Why good intentions are no longer enough in the fight for a sustainable future.
Imagine a world where every "sustainable" product label is met with skepticism, where corporate environmental pledges are automatically dismissed as greenwashing, and where well-intentioned sustainability policies fail to gain public support. This isn't a dystopian future—it's our current reality. As sustainability initiatives have multiplied across governments and corporations, a paradox has emerged: more governance has not translated into more trust1 .
This crisis of confidence strikes at the very heart of our ability to address pressing environmental challenges. From bioenergy to carbon credits, communities, consumers, and investors are increasingly questioning whether sustainability governance systems can be trusted as legitimate regulators of economic activities1 4 .
This article explores a groundbreaking conceptual framework developed by sustainability scientists that aims to bridge this trust gap by rethinking what makes governance truly "good" in the complex landscape of sustainability transitions.
Despite increased sustainability governance efforts, public trust continues to decline, creating barriers to meaningful environmental progress.
At the core of the solution lies a simple but powerful triad of principles that form the foundation of what researchers call "good sustainability governance"1 4 6 . Unlike traditional governance models focused primarily on compliance, this framework recognizes that legitimacy must be earned on multiple fronts simultaneously.
Input legitimacy concerns who gets to participate in decision-making processes and how5 .
Output legitimacy focuses on results—whether the system actually achieves its intended sustainability goals5 .
Throughput legitimacy concerns the quality of processes that translate inputs into outputs5 .
| Legitimacy Type | Core Question | Key Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Input Legitimacy (Governance BY the people) | Who participates and how? | Inclusivity, early involvement, responsiveness, mutual learning5 |
| Output Legitimacy (Governance FOR the people) | Does it work? | Effectiveness, efficiency, adaptive management, context-sensitivity5 |
| Throughput Legitimacy (Governance WITH the people) | Are processes fair? | Transparency, fairness, accountability, absence of corruption5 |
Sustainability challenges are not static—they evolve as new technologies emerge, scientific understanding advances, and social values shift. Recognizing this dynamism, researchers propose an adaptive governance model that treats sustainability governance not as a fixed set of rules but as an ongoing learning process4 .
Engaging stakeholders, setting goals
Input LegitimacyExecuting policies, managing processes
Throughput LegitimacyTracking performance, gathering feedback
Output LegitimacyRefining systems, making improvements
All Three TypesThis model involves continuous cycling through phases of planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and adjustment. By regularly re-evaluating the system design, governance can remain relevant and effective even as conditions change4 .
The model specifically links this adaptive approach to strengthening all three legitimacy dimensions by regularly assessing and improving methods across participation, performance evaluation, and implementation processes4 .
| Phase | Key Activities | Legitimacy Strengthened |
|---|---|---|
| Planning | Engaging stakeholders, setting goals | Input Legitimacy |
| Implementation | Executing policies, managing processes | Throughput Legitimacy |
| Monitoring | Tracking performance, gathering feedback | Output Legitimacy |
| Evaluation | Analyzing data, assessing effectiveness | All Three Types |
| Adjustment | Refining systems, making improvements | All Three Types |
A 2025 study published in the Journal of Business Ethics provides compelling evidence for how organizations can successfully implement these principles. Researchers conducted 33 semi-structured interviews with manufacturing firms, regulatory bodies, policy associations, auditing firms, and management consultancies across Central Europe8 .
Researchers identified organizations representing diverse positions in sustainability governance systems, from rule-makers to implementers8 .
Semi-structured interviews allowed for both comparability across organizations and deep exploration of context-specific challenges8 .
Interview transcripts were analyzed to identify patterns in how organizations balance external compliance pressures with internal sustainability ambitions8 .
The study revealed that successful organizations don't choose between rule-based and goal-based governance—they integrate them through two key mechanisms:
By actively participating in standard-setting and regulatory processes8
By embedding sustainability into core business operations and cultures8
This hybrid approach allowed firms to leverage the accountability of rules with the innovation potential of goals. For instance, some manufacturing firms simultaneously established dedicated sustainability roles while actively engaging in industry alliances to influence regulatory standardization8 .
Central Europe
Combining rule-based accountability with goal-based innovation and adaptation8
Implementing legitimate sustainability governance requires both conceptual frameworks and practical tools. Based on research across multiple sectors, here are essential solutions for addressing common governance challenges:
| Governance Challenge | Solution | Function | Real-World Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stakeholder Exclusion | Structured participatory approaches | Ensures diverse representation and meaningful input in decision-making5 | EU's multi-stakeholder consultations for bioenergy sustainability criteria1 |
| Performance Measurement | Adaptive monitoring systems | Tracks effectiveness through relevant indicators, allowing for course correction5 | Brazil's RenovaBio program with emission reduction targets1 |
| Process Opacity | Transparency mechanisms | Provides accessible documentation of decision-making and implementation5 | Corporate sustainability reporting under CSRD requirements8 |
| Implementation Inconsistency | Certification and standardization | Creates accountability through verifiable compliance with established standards8 | ISO 14001, Fairtrade, and other sustainability certifications8 |
| Goal Ambiguity | Hybrid governance framework | Combines rule-based accountability with goal-based innovation and adaptation8 | Manufacturing firms integrating internal sustainability targets with external certifications8 |
The framework provides actionable guidance for organizations seeking to enhance the legitimacy of their sustainability initiatives through balanced attention to participation, performance, and process quality.
By addressing all three legitimacy dimensions simultaneously, organizations can build the trust necessary for sustainability initiatives to gain acceptance and achieve meaningful impact.
The conceptual framework for increasing legitimacy and trust in sustainability governance offers more than academic insights—it provides a practical roadmap for addressing one of the most significant barriers to meaningful sustainability progress. By attending to all three dimensions of legitimacy—input, output, and throughput—and embracing an adaptive approach that evolves with new challenges and knowledge, we can build governance systems that merit the trust we need them to inspire.
As the research shows, the path to legitimate sustainability governance isn't about finding perfect solutions but about creating responsive, inclusive, and transparent processes that can navigate complexity and earn credibility through demonstrated competence and fairness1 4 8 .
In a world of escalating environmental challenges and deepening public skepticism, this framework offers hope that we can build the trustworthy governance systems necessary for a genuinely sustainable future.
This article is based on the research article "Conceptual framework for increasing legitimacy and trust of sustainability governance" published in Energy, Sustainability and Society (2021) and subsequent studies building on this framework.