Can the Sustainable Development Goals Green International Organisations? Sustainability Integration in the International Labour Organisation

ABSTRACT

In global sustainability governance, many actors have emphasised the need for policy integration across the economic, social, and environmental dimensions. In 2015, the United Nations agreed on 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to advance such integration. But have international organisations responded to this call, and can we observe any integrative effect of the SDGs? We draw on International Relations theories that incorporate change in their analysis and develop an analytical framework to assess change through the lenses of ideas, norms, and institutions. We use this framework to assess sustainability-oriented change in the International Labour Organisation (ILO). The ILO is traditionally an organisation with a primarily socio-economic mandate and hence an ideal case to study whether the SDGs had any impact after 2015 in strengthening the environmental dimension of sustainability in the ILO’s institutional settings and policy development. We focus on the 2010–2019 period and conduct a systematic qualitative content analysis of primary documentary sources, complemented with expert interviews and data on operational developments. The paper concludes that there is a significant yet instrumental greening trend in the ILO’s approach to sustainable development, but also a bidirectional influence between the ILO and the SDGs.

1. Introduction

In 2013, the negotiations began for a global ‘2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, which the United Nations (UN) adopted two years later as the new core document for sustainable development. The 2030 Agenda constitutes a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet and improve the lives and prospects of everyone, everywhere. Cornerstone of the Agenda and key to the implementation of its vision are 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which are, according to the UN General Assembly, ‘integrated and indivisible and balanc[ing] the three dimensions of sustainable development’ (UNGA, ²⁰¹⁵, p. 3; see also Biermann et al., ²⁰¹⁷). The 17 SDGs, with their 169 targets and over 230 indicators have been hailed as the most advanced global governance framework to date to advance fully integrated governance for sustainability. This framework is also often linked to the promotion of ‘planetary integrity’, which refers to the need to preserve the Earth’s ecological life-support systems (Griggs et al., 2013; Kim & Bosselmann, ²⁰¹⁵), while also ensuring the attainment of fundamental social and economic thresholds (Raworth, 2017). We then define sustainability integration as the simultaneous and interdependent consideration and operationalisation by actors of the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, social, and environmental.

With the UN leading the call for more integrated global governance, international organisations are seen as important actors in implementing the SDGs, complementing and coordinating efforts at the national, sub-national, and local levels. In the last two decades, the mandates of many international organisations have significantly expanded (Barnett & Finnemore, 2004; Hooghe et al., ²⁰¹⁷; Tallberg & Zürn, ²⁰¹⁹), and many have developed sizable environmental programmes (Biermann et al., 2009; Kaiser & Meyer, ²⁰¹⁷). Furthermore, most international organisations have committed to implementing the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs. Such commitment goes beyond statements and documents; for instance, several international organisations (36 within the UN system and 14 outside) have become ‘custodians’ of specific SDG indicators and are hence responsible for their effective monitoring and implementation (UN Economic and Social Council, ²⁰¹⁸).

But what is the reality behind these commitments? Have international organisations really responded to the new call for greater sustainability integration, or are their new commitments towards integration only a shallow facade? Furthermore, if substantive change has taken place, can it be seen as conditional or unconditional? And equally important: has the political agreement on the SDGs in 2015 acted as an institutional catalyst for any change?

This article addresses these questions with an in-depth study of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). With 187 member states and a secretariat – the International Labour Office- with 40 field offices and some 2700 staff, the ILO is one of the most established organisations in the UN system. It features a unique tripartite structure, in which unions and employers join governments as equal partners in its main organs, notably the executive Governing Body and the legislative International Labour Conference. It has also been rather successful at expanding its networks and agenda to preserve its role in advancing social and economic justice through the setting of international labour standards (Hughes & Haworth, 2011). Alongside its predominantly socio-economic mandate, the ILO seems to also open up to other concerns, including environmental ones. This process is at the centre of our article. We investigate sustainability integration focusing on the integration of the environmental dimension into the economic and social dimensions of the ILO’s work– a process we also refer to as ‘greening’. The ILO’s engagement with the SDGs, evident from its ‘custodianship’ of 14 indicators across 5 goals, also helps assess the role of the SDGs in these processes.

The article proceeds as follows. Section 2 develops an analytical framework to analyse sustainability integration through three lenses: ideas, norms, and institutions. We also present our research design and methodology. Section 3 applies the analytical framework to the case of the ILO, and analyses whether sustainability integration can be discerned within the ILO’s ideas, norms and institutions. Section 4 discusses what role the SDGs play in this process. Section 5 concludes and reflects on the wider implications of this study.

2. Analysing changes in international organisations

The analytical framework we use to analyse changes in international organisations such as the ILO primarily draws on discursive institutionalism, also referred to as ‘constructivist institutionalism’ (Hay, 2006, p. 56). This is an analytically dualist perspective stressing the interdependence of agency and structure and hence of contextual and institutional change. Unlike other forms of (neo-)institutionalism, discursive institutionalism thus studies institutions moving from a dynamic constructivist ontology that integrates institutional and ideational path dependency (Hay, 2006).

Most literature on sustainability-oriented change in international organisations hardly focuses on how the changing context – such as the SDGs − can impact institutional change. Discursive institutionalism instead integrates contextual change within cyclical processes wherein ideas, norms and institutions are both background (the context informing the diffusion and institutionalisation of ideas) and foreground, where actors deliberate about the institutional structure, which leads to new ideas (Arts & Buizer, 2009; Carstensen & Schmidt, ²⁰¹⁶; Schmidt, ²⁰⁰⁸). It, therefore, helps conceptualise an international organisation such as the ILO not just as a ‘recipient’, but also as an agent of change.

Analytical dualism thus integrates different perspectives on the independence of international organisations. Its emphasis on structure, on the one hand, acknowledges the constraining influence of member states and other external actors (Bøås & McNeill, 2004). Its recognition of agency, on the other hand, highlights how ‘there is more in international organisations than the power of their member states’ (Park & Vetterlein, 2010, p. 10). While a broader theoretical discussion is beyond the scope of this paper, the integration of these elements into our conceptual framework leads to the identification of ideas, norms and institutions as three main interdependent ‘stages’ of institutional change. We describe this as a cycle of change (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The cycle of change.

2.1. Ideas

The first stage of this cycle are ideas. We assume that any contextual change – such as the agreement on the SDGs – will first affect the ideas present in an organisation, that is, the subjective systems of representation and representation-producing practices in specific contexts (Laffey & Weldes, 1997). Ideas can be prescriptive, but they do not yet reflect the consolidation into a concrete norm. For example, the existence of ideas about sovereignty does not coincide with a norm about what constitutes sovereignty. To study ideas as they emerged and developed within the ILO, we have analysed over thirty ILO documents, selected because of their topical relevance (mainly reports of the Director-General and reports submitted by ILO departments as input for the International Labour Conference). While reports do undergo a negotiation and review process where all ILO member groups (governments, workers, and employers) are involved, their primary aim is to stimulate debate during the International Labour Conference. ILO members, therefore, ‘use’ reports to acknowledge possible future strategic directions of the organisation without formally endorsing the substance. Such endorsement is only given through adoption by the International Labour Conference. According to our framework, reports thus indicate ideas.

2.2. Norms

The second stage in the cycle is when some ideas become norms. We define norms as the intersubjective understandings that are programmatic in nature and characterised by a sense of ‘ought’ vis-à-vis the scope and desirability of certain actions and behaviours (Alger & Dauvergne, 2019; Florini, ¹⁹⁹⁶). We differentiate between ideas and norms in relation to their diffusion, that is, how many actors in a constituency have adopted an idea or a norm (breadth) and whether the understanding of an idea or a norm is uniform across this constituency (consistency). Ideas, especially those that directly challenge the established order, will generally be narrowly and inconsistently diffused and therefore fail to qualify as norms (Alger & Dauvergne, 2019, pp. 6–7). For instance, despite their prescriptive nature and the scientific attention they have received, ideas such as depopulating and limiting economic growth have not become a norm in any country or in international institutions (Alger & Dauvergne, 2019, p. 11). Importantly, our understanding of norms is discursive rather than legal or operational (Krook & True, 2010), and therefore, not synonymous with ‘standards’ or ‘rules’.

This discursive element is also helpful to clarify our distinction between norms and ideas. Some ‘mainstream’ constructivists tend to conflate both concepts into an overarching ‘normative life cycle’, where the production of documentary sources constitutes an indicator of the evolution of norms from ‘internal’ to ‘external’ (Finnemore, 1996; Park & Vetterlein, ²⁰¹⁰, pp. 19–20). Our framework instead isolates ideas explicitly to increase definitional clarity and operationalisability.

Diffusion helps operationalise this distinction. For instance, a document signed by a Director-General does have prescriptive value as an idea; yet its diffusion is still limited if all key actors in that organisation (such as member states, staff, and in the ILO’s case also employers and workers) have not officially approved it, and it can thus not be seen as a ‘norm’ in our conceptualisation.

To study whether and how initial (environmental) ideas have become more widely accepted norms within the ILO, we have analysed all 101 negotiated documents issued by the International Labour Conference between 2010 and 2019. This conference brings together delegates from governments, workers and employers of all ILO member states to discuss social and labour questions and to adopt new international labour standards. It also adopts the ILO’s budget and elects its Governing Body. Documents adopted by the conference include – in ascending order of importance – resolutions, recommendations and conventions, the latter being binding and becoming part of national law once ratified. These documents result from complex processes involving many actors and are issued by a body which enjoys a high degree of legitimacy. Moreover, resolutions, recommendations and conventions are usually adopted by large majorities or even unanimously. They, therefore, reflect high levels of both breadth and consistency in the adoption of a norm. The ILO also publishes the proceedings of discussions during the International Labour Conference. Although these do provide a wealth of insights into the processes of normative diffusion, a detailed procedural analysis would considerably broaden the scope of this paper, which instead focuses on substantive evidence of change at all levels. We, therefore, restricted our selection of output to formally adopted documents, using resolutions, recommendations and conventions as substantive normative proxies for the outcomes of the discussions reported in the proceedings.

2.3. Institutions

The third stage of the cycle are institutions. Once ideas have developed and more concrete norms have been diffused, some may aggregate and become fully institutionalised (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998, p. 891). If norms are the principles of governance within an international organisation, institutions are its concrete rules and procedures. Institutions encompass all that relates to the concrete administration and implementation of an international organisation’s mandate and strategy. Unlike ideas and norms, which evolve more organically, institutions are consciously designed. They are outcomes of deliberate implementation processes that follow normative diffusion. This again emphasises the importance of agency in processes leading to the formation of an institutional structure. Moreover, institutions are not only products of norms and ideas, but also platforms where actors deliberate about their content and thus inform new ideas. An international organisation is thus not only structure, but also an agent of both internal and external change. In the case of the ILO, such agency lies with its officials and its tripartite constituents who, in different configurations, can catalyse or hinder change. Given our methodological focus, we could not systematically study which specific actors within the ILO drove or hindered specific changes, as this is not often revealed in formal documents. Rather, we understood their agency as an integral part of that of the ILO as a whole. Nonetheless, where the information was sufficient and reliable, we included the ‘politics of change’ in our analysis as well.

To study institutions, we looked at three main sets of indicators. First, we studied strategic and budgetary documents (chiefly the biennial Programme and Budget). Second, we analysed concrete initiatives such as the ILO’s Green Jobs Programme or multilateral partnerships, focusing on their emergence, their changing scope and scale, and their impact on for instance national legislation. Third, we looked at structural changes, mostly related to the bureaucratic organisation of the ILO (see Table 1 below for an overview).

Table 1.

Summary of concepts and operationalisation.

	Ideas	Norms	Institutions
Short definition	Subjective systems of representation in a specific context	Intersubjective understandings and beliefs about appropriate behaviour	Concrete rules and practices within an arrangement (e.g. an organisation)
Indicators	Speeches; reports; unratified documents	Documents representing the official position of the whole organisation (e.g. resolutions, conventions, treaties)	Strategy documents; budget; organisational structure; concrete initiatives and programmes

To investigate the role of the SDGs, we divided our findings into pre- and post-2013. We take 2013 as a potential moment of change as this is when, following the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development, negotiations started for the new and more integrated 2030 Agenda. Our choice of 2013 instead of 2015 (the year of the official launch of the SDGs) as empirical watershed also emphasises how ideational and normative developments begin before measurable institutional changes emerge. Also, tangible changes in an international organisation such as the ILO result from processes lasting over many years; ideas, norms and institutions that emerged in 2013 thus cannot be directly ascribed to the SDG negotiations per se. Furthermore, change can be the result of many more contextual (and internal) factors than those we focus on in this paper (see e.g. Vetterlein, ²⁰⁰⁷). Yet, the launch of the SDG negotiations in 2013 still marks an important global contextual change against which ILO developments can be investigated; not just as outcomes but also as informing inputs.

Methodologically, we relied on directed qualitative content analysis of the documents, that is, we refined the development of deductive codes from the application of general contextual considerations to the conceptual framework with grounded observations within the case study (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; Mayring, ²⁰⁰⁰). These codes all refer to our focus on integrating sustainability, and include for instance ‘environment’, ‘integration’, and ‘just transition’. Given its focus on contextualised meaning, we find directed qualitative content analysis to be a good methodological fit with our discursive institutionalist focus, which highlights the role of ideas and norms in shaping the meaning of social categories (Laffey & Weldes, 1997). In addition, we conducted ten confidential exploratory interviews with ILO officials – both in service and retired – from various departments and programmes.

3. Sustainability integration in the ILO

How did environmental concerns affect the evolution of ideas, norms and institutions within the ILO?

3.1. The evolution of integrative ideas

3.1.1. Sustainability integration in the ILO before 2013

At the level of ideas, the ILO took the first steps towards integrating environmental sustainability in the 1970s. This process started with first attempts at linking the discourse around occupational safety and health with the growing attention to environmental issues across the UN system. Already in 1972, an ILO report included the first references to links between economic development and environmental protection. In 1975, another report corroborated this stating that the ‘working environment’ and the ‘general environment’ are closely linked (ILO, ^{1972b, 1975}). In the 1990s, ideas began to emerge about a ‘green’ role of the ILO and its tripartite constituents, such as a proposal to integrate environmental considerations into all ILO activities (ILO, ^1990a). While these early examples indicate greater sustainability integration in the ILO’s understanding of its mandate, this remained strictly instrumental: environmental concerns were seen as important only as functionally relevant for achieving the ILO’s socio-economic priorities. Instrumental change is, therefore, associated with ‘shallow’ socialisation and remains conditional to the pursuit of a stable mandate. ‘Deeper’ socialisation, instead, requires change to be unconditional, reflecting a fundamental change of interests and a new ‘social identity’ (Bearce & Bondanella, 2007, p. 706). Unconditional change would thus see the ILO present environmental concerns as self-standing goals that are integral to its mandate rather than means to achieve it. Yet, greater awareness among officials and constituents of the integrated nature of sustainability in the 1990s paved the way for rather ground-breaking ideas within the ILO (interview #3, 3 October 2019). A milestone report on ‘Environment and the world of work’ introduced first notions of ‘decoupling’ economic growth from environmental degradation (ILO, ^1990a, p. 50). It also pioneered the idea that the ILO’s social justice mandate is inextricably linked to the pursuit of integrated sustainability (ILO, ^1990a, p. 4). The evolution of the concept of ‘decent work’ also began in the 1990s. A 1999 report outlined four strategic objectives: employment promotion, social protection, social dialogue, and fundamental principles and rights at work; all to ensure that work responds to the social justice requirements ‘in this period of global transition’ (ILO, ¹⁹⁹⁹, p. v). These objectives were later formalised in the Decent Work Agenda (ILO, ²⁰⁰⁸), which in turn became fundamental in the development of the ILO’s approach to integrated sustainability (ILO, ^2013a).

In the 2000s, we see further developments towards integrating environmental concerns. First, the understanding of decent work became more closely related to considerations of environmental protection, influenced by the outcomes of the 1992 and 2002 global summits in Rio and Johannesburg (ILO, ^2007b). Second, awareness of the links between work and environment became deeper, with reports also considering how environmental policies can affect (decent) work (ILO, ^{2007b, 2008}). Crucial in this respect is the promotion of a ‘socially just transition to green jobs’, which are defined as ‘decent jobs that contribute to preserving and restoring the environment’, in both traditional and emerging sectors (ILO, ^2007b, p. 7; ²⁰⁰⁸, pp. 34–39). The juxtaposition of social justice priorities to the pursuit of green jobs also foreshadowed further development of the ‘just transition’ paradigm as the ILO’s foremost tool to pursue fully integrated sustainability (ILO, ^{2015a, 2017c}).

Third, there was growing criticism towards the so far largely positive view of economic growth as advocated by the neoliberal model of globalisation. Critical engagement had already started in the 1990s, when the ILO stepped up its cooperation with institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund calling for greater attention to social justice (Hughes & Haworth, 2011). Although growth remained central, ILO reports now argued for the redefinition of a successful enterprise along more integrated lines, stating that long-term economic success can only be achieved by responsibly combining human, financial, and environmental resources (ILO, ^2007c; World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization, ²⁰⁰⁴). Another report even mentioned that it would be necessary to overcome blind ‘faith in the magic of the market’ if sustainable development is to be achieved (ILO, ^2007b, p. 19).

3.1.2. Sustainability integration in the ILO after 2013

Since 2013, the greening of the prevalent ideas in the ILO has accelerated in both scope and scale. To begin with, the relative weight of environmental concerns in ILO discourse has markedly increased. Before 2013, explicit mentions of environmental sustainability were tightly linked to socio-economic aspects. After 2013, several documents have defined the pursuit of environmental sustainability first as a necessity, and later even as an opportunity to achieve its socio-economic goals (ILO, ^{2017c, 2018a}). In 2019, a report defined ‘environmental integrity’ as ‘the foundation for social peace and cohesion, economic prosperity and a future of work that provides full and productive employment and decent work for all’ (ILO, ^2019b, p. 36). Today, the Decent Work Agenda formally integrates environmental sustainability, which is even defined as part of social justice, rather than just a means to achieve it (ILO, ^2017a, p. 1; ^2019b). This shows the influence of the more progressive stakeholder groups in the International Labour Office and among ILO constituents in emphasising the link between social justice and the environment, and possibly laying the foundations for more fundamental changes to the nature and scope of the organisation’s mandate (interview #1, September 2, 2019).

Unsurprisingly, greening has also affected ideas about the links between work and the environment, with the former now seen as ‘intimately’ connected to the latter (ILO, ^{2013b, 2019c}, p. 17). The growing importance of full integration is clear in the mention of how the three dimensions of sustainability are connected via ‘nested interdependencies’ (ILO, ^2019b, p. 36).

The process is also linked to the development of the just transition paradigm as the ILO’s benchmark for integrated sustainability. First, the landmark Report on Sustainable Development, Decent Work and Green Jobs consolidates the initial integration of environmental considerations into the Decent Work Agenda, stating that its four objectives are to be fully integrated with the three pillars of sustainable development (ILO, ^2013c). Unlike before, however, this is now directly applied to the idea of just transition, which is defined as one ‘towards a world of work that respects and contributes to environmental sustainability’ (ILO, ^2013c, p. 335). This greening mirrored the original development of the just transition concept by trade unions (Stevis & Felli, 2015). Sustainability integration also became more concrete, with mentions of coherence across all three development policy portfolios (environmental, economic, and social) as a key principle of just transition and with calls on socio-economic actors to work on adaptive environmental measures to protect development as a whole (ILO, ^{2015a, 2018a, 2019b}, p. 39). While they remain marginal, these calls signal some willingness within the ILO to move towards a new idea of the environment as an integral rather than an instrumental component of the ILO’s social justice mandate (ILO, ^2019b).

Additionally, reformist ideas have become more present. The importance of decoupling is now linked to the need for reformed economic development to redress the systemic imbalances at the planetary level caused by the current approach to growth, which is both socially and environmentally unsustainable (ILO, ^2018a). Similar ideas also appear in the 2019 Report on SDG 8, which links decoupling to the need for the ILO to support simultaneous progress towards all the SDGs that have to do with environmental sustainability.

However, even in its new integrated formulation, just transition remains a means to sustain socio-economic progress (ILO, ^2017b). Self-standing environmental goals that are not linked to the mandated pursuit of social justice face strong resistance from most ILO officials and constituents. With the exception of one chapter in the 2019 Report on SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), the ILO’s approach to sustainability integration remains strictly instrumental.

3.2. The evolution of integrative norms

3.2.1. Sustainability integration before 2013

Did these trends at the level of ideas affect the evolution of norms? The first signs of normative diffusion of integrated environmental concerns in the ILO can be seen between the 1970s and the 1990s. Spurred by the evolution of the discourse around occupational safety and health towards clearer links between the world of work and environmental protection (ILO, ^{1972b, 1975}), the International Labour Conference issued the first resolutions and recommendations advancing more integrative norms, stressing the interdependence between the working environment and the general environment (ILO, ^{1972a, 1977, 1990a}) and mentioning the need for the organisation to take environmental concerns into account when pursuing socio-economic development (ILO, ^{1989, 1990b}).

Between the 1990s and the 2000s, further normative diffusion of ideas of integrated sustainability is evident in resolutions stressing the importance of actively pursuing ‘broad-based’ sustainability (ILO, ¹⁹⁹⁸, p. 1) because of the interdependent and mutually reinforcing nature of the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability (ILO, ^{1990a, 1998, 2007a, 2008}). Additionally, the Decent Work Agenda explicitly called for mobilisation to achieve its integrated strategic objectives and sustainability (ILO, ²⁰⁰⁸, p. 3).

Yet, perhaps unsurprisingly given the longer timeframe of diffusion processes, the greening of ILO norms was significantly slower and shallower than its ideas. Environmental concerns were largely absent from negotiated outputs of the International Labour Conference before 2013. Documents such as the 2008 Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization refrain from mentioning environmental considerations when discussing the interdependence with socio-economic justice (ILO, ²⁰⁰⁸). This points to the reticence of the ILO’s constituents to any changes in the normative interpretation of the organisation’s mandate, whereby the ILO’s contribution to sustainability should be limited to ‘areas within its competence’ (ILO, ^1990b, p. 3).

3.2.2. Sustainability integration after 2013

Since 2013, however, the normative diffusion of environmental ideas started to accelerate and become more visible. In 2013, ILO constituents agreed for the first time to have a conference committee on sustainable development, with an explicit emphasis on environmental issues. Six years later, the Centenary Declaration on the Future of Work included ‘environmental and climate elements’ among those contributing to the ‘transformative changes’ in the world of work (ILO, ^2019a, p. 3). While a more explicit reference to climate change and environmental destruction had to be given up during the negotiations (interview #1), the fact that there was sufficient support from all constituents to keep the current wording is significant. Between 2013 and 2019, however, the diffusion of self-standing environmental concerns remained limited, with few operationalisable measures and priorities for such concerns (e.g. ILO, ^2015b).

Nevertheless, there has been growing emphasis both on the role of decent work in achieving sustainability in all its dimensions and on environmental factors as drivers and consequences of socio-economic change (ILO, ^{2013a, 2017a}). This coincided with a much greater normative output since 2013 on the interdependence between the three pillars of sustainability. Greener ideas about sustainability integration have now become part of the normative framework of just transition, along with more links between sustainability and the Decent Work Agenda (ILO, ^2016a). Since 2017, just transition has become even more embedded in the ILO’s understanding of its mandate. It has become a ‘guiding principle’ for socio-economic progress (ILO, ^2017c, p. 8), and a necessary benchmark for the realisation of the ‘fundamental principles and rights at work’ constituting one of the four objectives of the Decent Work Agenda (ILO, ^2017d, p. 5). The very discussion on the ILO’s ‘decent work’ mandate is now much more strongly influenced by integrated sustainability and the role of social dialogue to achieve it (ILO, ^2018c). This process culminated in 2019 when the Centenary Declaration stated that the ILO must ensure ‘a just transition to a future of work that contributes to sustainable development in its economic, social and environmental dimensions’ (ILO, ^2019a, p. 3).

While this brings unprecedented depth to the normative diffusion of environmental concerns in the ILO, the approach remains instrumental. These norms never mention the need to add an environmental pillar to the Decent Work Agenda (ILO, ^2016a), but maintain that ‘just transition’ remains only a means for sustainable economic and social progress (2017c, p. 8) and stress how integrated sustainability offers opportunities for the ILO to advance decent work (2017d, 2018c).

Unlike ideas, current norms lack any reference to transformative views about sustainable socio-economic development. Up to 2019, no International Labour Conference document explicitly mentions decoupling or critical perspectives on economic growth. Furthermore, with the exception of one mention in the Safety and Health in Agriculture Convention (ILO, ²⁰⁰¹, art.12.c), no legally binding normative document since the 1989 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (ILO, ¹⁹⁸⁹, art.7.3) mentions the environment, integrated sustainable development, or the 2030 Agenda.

3.3. The evolution of integrative institutions

Is this instrumental approach of the ILO a barrier to any substantive institutional change?

3.3.1. Sustainability integration before 2013

Until a decade ago, institutional developments lagged behind the changes of ideas and norms that we described. This was largely due to the resistance to any institutionalisation of environmental sustainability by ILO constituents who remained concerned that this would undermine the organisation’s core mandate (interview #3). In 1982, the ILO joined the ambitious System-wide Medium-Term Environment Programme, which sought to improve environment-minded cooperation and efficiency in all the programmes and budgets of UN agencies. Despite this, in 1990 the International Labour Conference cut out all the operational proposals mentioning environmental issues.

In 1992, reluctance to diluting the ILO’s mandate led many constituents – especially employers and some member states – to fiercely oppose sending a tripartite delegation to the Rio Summit, the first major UN conference seeking an integrated approach to sustainability. In the end, the prospect of political gains given the high profile of the conference softened the staunchest antagonists such as the United States, and led to the first breakthrough, with the ILO engaging directly with environmental themes. This initial optimism even allowed the launch of the exploratory ‘interdepartmental project on environment and the world of work’ in 1994–1995. This project aimed to assist ILO members in the implementation of Agenda 21 (the outcome of the Rio Summit) and deployed an innovative ‘Tripartite-Plus’ approach involving civil society and local communities. Despite overall promising results, the project was ‘brutally terminated’ at the end of the biennium, largely due to constituents’ (especially workers’ and employers’) fears that institutionalising civil society participation would weaken their tripartite role (interview #3).

In the early 2000s, the stronger visibility of climate change as a global issue fostered the gradual institutionalisation of the links between social and environmental change, which coincided with the first demands for a just transition by trade unions. In 2009, several UN agencies, including the ILO, launched the Green Jobs Initiative. The initiative is a collaboration between ILO, UN Environment, the International Trade Union Confederation and the International Organisation of Employers, and was important in bringing together state actors, workers and employers under the same environmental umbrella. This paved the way for more widespread acceptance of environmental considerations in the ILO. In 2009, the ILO launched its own Green Jobs Programme. In its early years, the Programme faced considerable internal scepticism from numerous constituents. Consequently, most of the Programme’s early efforts were focused on sensitising local partners by stressing how the move towards a green economy would provide ‘win-win’ socio-economic outcomes. In other words, environmental concerns were framed strictly as instrumental in achieving the ILO’s mandate.

3.3.2. Sustainability integration after 2013

From 2013 onwards, environmental concerns became more prominent in the ILO’s institutional framework.

At the strategic level, the integrated understanding of just transition was first mentioned in the 2016–2017 Programme and Budget, and in 2018–2019 it was upgraded to a ‘cross-cutting policy driver’ requiring ‘fundamental and permanent significance across the four dimensions of the Decent Work Agenda’ (ILO, ^2017d, p. 3). The draft version of the 2020–2021 Programme and Budget further elevates just transition to a full-fledged integrated outcome with its own budget line.

In terms of initiatives, the normative diffusion of just transition facilitated the greater institutionalisation of the Green Jobs Programme. First, it contributed to reducing internal scepticism vis-à-vis the very notion of green jobs, as most units and departments began to explicitly refer to the role of green jobs in furthering decent work. Nowadays, the green jobs ‘frame’ has been mainstreamed across the entire organisation. Second, the growing support for the just transition paradigm among all constituents led to greater external openness to the programme, which began to be seen as a key source of know-how and assistance to pursue socially sustainable transitions (interview #8, 28 January 2020). The growing interest in integrated sustainability also helped the idea of green jobs to contribute to the institutionalisation of sustainability at the national level. This is evident for instance in the Philippines’ 2016 Green Jobs Act, a landmark piece of environmental legislation with a strong focus on integrated sustainability. The drafting and implementation of the act received direct ILO support (Philippines, 2015; interview #7, 16 January 2020). The institutionalisation of just transition within the ILO also impacted the scope of the Green Jobs programme, favouring its development from the narrow campaign for ‘win-win’ green works towards a more balanced focus which also takes into account all the challenges of transitions, particularly those related to their social and distributional effects. This has led to a marked increase in research and advisory work on social protection, now seen as both a resilience tool and a shield for workers negatively impacted by environmental legislation or policies. While the Green Jobs Programme is the first and by far the largest ‘green’ ILO initiative to date, the 2013–2015 period also saw the launch of the Green Initiative, which focuses on research to strengthen the ILO’s ability to manage a just transition towards greener economies and a sustainable future.

At the organisational level, two major developments have occurred since 2013. First, the ILO upgraded in 2013–2014 the Green Jobs initiatives from a mere programme to a full-fledged unit, which gave it formal organisational recognition and own budget lines. Second, in 2016 the ILO launched its Environmental Sustainability Policy and Management System, with an office-wide committee chaired by the Director-General for Management and Reform. This committee is linked to the Green Initiative and aims at promoting the integration of environmental sustainability across the ILO.

However, in addition to being relatively limited, institutional change towards integrating environmental concerns in the ILO has again been largely instrumental. Policy drivers in the Programme and Budget are explicitly defined as means to achieve ILO constitutional objectives, and the increasing ‘significance’ of the environment is linked to the need to act promptly in order to ‘reap the decent work dividend’. Additionally, strategic documents have not included any reference to ‘progressive’ or critical approaches to socio-economic development. This strict prioritisation is also evident in the more operational initiatives, notably regarding green jobs. In Mexico City, for instance, the ILO tackles waste management problems predominantly because of their negative socio-economic repercussions (interview #9, 30 January 2020). Moreover, budgetary limitations create an imbalance between discursive developments and the actual mobilisation of resources. At the organisational level, the lack of substantial change stems in large part from the fact that the ILO has to justify any change in its course of action before its tripartite constituents. Given the focus of its formal mandate on social justice and the world of work, any standalone environmental focus would unlikely be deemed a priority by the ILO’s tripartite constituents (interview #8).

In short, integration of environmental concerns within the ILO occurred at all levels of ideas, norms and institutions. And yet, this integration remains instrumental to the ILO’s socio-economic mandate. We do not attach normative value to instrumentality: an instrumental approach to sustainability integration is not ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than an unconditional one. We also look at instrumentality in descriptive terms, as a ‘marker’ which is largely expected in light of the ILO’s very raison d’ être and which does not diminish the substantial relevance of change within the organisation. An organisation’s core mandate rarely changes. What changes are the ideas, norms and institutions around how that mandate is best carried out (see e.g. Park, ²⁰⁰⁵; Vetterlein, ²⁰⁰⁷). There is no consensus on how to navigate the tensions and trade-offs between socio-economic progress and environmental protection (Arias-Maldonado, 2013), which makes such a ‘conditional’ approach appealing to a non-environmental actor such as the ILO. The lack of consensus, and therefore of diffusion, also contributes to explaining slower change at the normative and institutional levels.

Importantly, however, we also find an acceleration and deepening of the integration of environmental concerns after 2013. This suggests that the negotiation and later adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals was an important impetus. We turn to this question next.

4. The influence of the SDGs

On the one hand, the negotiation and adoption of the SDGs have left their mark in the evolution of ideas, norms and institutions within the ILO. Regarding ideas, many ILO reports after 2013 mention links between the achievement of SDGs and the implementation of the Decent Work Agenda (ILO, ^2017c). Others state that the SDGs have provided a ‘framework for guiding future action’ (ILO, ^2017d, p. 63) to which the ILO strives to align, particularly in its development assistance activities such as the Decent Work Country Programmes (ILO, ^2018c). Also, the more radical ideas regarding environmental integration can be partly attributed to the overarching rationale of the SDGs (ILO, ^2019b, p. 38). The influence of the SDGs is visible in strategic documents as well. For instance, the 2018–2019 Programme and Budget links all budget outcomes to specific SDGs (ILO, ^2017g, p. 5). The SDGs have also informed the Green Jobs Programme. Especially SDG 8 and SDG 13 (on climate change) are quoted as ‘foundational’ for the integration of different dimensions of development and sustainability (interview #10, February 18, 2020). More broadly, the SDGs have bolstered the legitimacy of the ILO’s integrated just transition approach. This has increased its support among ILO members and reduced potential resistance to integrating environmental concerns (interview #8).

The SDGs’ integrated approach might have also triggered the ILO to overcome siloisation through more multilateral cooperation (ILO, ^{2016b, 2017c}). In particular, the SDGs’ emphasis on cooperation, notably SDG 17 on strengthening global partnerships, has fostered a direct link between its pursuit and achieving integrated sustainability (ILO, ^{2013a, 2017d, 2018c, 2019a}). Furthermore, a resolution explicitly mentions the importance for the ILO to ensure the compatibility of its Development Cooperation Strategy and SDG 17 (ILO, ^2016a). At the institutional level, the ILO has since 2013 stepped up its commitment to inter-organisational sustainability-oriented partnerships. Among them are the Partnership for Action on Green Economy (PAGE) and the Green Jobs Assessment Institutions Network (GAIN) (since 2013), as well as the Memoranda of Understanding with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (2017) and with the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (2019), and the 2019 UN-wide Climate Action for Jobs Initiative. All these mentions the 2030 Agenda as an important frame, and the two Memoranda of Understanding refer to specific SDGs (13 and 14) as informing factors.

At the same time, the ILO has also influenced and shaped the SDGs. The ILO has been a driving force in the negotiation of the SDGs and had a key role in ensuring the centrality of ‘decent work’ in the 2030 Agenda (ILO, ^{2013a, 2014}). Reports of the proceedings of the UN General Assembly Open Working Group on the SDGs highlight not only the active role played by ILO delegates, but also the repeated acknowledgement by other delegates of the importance for the SDGs to reflect ILO targets and conventions (IISD, ^{2013a, 2013b, 2014}). In the sixth session, two country delegates stated that ‘the ILO’s decent work agenda provides a model for mainstreaming human rights into the post-2015 agenda’ (IISD, ^2013b, p. 13). The ILO explicitly hails just transition as a forerunner of the integrated approach in the SDGs (ILO, ^2017a). It also sees social justice as crucial to both integrated sustainability and the SDGs, and its tripartite constituents as key to foster social dialogue and shape the global commitment to decent work, which in turn is decisive for the success of the 2030 Agenda (ILO, ^{2013a, 2015a, 2016a, 2016c, 2017d, 2018b}). The SDGs are also widely understood as an opportunity for the ILO, as the organisation’s resources and expertise are crucial for the implementation of what the ILO itself has contributed to making a work-centred Agenda. This enables the ILO to use the SDGs as a platform to increase its global reach and to further pursue its objectives and mandate (ILO, ^{2015a, 2016c, 2018c}). The ILO’s strong agency behind the SDGs is also evident in the Green Jobs Programme’s emphasis on the cruciality of its tripartite resources for the success of the Goals (ILO, ^2017d).

This bidirectionality, however, is not on equal terms. Although clearly influenced by the SDGs, the references in ILO documents to the SDGs are not systematic. While they are prominent in ideational documents, they are less frequent in more action-oriented normative and institutional ones (e.g. ILO, ^{2015b, 2017a, 2019a}). As these documents respond more explicitly to the interests of the organisation’s members, one can question the influence of the SDGs on the partial greening of the ILO. While ILO officials who work on Green Jobs stress that the relationship between the SDGs and ILO initiatives is ‘acknowledged’ and ‘growing’, little has happened in practice. These officials point to the need to strengthen links between the 2030 Agenda and the ILO (interview #9). In addition, no significant changes have been made to ILO structures and operations as a result of the SDGs. A minor exception is the 2018 Decent Work for Sustainable Development platform, an online support tool mostly aimed at ILO staff and constituents to foster understanding and stimulate discussions on the relationship between the Decent Work Agenda and the SDGs.

In sum, the relationship between the ILO and the SDG is thus not one of unidirectional influence but rather of bidirectional co-constitution and co-evolution – which strongly challenges the linear rationale behind the impact and effectiveness of ‘global governance through goal setting’ (Abbott & Bernstein, 2015; Biermann et al., ²⁰¹⁷).

Additionally, the SDGs themselves are not immune to the challenges of integration, which constitutes a further caveat when assessing their influence. Studies have highlighted how the synergistic aspirations of the SDGs go hand in hand with numerous trade-offs between goals (e.g. Pradhan et al., ²⁰¹⁷). Even more fundamentally, the very integration of environmental concerns into the SDGs has been questioned, with critics pointing at the enduring prioritisation of growth and the dilution of environmental targets and indicators within socio-economic goals (Elder & Olsen, 2019; Zeng et al., ²⁰²⁰). This further emphasises the challenges of bridging the existing fault lines which hinder (greater) sustainability integration. Given how the ILO’s mandate ‘sits’ largely on the socio-economic side of these fault lines, the bidirectional influence between the SDGs and the ILO should also be taken into account as a potentially impeding factor towards deeper greening, both within the ILO and in global governance.

5. Conclusion

This article analysed how the ILO, as an example of a major international organisation, has responded to the call for greater integration of environmental sustainability into its primarily socio-economic focus; and whether the SDGs have acted as a catalyst in this response.

A number of key findings emerge. First, the ILO has indeed placed greater emphasis on the importance of environmental concerns in its ideas, norms and institutions. There are consistent greening trends, most notably in the development and refinement of the just transition framework. These trends have been strongest at the level of ideas, but are also observable in norms and institutions.

While such greening, remains largely instrumental, the ILO shows growing awareness of the interdependence between socio-economic and environmental factors, which has spurred greater multilateral and inter-organisational engagement. In this respect, the SDGs have had some influence in promoting less siloisation and more openness to integrated sustainability governance.

However, our findings also show a strong bidirectionality in the relationship between the SDGs and the ILO. The consistent emphasis on its success in influencing and even shaping the SDGs and on how its actions are essential to the Agenda’s achievement shows that the ILO sees itself more as an active ‘manager’ of the 2030 Agenda rather than a mere recipient or implementor of the SDGs.

How does our conceptualisation of change help explain the gradual evolution of international organisations such as the ILO towards integrated sustainability? First, our findings show how new ideas have led to some normative and institutional change. However, this change has also been slower and less pervasive. Our framework suggests here that changes of the core institutions require not only high normative diffusion, but also considerable resource mobilisation. They thus depend more on the interests and priorities of the members of an international organisation, especially if these are as powerful as in the ILO.

This underscores again the importance of understanding change in cyclical terms, with institutions and the actors that operate in them playing a crucial role not just as recipients of change, but also as shapers. In the ILO, these dynamics are evident in the instrumental nature of its approach to integrating environmental concerns. A majority of ILO constituents actively resisted the explicit prioritisation of environmental concerns, seeing it as a danger to the integrity of the organisation’s mandate. Their ideas have been feeding back into the overarching cycle, shaping the way the ILO has ‘received’ the contextual input towards fully integrated sustainability.

Moreover, the ILO’s bidirectional relationship with the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs supports our conceptualisation of a cyclical link between contextual change and change in ideas. The SDGs are part of a new context of global sustainability governance, which informs the ideas of international actors such as the ILO. However, actors do in turn exert influence on their context. Thus, any claims about the ability of global goals to have direct, linear steering effects on international organisations need to be significantly nuanced.

We also offer valuable insights into the change dynamics in an international organisation. While the ILO does have some unique features given its tripartite structure and the stronger role of societal actors, like all other international organisations it is mandate-driven and embedded in broader governance systems and regimes. It, therefore, faces similar challenges of linking the pursuit of its mandate with overarching contextual changes. Hence, net of its inevitable ‘idiosyncrasies’, the ILO’s comparability with other international organisations and broad representativeness make our theoretical and empirical findings widely relevant to future research into other international organisations.

In sum, our study shows that international organisations can and do gradually move towards a greener and more integrated approach to sustainability, and that the SDGs do play a role in this process. At the same time, it also illustrates that such change is far from a linear process whereby governance tools such as the SDGs are simply ‘applied’ to targeted recipients, but rather emerges from the constant cyclical interplay of agents and their context.

Biographies

Francesco S. Montesano is a Ph.D. candidate within the GLOBALGOALS project at the Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. Within the GLOBALGOALS project, he draws on IR-based theoretical and analytical frameworks to study the steering effects of the SDGs at the international level, with special emphasis on whether and how they affect processes of change towards integrated sustainability.

Frank Biermann is a research professor of Global Sustainability Governance with the Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. Biermann’s current research examines multilateral institutions, options for reform of the United Nations, global adaptation governance, SDGs, and conceptual innovations such as the notion of the Anthropocene.

Agni Kalfagianni is an associate professor of Transnational Sustainability Governance at the Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. She specialises in the effectiveness, legitimacy and ethical and justice considerations of private and transnational forms of governance in the sustainability domain.

Marjanneke J. Vijge is an assistant professor of Sustainability Governance in the Developing World at the Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. Her research focuses on policy coherence around climate and food security governance in developing countries, in particular regarding the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals and climate goals.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the European Research Council through the Advanced Grant project GLOBALGOALS (no. 788001).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).