider a norm legitimate (Franck, 1990). The assumption that may be seen as equivalent to contemporary environmental conser-
all meta-norms are ‘good things’ (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998; vation strategies. Without this nuanced understanding, efforts to
Keck and Sikkink, 1998) reinforces the notion that norms are static, promote conservation practice as an environmental norm may lead
and suggests responses will be binary between norm-abiding to actions that are designed or implemented in socially inappropriate
communities (where actors have adopted ‘better’ behaviours) and ways (Foale et al., 2011). Consequently, scholars have turned their
deviants. Yet, a sociological perspective suggests such dichoto- attention to understanding the various outcomes of norm promotion
mized views only serve to reinforce a view of ‘us’ (norm pro- in different locales (e.g., Meuleman, 2010; Zimmermann, 2016;
ponents) versus ‘them’ (norm violators) (Zwingel, 2012). Zwingel, 2012). Specifically referring to gender equality norms,
Sociological institutionalists argue that meta-norm diffusion Zwingel (2012, p. 126) argues, ‘the key to norm translation is that
scholarship has been preoccupied with norm acceptance or rejec- gender equality norms are to the largest extent possible cross-
tion rather than critically examining how norms are constructed, culturally negotiated rather than imposed’. This argument is
and whose interests meta-norms may, or may not, privilege echoed by Acosta et al. (2019) who challenge the assumption that
(Schofer et al., 2012). global gender equality norms have transformative potential if there
Many forms of governance are characterised by networks of is no room for context specific translations or the navigation of local
actors working across scales, sectors and geographies, who are norms in domestic policies.
united (to differing degrees) by their aim to maintain and drive
improvements within these systems (Leach et al., 2010; Morrison, 3.8. Societal temper
2007). However, these governance actors follow different narra-
tives and ideologies that frame problems and potential solutions. The success of meta-norm diffusion is subject to the wider so-
Given the pluralism of views and motives, environmental gover- cietal temper in which diffusion takes place. Also referred to as the
nance objectives may not necessarily converge or complement each ‘moral temper’ of the international community (Okereke, 2008a, p.
other (Leach et al., 2010; Mace, 2014). Within the environmental 26), societal temper is characterised by a host of drivers including;
governance community, for example, there can be friction between the economic prosperity of an era, social movements, scientific
those that prioritise biodiversity conservation and those that view breakthroughs, technological advancements, the frequency of
natural resource management as the means to address food secu- large-scale natural disasters and the emergence of novel chal-
rity and human wellbeing priorities (Bennett et al., 2017; Matulis lenges, among others (Okereke, 2008a; Saunier and Meganck,
and Moyer, 2017). The pluralism between social-driven and 2007). The incidence, scale and alignment of these drivers can
conservation-driven objectives in environmental governance sug- alter international political dialogue and norm priorities, issues,
gests the interpretation of social meta-norms by organizations and responsibilities and commitments (Okereke, 2008a). Interaction
actors may differ. with, and participation in, transnational networks is also important
As social-meta norms evolve into constitutive and practical for the distribution of norms, and scholars have highlighted the
forms, they often remain ambiguous and lack prescriptions about influence of civil society, donor, and partner support on norm
how a norm is to be operationalized (Kooiman and Jentoft, 2009; diffusion (Bernstein and Cashore, 2012). Environmental governance
Okereke, 2008a). Yet, diffusion literature rests on the problematic is also often problem driven, therefore the moral temper of a
assumption that norms are unequivocally definable. For example, particular era could be used as proxy for determining the likelihood
Song et al. (2019) found significant variation in the interpretation of of internalization of social meta-norms depending on whether the
gender related commitments among fisheries actors in interna- social context is favourable or unfavourable (Meyer et al., 1997;
tional, regional and national fisheries policies and guidelines across Okereke, 2008a).
three Pacific Island countries. These responses ranged from vague
to concrete. Such examples suggest there is a tension between 4. Responses shaping social meta-norm diffusion
prescriptive policies and enforceable action, on the one hand, and
the freedom for interpretation and tailoring provided by voluntary As we have stressed, meta-norm diffusion literature has ten-
or broad commitments on the other hand. In translating social ded to understate the importance of ensuring norms resonate
meta-norms into practice, these findings emphasise the challenge with governance actors and overemphasized the formal and
of maintaining flexibility in interpretability of norms, while prescriptive drivers promoting global level norm setting. More
simultaneously effecting change in action. focus is also needed on the process of norm interpretation be-
tween global and local governance scales (Cortell and Davis, 2000;
3.7. Cultural resonance Roggeband et al., 2014; Zwingel, 2012). A small but growing body
of literature suggests there is also a need to clarify the responses
All forms of governance, irrespective of their objective, have a that meta-norms invoke, due to the limited conceptual ability of
cultural dimension. The values, attitudes and beliefs of a given group the range of prescriptive and discursive drivers to explain the
 S. Lawless et al. / Earth System Governance 6 (2020) 100052 7

outcomes of norm diffusion (Hufty, 2011; Zimmermann, 2016; 4.1. Resistance

Zwingel, 2012).
The success of the diffusion process has previously been Resistance as a concept has begun to gain traction in areas of
measured according to the degree of compliance by norm re- environmental social science, including social-ecological resilience
ceivers (e.g., Keck and Sikkink, 1998). The dominant analogy thinking (e.g., Brown, 2016; Herrfahrdt-Pa €hle and Pahl-Wostl,
provided by innovation dissemination in agricultural research or 2012). Resistance in its most basic form implies the capacity of an
evaluation would be to determine if a new technology was present individual to resist change. Resistance is often viewed as a signifi-
and utilised by more and more farmers at greater intensity (e.g., cant barrier to meta-norm diffusion and may occur when a norm is
Shikuku et al., 2019). However, using conventional models of incompatible with established interests, ideas and practices (Cortell
diffusion leaves limited space to understand the potentially and Davis, 2000; Fejerskov, 2017). This is well illustrated in con-
complex processes of interpretation and translation where ‘the servation practice where historically many conservation organiza-
outcomes of norm diffusion can only ever be described as defi- tions and funders have relied purely on natural sciences to inform
cient, never as different’ (Zimmermann, 2016, p. 103). Rather than their approaches. Yet, Bennett et al. (2017) suggest that increased
viewing norms as finished products, constructionism conceptu- pressure to integrate social science perspectives (i.e., attention to
alizes diffusion as a process where norms are contested and (re) the human dimensions of conservation) has been met with resis-
€m, 2000;
interpreted by various actors in diverse settings (Elgstro tance due to a perceived ‘threat’ that social science poses to
Kardam, 2004; Krook and True, 2010). Constructionists perceive engrained institutional norms and practices of conservation orga-
these actors as dynamic components of nonlinear norm diffusion nizations. This example illustrates potential tensions between two
pathways (Zwingel, 2012). Actor responses are not necessarily sets of norms in the one ‘operating space’, and resistance presents
static and are influenced by various drivers of diffusion, such as an impediment to integrative conservation science.
norm source and norm framing as described previously; meaning Relatedly, some sociological and political science perspectives
a response by the same actor can change over time. For instance, associate resistance with power, enabling individuals to determine
an actor could contest a norm, and then resist, or actively seek to their own strategies for change (Brown, 2016). Specifically referring
implement, and then contest. Different actors within any society, to policy diffusion, Meijerink and Huitema (2010) argue actors
organization, or nation could also experience multiple responses resisting policies use strategies similar to those actors who promote
simultaneously. them. Actors may use resistance as a means to exercise agency
A small number of frameworks draw analytical attention to against forms of domination (Scott, 1989). Resistance is argued to
actors roles in norm formulation (Hufty, 2011; Wiener and Puetter, be far more influential than other responses norm diffusion may
2009), norm integration into governance systems (van der Vleuten evoke (Wiener, 2009), as it has qualities of defiance, persistence
et al., 2014), or response stages to norm adoption (Zimmermann, and de-legitimisation that can eventually erode and/or protect
2016). Yet, environmental governance has not fully benefited norms (Scott, 1989). Through enacting resistance, actors can re-
from this analytical attention. We draw together diverse strands of work norms for local contexts. In this sense, resistance offers op-
diffusion literature to extend Zimmerman's (2016) work on norm portunities to challenge the top-down diffusion model that views
adoption, in order to develop five response types shaping meta- actors and governance agencies as merely norm receivers (see also
norm diffusion in environmental governance (Fig. 2). We group ‘empty vessel model’, Schulman, 1986). In the case of conservation,
these responses based on similar terminology (or synonyms). resistance may serve as a mechanism to oppose powerful interests
While the response types are treated separately here, in reality we that may undermine biodiversity conservation efforts (Matulis and
expect the distinctions between them are blurrier with potential Moyer, 2017) and disrupt political structures that have facilitated
overlaps and hybrids. environmental devastation (Peterson et al., 2013). Simultaneously,

Fig. 2. Typology of responses elicited by meta-norms grouped according to synonymous terms sourced in norm diffusion and global governance literature.
8 S. Lawless et al. / Earth System Governance 6 (2020) 100052

actors may also use resistance to oppose competing conservation of gender equality norms (via process tracing) shows how the
goals or efforts that are not in keeping with their own values and ‘movement’ of this norm through various stages of policy formu-
worldview (e.g., Hansen et al., 2014). For example, the marine lation led to new interpretations between different scales of
conservation agenda in the Asia-Pacific region has faced some op- governance and also through time (Roggeband et al., 2014). The
position on the basis that it reflects neoliberal and Western con- negotiation of meta-norms can enable different governance actors
servation values, rather than the wellbeing or needs of local people to advance their interests. In the case of international climate ne-
(Clifton and Foale, 2017). gotiations, Moore (2012) documents a process of norm contesta-
tion, where developing countries protested against developed
4.2. Rhetorical adoption country control over practical norms (in this case climate change
adaptation funding). Yet, environmental governance scholars rarely
International relations scholars, who argue there is a disconnect directly examine norm contestation, leaving the interpretation
between adopted policies and their translation into practice, have process and its influence in meta-norm diffusion unclear (Morrison
inspired the idea of rhetorical adoption. This response typically in- et al., 2017). By acknowledging the continuing evolution of meta-
volves governments or agencies rhetorically accepting or commit- norms, the role of actors as co-creators of norms becomes clear,
ting to a norm in the form of a policy or law, but the norm is detached opposing the assumption that actor responses are bound to a bi-
from practical implementation, action and compliance (Meyer et al., nary ‘accept’ or ‘reject’ (Roggeband et al., 2014).
1997; Zimmermann, 2016). Rhetorical adoption reflects strategic
motives whereby societies and governance actors may have little to
4.4. Implementation
no interest in enforcing meta-norms, rather, their adoption is
representative of their quest for international legitimacy
Implementation refers to how an established meta-norm actu-
(Zimmermann, 2016). A contemporary example by Morrison et al.,
ally fares in practice, often associated with the operationalization of
2020 illustrates how aspirations for international legitimacy
domestic policies (Keck and Sikkink, 1998). Constructionists argue
through gaining World Heritage Status are masked by the rhetorical
however, that the implementation stage is rarely fixed; rather, it
adoption of global commitments to environmental preservation. In
involves the continuous negotiation of norms by norm advocates,
terms of social meta-norms, a neoliberalist perspective posits that
particularly when there is substantial norm opposition (Elgstro €m,
governments commit to such norms (i.e., ratification of human
2000; Roggeband et al., 2014; Wiener and Puetter, 2009). The
rights treaties) as a means to increase their international legitimacy
formulation of domestic policies corresponding with a meta-norm
rather than reflecting intentions to implement them (Zwingel,
instigates a new stage of policy negotiation and re-formulation
2012). For this reason, some governance scholars characterise
(Roggeband et al., 2014). Sociological institutionalist scholars Haas
meta-norms as symbolic, weak and ineffective, as they do not offer
(1999) and Strang and Meyer (1993) suggest that evidence of suc-
incentives or motivation for compliance to act upon such issues
cessful diffusion in one context invokes desires for connected actors
(Saunier and Meganck, 2007; Skjærseth et al., 2006; Zwingel, 2012).
(i.e., neighbouring states in these cases) to emulate norm imple-
Rhetorical adoption responses are also prevalent among non-
mentation practices. In terms of constitutive and practical norms
state actors primarily within developmental regimes
however, Jordan and Huitema (2014) suggest that learning,
(Zimmermann, 2016). Although nonstate actors may have their
competition and coercion, rather than imitation, are what motivates
own governing structures and directives, they are often willing to
nation-states to emulate one another when referring to the diffusion
expand their agendas in response to emerging meta-norms,
of climate polices. Despite some notable exceptions (e.g., Sabatier,
particularly if this means funding becomes more available
1986), there is insufficient scholarship devoted to implementation.
(Zwingel, 2012). Other research suggests rhetorical adoption occurs
This highlights opportunities for future research to trace the trans-
when governance agencies feel pressured or obliged to adopt
lation of meta-norms into constitutional and practical forms.
certain meta-norms (i.e., due to conditionality of funding), but do
not have the willingness, skills or knowledge on how to translate
these principles into practice (Fejerskov, 2017; Zimmermann, 4.5. Internalization
2016). As meta-norms transfer into constitutive and practical
forms, governance agencies may be constrained by funding, Full internalization of a meta-norm is the final stage or ‘success’
external support (i.e., research and monitoring and evaluation), of diffusion (Zimmermann, 2016). Early norm diffusion scholarship
recruitment choices and their internal capacity (or education) to suggested that internalization transpires when ‘norms acquire a
appropriately adopt, implement and internalize these norms (Haas, taken-for-granted quality and are no longer a matter of broad
1999). Such constraints suggest that while commitment to a meta- public debate’ and become a constitutive part of institutional and
norm may represent a step towards norm adoption, the extent to individual behaviours and identities (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998,
which the norm impacts upon its issue area in practice may vary p. 895). While norm contestation and implementation phases may
significantly (Roggeband et al., 2014). require collective efforts, internalization depends on individual
actor conviction (Zimmermann, 2016). Collective agency can be
4.3. Contestation influential in this process, particularly when civil society and social
movements are significant in norm promotion and spread. Actors
In global governance, the emergence of meta-norms may occur within any society, organization, and/or nation may internalize
as direct, and deliberate, outcome of international negotiations norms, whilst others may remain sceptical, hostile, indifferent, or
(Biermann et al., 2009b). However, ratification of global or regional resistant. Actors who have internalized a norm become norm ad-
environmental treaties rarely leads to unequivocal adoption by vocates or norm entrepreneurs and may partake in persuasion
regional and national governments or agencies (Hettiarachchi et al., processes to promote the meta-norm among other actors
2015). Meta-norms are dynamic and often have contested mean- (Elgstro€m, 2000). Environmental psychology studies offer many
ings that may even lead to the emergence of new norms (Krook and examples of the internalization of pro-environmental behaviours
True, 2010). This process of contestation may be ongoing with (e.g., Byerly et al., 2018), however few studies have managed to
strong probability that norms will shift in meaning overtime document social meta-norm internalization in the context of
(Moore, 2012; Wiener and Puetter, 2009). A regional examination environmental governance.
 S. Lawless et al. / Earth System Governance 6 (2020) 100052 9

5. Discussion and future directions and its success (e.g., adaptive co-management; Plummer et al.,
2013). This messiness reflects a contemporary challenge for all
Social meta-norms are essential to promoting best practice, diffusion research to extend beyond linear conceptions of diffusion,
equity, and effectiveness in environmental governance, however simplistic measures of presence/absence, or normative views of
successful translation into national and local action is seldom what successful diffusion or ‘uptake’ would look like.
observed (Acosta et al., 2019; Okereke, 2008a; Song et al., 2019). The interconnectedness of the drivers and responses also raises
While social scientists have identified and examined a range of questions about the potential tensions of promoting particular
drivers and responses influencing diffusion, they have to date been drivers over others, and the consequences this has for norm re-
examined in relative isolation from each other. By drawing together sponses. Future empirical applications could analyze the cause and
the theories and critiques of meta-norm diffusion, we have devel- effect interactions of these elements in multiscale contexts. This
oped a diagnostic to understand the drivers and responses that may involve tracing the diffusion of social meta-norms enshrined
construct diffusion pathways. This diagnostic helps to explore why in global goals, policies or agreements such as the Sustainable
and how norms travel, and why in many cases they fail to achieve Development Goals, or that of specific social meta-norms, such as
their intended aims (Fig. 3). gender equality, within diverse environmental governance
The diagnostic elements we identify illustrate that social meta- agencies, projects and contexts. This is particularly poignant in
norm diffusion is driven by, and oscillates between, various regu- cases where governance agencies may lack the willingness, re-
latory and normative forces, but is also shaped by discursive factors. sources or knowledge to meaningfully translate these principles
These drivers have bearing on the responses that social meta- into practice. Relatedly, full consensus and coordinated action of
norms may invoke. Specifically, our synthesis of norm responses nation-states may not be attainable making it difficult to uphold
suggests that ‘successful’ diffusion is determined by the extent the environmental standards essential for effective governance of
norms are internalized, a process that is largely dependent on the the Earth's system (Biermann, 2012). International enforcement
extent norms resonate with individual actors. Understanding how has limits so as not to undermine the sovereignty of nations. When
the responses of actors at different scales may differ (as a function meta-norms are imposed as universalistic expectations or are
of the nature of the norm, as well as shaping the process of diffusion perceived as foreign in conception and propagation, it is likely to
itself) will have implications for the sustainability and scale of fuel resistance among nation-states. To ensure social meta-norm
outcomes (e.g., Mills et al., 2019). Our results suggest multiscale diffusion does not play out as neo-colonial agendas or treat actors
diffusion is likely to involve a process of norm negotiation and re- as passive recipients, these investments should prioritise spaces for
interpretation, to ultimately generate shifts in actor behaviours, negotiation, co-production, interpretation and contestation so that
interests, beliefs and practices. norm-fit and ‘local’ legitimacy are prioritised over resemblance to
The significance of actor agency in the diffusion process implies another or the original interpretation. In fact, our review highlights
that a focus only on drivers is insufficient to understand the that the absence of coercive mechanisms for the diffusion of social
diffusion process. For instance, our synthesis raises questions about meta-norms may be more effective in the sense that spaces are
the extent that formal and prescriptive drivers of meta-norm opened up for norm negotiation and contestation. This may help in
diffusion alone (i.e., ratification of human rights norms into do- the diffusion of ‘new norms’ (e.g., human rights) that have not been
mestic environmental laws) are able to reach deep-seated inter- traditionally considered or applied. Hence, to avoid tokenism and
nalized support for such norms among individual actors. Similarly, rhetorical adoption of social principles, this may mean embracing
only focusing on the responses social meta-norms may invoke, the process of norm contestation in these negotiations and iden-
overlooks the dynamic range of drivers shaping norm responses. To tifying the uptake of an adjusted or interpreted variation of the
understand the extent social meta-norms have an impact in envi- norm as legitimate. Whether this flexibility and adjustment risks
ronmental governance, the diffusion process needs to be viewed as dilution (i.e., the interpreted version of the norm into action is so
dynamic and integrated. In fact, this need extends to other social or weak that it doesn't resemble or achieve the original intent) would
governance innovations where contestation, flexibility and require context specific research and assessment.
adjustment are inherent in the very definition of the innovation Given norm diffusion scholarship has rarely been applied to

Fig. 3. Meta-norm diffusion comprises of intersecting drivers and responses. Each driver and response is presented as distinct for analytic purposes; however, in reality they are
linked, interacting and evolving.
10 S. Lawless et al. / Earth System Governance 6 (2020) 100052

social meta-norms in the context of environmental governance, the Chayes, A., Chayes, A.H., 1995. The New Sovereignty: Compliance with International
Regulatory Agreements. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
drivers and responses identified are largely informed through a
Checkel, J., 1999. Norms, institutions, and national identity in contemporary Europe.
review of the literature across diverse disciplines. Although the Int. Stud. Q. 43, 83e114.
breadth of insights within this diagnostic facilitates a deeper and Clifton, J., Foale, S., 2017. Extracting ideology from policy: analysing the social
more holistic understanding of the potential mechanisms and role construction of conservation priorities in the Coral Triangle region. Mar. Pol. 82,
189e196.
of cognition in shaping how norms evolve and spread in complex Cortell, A.P., Davis, J.W., 2000. Understanding the domestic impact of international
environmental governance settings, we hold that further research norms: a research agenda. Int. Stud. Rev. 2 (1), 65e87.
will help assess the extent to which these are applicable for Derkx, B., Glasbergen, P., 2014. Elaborating global private meta-governance: an
inventory in the realm of voluntary sustainability standards. Global Environ.
different fields and scales of environmental governance. Ultimately, Change 27, 41e50.
future studies would work toward determining the extent social Dimitrov, R.S., 2016. The Paris Agreement on climate change: behind closed doors.
meta-norms are ‘good’ (i.e., in promoting equitable and just out- Global Environ. Polit. 16 (3), 1e11.
Elgstro €m, O., 2000. Norm negotiations. The construction of new norms regarding
comes) through environmental practice, as opposed to merely gender and development in EU foreign aid policy. J. Eur. Publ. Pol. 7 (3),
conveying an image of ‘doing good’ without concerted effort to 457e476.
implement and adhere to social meta-norms. We argue that to FAO, 2015. Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in
the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication. Food and Agriculture
move beyond social meta-norms on paper will require investment Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
in and recognition of translation processes and norm adjustments Fejerskov, A.M., 2017. The influence of established ideas in emerging development
as they shape environmental practice. organisations: gender equality and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
J. Dev. Stud. 53 (4), 584e599.
Finnemore, M., Sikkink, K., 1998. International norm dynamics and political change.
Declaration of competing interest Int. Org. 52 (4), 887e917.
Foale, S., Cohen, P., Januchowski-Hartley, S., Wenger, A., Macintyre, M., 2011. Tenure
and taboos: origins and implications for fisheries in the Pacific. Fish Fish. 12 (4),
The authors declare that they have no known competing
357e369.
financial interests or personal relationships that could have Franck, T.M., 1990. The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations. Oxford University
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Press, New York/Oxford.
Gilardi, F., 2013. Transnational Diffusion: Norms, Ideas, and Policies Handbook Of
International Relations, pp. 453e477.
Acknowledgements Goetz, G., Diehl, P., 1992. Toward a theory of international norms, some conceptual
and measurement issues. J. Conflict Resolut. 36 (4), 634e664.
We would like to acknowledge the Australian Research Council Haas, P.M., 1999. In: Hart, Jeffrey A., Prakash, A. (Eds.), Globalization and Gover-
nance. Routledge, Oxon.
and the Australian Postgraduate Awards as primary funders of this Hansen, M., Ramasar, V., Buchanan, K., 2014. Localizing global environmental
research. Further funding support was provided by the Australian governance norms: implications for justice. In: Sowman, R. (Ed.), Environ-
Government and the Australian Centre for International Agricul- mental Governance for Social JusticedLessons across Natural Resource Sectors
in Southern Africa. Routledge, Cape Town, pp. 43e62.
tural Research (project FIS/2016/300). This work was undertaken as Herrfahrdt-Pa €hle, E., Pahl-Wostl, C., 2012. Continuity and change in social-
part of the CGIAR Research Program on Fish Agri-Food Systems ecological systems: the role of institutional resilience. Ecol. Soc. 17 (2).
(FISH) led by WorldFish. The program is supported by contributors Hettiarachchi, M., Morrison, T.H., McAlpine, C., 2015. Forty-three years of Ramsar
and urban wetlands. Global Environ. Change 32, 57e66.
to the CGIAR Trust Fund. Special thanks to Sarah Erickson for Hufty, M., 2011. Investigating policy processes: the governance analytical frame-
assistance with figures, Andrew Dart, Kelvin Mashisia Shikuku and work (GAF). In: Research for Sustainable Development: Foundations, Experi-
Anne Stephens for valuable feedback on drafts. ences, and Perspectives. Geographica Bernensia, Bern, pp. 403e424.
IUCN, 2017. A new global Programme on governance and rights. Retrieved from.
https://www.iucn.org/news/commission-environmental-economic-and-social-
References policy/201708/new-global-programme-governance-and-rights. (Accessed 12
August 2017).
Acosta, M., van Bommel, S., van Wessel, M., Ampaire, E.L., Jassogne, L., Feindt, P.H., Johannes, R.E., 2002. Did indigenous conservation ethics exist? SPC Trad. Mar. Res.
2019. Discursive translations of gender mainstreaming norms: the case of Manag. Knowl. Inf. Bull. 14, 3e7.
agricultural and climate change policies in Uganda. Wom. Stud. Int. Forum 74, Jordan, A., Huitema, D., 2014. Innovations in climate policy: the politics of invention,
9e19. diffusion, and evaluation. Environ. Polit. 23 (5), 715e734.
Bennett, N.J., Roth, R., Klain, S.C., Chan, K., Clark, D.A., Cullman, G., et al., 2017. Jordan, A., van Asselt, H., Berkhout, F., Huitema, D., Rayner, T., 2012. Understanding
Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation. Conserv. Biol. 31 (1), 56e66. the paradoxes of multilevel governing: climate change policy in the European
Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Union. Global Environ. Polit. 12 (2), 43e66.
Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Kardam, N., 2004. The emerging global gender equality regime from neoliberal and
Press, Cambridge. constructivist perspectives in international relations. Int. Fem. J. Polit 6 (1),
Bernstein, S., Cashore, B., 2012. Complex global governance and domestic policies: 85e109.
four pathways of influence. Int. Aff. 88 (3), 585e604. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S.I., Kok, M.T., 2002. Interplay management in the climate,
Biermann, F., 2012. Planetary boundaries and earth system governance: exploring energy, and development nexus. In: Oberthür, S., Stokke, O.S. (Eds.), Managing
the links. Ecol. Econ. 81, 4e9. Institutional Complexity: Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change.
Biermann, F., Abbott, K., Andresen, S., B€ ackstrand, K., Bernstein, S., Betsill, M.M., MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, pp. 285e312.
et al., 2012. Navigating the Anthropocene: improving earth system governance. Keck, M., Sikkink, K., 1998. Activists beyond Borders: Transnational Activist Net-
Science 335 (6074), 1306e1307. works in International Politics. Cornell University Press, Itaca, NY.
Biermann, F., Betsill, M., Gupta, J., Kani, N., Lebel, L., Liverman, D., Schroeder, H., Kooiman, J., Jentoft, S., 2009. Meta-governance: values, norms and principles, and
Siebenhüner, B., 2009a. Earth system governance: people, places and the the making of hard choices. Publ. Adm. 87 (4), 818e836.
planet. In: Science and Implementation Plan of the Earth System Governance Krook, M., True, J., 2010. Rethinking the life cycles of international norms: the
Project, Report 1. IHDP: The Earth System Governance Project, Bonn. IHDP United Nations and the global promotion of gender equality. Eur. J. Int. Relat. 18
Report 20). (1), 103e127.
Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., Asselt, H.v., Zelli, F., 2009b. The fragmentation of global Leach, M., 2007. Earth Mother myths and other ecofeminist fables: how a strategic
governance architectures: a framework for analysis. Global Environ. Polit. 9 (4), notion rose and fell. Dev. Change 38 (1), 67e85.
14e40. Leach, M., Scoones, I., Stirling, A., 2010. Dynamic Sustainabilities: Technology,
€ rkdahl, A., 2002. Norms in international relations: some conceptual and meth-
Bjo Environment, Social Justice. Earthscan, Oxon.
odological reflections. Camb. Rev. Int. Aff. 15 (1), 9e23. Legro, J.W., 1997. Which norms matter? Revisiting the "failure" of internationalism.
Brown, K., 2016. Resilience, Development and Global Change. Routledge, Abingdon Int. Organ. 51 (1), 31e63.
and New York. Lockwood, M., Davidson, J., 2010. Environmental governance and the hybrid regime
Byerly, H., Balmford, A., Ferraro, P.J., Hammond Wagner, C., Palchak, E., Polasky, S., of Australian natural resource management. Geoforum 41 (3), 388e398.
et al., 2018. Nudging pro-environmental behavior: evidence and opportunities. Lockwood, M., Davidson, J., Curtis, A., Stratford, E., Griffith, R., 2010. Governance
Front. Ecol. Environ. 16 (3), 159e168. principles for natural resource management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 23 (10),
Cash, D.W., Adger, W.N., Berkes, F., Po, G., Lebe, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L., Young, O., 986e1001.
2006. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a Lombardo, E., Meier, P., Verloo, M., 2010. Discursive dynamics in gender equality
multilevel world. Ecol. Soc. 11 (2), 8. politics, what about 'feminist taboos'? Eur. J. Wom. Stud. 17 (2), 105e123.
 S. Lawless et al. / Earth System Governance 6 (2020) 100052 11

Mace, G., 2014. Whose conservation? Changes in the perception and goals of nature conservation movement is diverse but not divided. Nature Sustain. 2 (4),
conservation require a solid scientific basis. Science 345 (6204), 1558e1560. 316e323.
Matulis, B.S., Moyer, J.R., 2017. Beyond inclusive conservation: the value of Saunier, R.E., Meganck, R.A., 2007. Dictionary and Introduction to Global Environ-
pluralism, the need for agonism, and the case for social instrumentalism. mental Governance. Earthscan, London.
Conserv. Lett. 10 (3), 279e287. Schofer, E., Hironaka, A., Frank, D.J., Longhofer, W., 2012. Sociological Institution-
Meijerink, S., Huitema, D., 2010. Policy entrepreneurs and change strategies: lessons alism and World Society. In: The New Blackwell Companion to Political Soci-
from sixteen case studies of water transitions around the globe. Ecol. Soc. 15 (2). ology, pp. 57e68.
Meuleman, L., 2010. The cultural dimension of metagovernance: why governance Schulman, L., 1986. Paradigms and Research Programs in the Study of Teaching, 3
doctrines may fail. Publ. Organ. Rev. 10 (1), 49e70. ed. Macmillan, New York.
Meyer, S., Boli, J., Thomas, G.M., 1997. World society and the nation-state. Am. J. Scott, J.C., 1989. Everyday forms of resistance. Cph. J. Asian Stud. 4 (89), 33e62.
Sociol. 103 (1), 144e181. Scott, W.R., 2013. Crafting an analytical framework i: three pillars of institutions. In:
Miller, E.A., Banaszak-Holl, J., 2005. Cognitive and normative determinants of state Bruckner, A. (Ed.), Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identi-
policymaking behavior: lessons from the sociological institutionalism. Publius ties, fourth ed. Sage Publications, California, pp. 55e85.
35 (2), 191e216. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pji008. Shikuku, K.M., Janneke, P., Bulte, E., Laderach, P., 2019. Incentives and the diffusion
Mills, M., Bode, M., Mascia, M.B., Weeks, R., Gelcich, S., Dudley, N., Govan, H., of agricultural knowledge: experimental evidence from northern Uganda. Am. J.
Archibald, C.L., Romero-de-Diego, C., Holden, M., Biggs, D., 2019. How conser- Agric. Econ. 101 (4), 1164e1180.
vation initiatives go to scale. Nature Sustain. 2 (10), 935e940. Sindico, F., Gibson, J., 2016. Soft, complex and fragmented international climate
Moore, F., 2012. Negotiating adaptation: norm selection and hybridization in in- change practice: what implications for international trade law? In: Farah, P.D.,
ternational climate negotiations. Global Environ. Polit. 12 (4), 30e48. Cima, E. (Eds.), China's Influence on Non-trade Concerns in International Eco-
Morrison, T., 2007. Multiscalar governance and regional environmental manage- nomic Law. Routledge Publishing, New York/London.
ment in Australia. Space Polity 11 (3), 227e241. Skjærseth, J.B., Stokke, O.S., Jørgen, W., 2006. Soft law, hard law, and effective
Morrison, T., 2017. Evolving polycentric governance of the great barrier reef. Proc. implementation of international environmental norms. Global Environ. Polit. 6
Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 114 (15), E3013eE3021. (3).
Morrison, T.M., Adger, W.N, Brown, K, Hettiarachchi, M, Huchery, C, Lemos, M.C, Song, A.M., Cohen, P.J., Hanich, Q., Morrison, T.H., Andrew, N., 2019. Multi-scale
Hughes, T.P, et al., 2020. Measuring influence of political dynamics in gover- policy diffusion and translation in Pacific Island coastal fisheries. Ocean Coast
nance of World Heritage Areas. Forthcoming. Manag. 169, 139e149.
Morrison, T., Adger, W.N., Brown, K., Lemos, M.C., Huitema, D., Hughes, T.P., 2017. Stokke, O.S., 2002. Interplay management, niche selection and artic environmental
Mitigation and adaptation in polycentric systems: sources of power in the management. In: Oberthür, S., Stokke, O.S. (Eds.), Managing Institutional
pursuit of collective goals. Wiley Interdiscipl. Rev. : Clim. Change 1e16. Complexity: Regime Interplay and Global Environmental Change. The MIT
Morrison, T., Lane, M., 2006. The convergence of regional governance discourses in Press, Cambridge, pp. 143e170.
rural Australia: enduring challenges and constructive suggestions. Rural Soc. 16 Strang, D., Meyer, J., 1993. Institutional conditions for diffusion. Theor. Soc. 22 (4),
(3), 341e357. 487e511.
Okereke, C., 2008a. Equity norms in global environmental governance. Global En- Thomson, J.E., 1993. Norms in international relations: a conceptual analysis. Int. J.
viron. Polit. 8 (3), 25e50. Group Tens. 231, 67e83.
Okereke, C., 2008b. Global Justice and Neoliberal Environmental Governance: van der Vleuten, A., Van Eerdewijk, A., Roggeband, C., 2014. Gender Equality Norms
Ethics, Sustainable Development and International Co-operation. Routledge, in Regional Governance: Transnational Dynamics in Europe, South America and
Oxon. Southern Africa. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London.
Peterson, M.N., Peterson, M.J., Peterson, T.R., Leong, K., 2013. Why transforming Visseren-Hamakers, I., Arts, B., Glasbergen, P., 2011. Interaction management by
biodiversity conservation conflict is essential and how to begin. Pac. Conserv. partnerships: the case of biodiversity and climate change. Global Environ. Polit.
Biol. 19 (2), 94e103. 11 (4), 89e107.
Plummer, R., Armitage, D.R., de Loe, R.C., 2013. Adaptive comanagement and its Wiener, A., 2006. Constructivism and sociological institutionalism. In: Cini, M.,
relationship to environmental governance. Ecol. Soc. 18. Bourne, A.K. (Eds.), Palgrave Advances in European Union Studies. Palgrave
Raworth, K., 2017. A doughnut for the Anthropocene: humanity's compass in the Macmillan, London.
21st century. Lunar . Planet. Health 1 (2), e48ee49. Wiener, A., 2009. Enacting meaning-in-use: qualitative research on norms and
Roggeband, C., van Eerdewijk, A., van der Vleuten, A., 2014. Reconceptualizing international relations. Rev. Int. Stud. 35 (1), 175e193.
gender equality norm diffusion and regional governance: logics and geome- Wiener, A., Puetter, U., 2009. The quality of norms is what actors make of it critical-
tries. In: van der Vleuten, A., van Eerdewijk, A., Roggeband, C. (Eds.), Gender constructivist research on norms. J. Int. Law Int. Relat. 5 (1), 1e16.
Equality Norms in Regional Governance: Transnational Dynamics in Europe, Zimmermann, L., 2016. Same same or different? Norm diffusion between resistance,
South America and Southern Africa. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London, compliance, and localization in post-conflict states. Int. Stud. Perspect. 17,
pp. 221e246. 98e115.
Sabatier, P.A., 1986. Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation Zwingel, S., 2012. How do norms travel? Theorizing international women's rights in
research: a critical analysis and suggested synthesis. J. Publ. Pol. 6 (1), 21e48. transnational perspective. Int. Stud. Q. 56 (1), 115e129.
Sandbrook, C., Fisher, J.A., Holmes, G., Luque-Lora, R., Keane, A., 2019. The global