Challenges in Sustainability | 2013 | Volume 1 | Issue 2 | Pages 82–93

DOI: 10.12924/cis2013.01020082

Review

Knowledge Governance for Sustainable Development:

A Review

Lorrae van Kerkhoff

Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Building 48 Linnaeus Way,

Canberra ACT 0200, Australia; E-Mail: lorrae.va[email protected]; Tel. +61 261252748

Submitted: 5 September 2013 | In revised form: 7 January 2014 | Accepted: 26 February 2014 |

Published: 12 March 2014

Abstract: Sustainable development is a knowledge intensive process, but plagued by

persistent concerns over our apparent inability to connect what we know with more sustainable

practices and outcomes. While considerable attention has been given to ways we may better

understand and enhance the knowledge-based processes that support the governance of

social-ecological systems, relatively few have examined the governance of knowledge itself. The

institutions—rules and norms—that govern knowledge may shed light on the persistence of

'gaps' between knowledge and action. In this review I seek to answer the question: can

interdisciplinary knowledge governance literature contribute to understanding and analysing the

institutional knowledge-based dimensions of sustainable development? I present and analyse

the concept of knowledge governance as it is emerging in a range of disciplines and practice

areas, including private sector management literature and public regulation theory and practice.

I then integrate the findings from this review into a model of sustainable development

proposed by Nilsson et al. [1]. I show that knowledge governance (as a scale above knowledge

management) can inform Nilsson et al.'s three "nested" dimensions of sustainability: human

wellbeing (through access to knowledge and freedom to exercise informed choice); resource-

base management (though enhancing regulation and innovation and transitions from exclusive

to inclusive knowledge systems); and global public goods (by balancing public and private

interests and fostering global innovation systems). This review concludes by presenting a

framework that places sustainable development in the context of broader socio-political

struggles towards more open, inclusive knowledge systems.

Keywords: global public goods; innovation; knowledge governance; knowledge systems;

sustainable development

under a Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

1. Introduction

Public debates and political struggles over how to

achieve sustainability, from climate change and

biodiversity conservation to genetically modified

organisms and food security, have been characterised

by clashes and controversies over knowledge [2,3]—

what do we need to know to meet sustainability

challenges? Who should know it? Where should that

knowledge come from? Who has authority or should

be believed? How can different forms of knowledge be

harnessed more effectively for action towards sus-

tainability? Yet despite substantial work in these areas

[3–10] there remains a view that efforts to improve

the application of knowledge to inform sustainable de-

velopment have fallen short of the urgent and

compelling need. This is particularly so in relation to

science; for example, a United Nations Environment

Program Foresight report released in 2012 ranked

"Reconnecting Science and Policy" as the fourth

highest priority of 21 top challenges for sustainability

in the 21st century. They stated that "…our society

needs strategies and policies that are underpinned by

a strong science and evidence base. But many believe

the linkage between the policy and science com-

munities is inadequate or even deteriorating, and that

this 'broken bridge' is hindering the development of

solutions to global environmental change. This problem

requires a new look at the way science is organized

and how the science-policy interface can be improved"

[11]. Similarly, a report by the International Council for

Science wrote "there appears to be a serious discon-

nect between scientific knowledge and the way that

policy is formulated, leading to calls for improvements

in the science-policy interface" [12]. A recent review of

the usability of climate science for policy, including

processes and techniques for enhancing the role of

scientific knowledge in decision-making, concluded

that: "in spite of these efforts to rethink and restruc-

ture science production, current approaches have not

been able to surmount the usability gap" [9]. Beyond

the science domain, arguments for more fully incor-

porating traditional ecological and indigenous know-

ledge into sustainability-related decision-making have

long standing [13,14] with arguably increasing rele-

vance in the context of global environmental change

[15]. Other authors have highlighted the need for a

range of knowledges to be brought together to

address complex sustainability challenges, including

contributions from local stakeholders (for a review,

see Reed [16]), and dynamic and 'polycentric'

governance arrangements to support adaptive man-

agement of "socio-ecological systems" [17,18]. Yet the

difficulties of operationalising effective participation

and adaptive governance arrangements have also

been noted, suggesting that knowledge-oriented,

learning-based approaches face substantial challenges

in practice [16,19,20]. Taken together, the overall

picture is that better understanding and enhancing

the role of knowledge in sustainable development

decision-making is widely held to be important, but

there is a need for fresh insights and new ideas to

'bridge the gaps' between knowledge and action [21].

In this article I review the contribution one specific

concept, "knowledge governance", may make to this

broader task of understanding and enhancing the role

of knowledge in sustainability decision-making. The

origins of this review came about from a sustainability

science project that ran in 2004–2006, titled "Know-

ledge systems for sustainable development". This

project was made up of 9 case studies from around the

world, where my colleagues and I sought to develop a

systemic, actor-based understanding of knowledge

processes in sustainable development projects [5,22–

27]. While we developed a range of theoretical and

practical insights from these projects, it became clear

that the 'knowledge systems' we were identifying and

describing emerged from complex governance ar-

rangements that either supported or undermined

efforts to build knowledge processes that could

effectively support transitions towards more sustain-

able practices [23]. In other words, while we could

describe the knowledge systems of our case studies, it

was only by looking at the governance of these

knowledge systems that we could start to explain how

they actually came about or why they worked in the

ways that they did. There seemed to be a middle layer,

in between project-based knowledge management

recommendations for improving communication and

learning [28] or organisational recommendations re-

garding the importance of boundary organisations [27];

and analyses that address broader social, cultural and

political aspects of knowledge [6,29], that was

relatively un-developed. This middle layer was

concerned with the institutional 'rules of the game' [30]

that shaped the possibilities and choices available to

decision-makers at organisational and project scales.

Within that project, we had limited scope to develop

these ideas further. In the intervening years, however,

the term "knowledge governance" has emerged in a

range of contexts and academic literatures to address

this institutional layer—but not, by and large, in sus-

tainable development (although other similar concepts

have been used, which I will discuss shortly). Perhaps

concepts that are gaining traction outside the sustain-

ability domain can help to shed light on the persistence

of the knowledge-action gaps identified earlier.

In this review I aim to see whether work conducted

under the auspices of the term knowledge governance

can offer new insights into the institutional and

organisational challenges of sustainability, with regard

to strengthening relationships between knowledge

and action. I seek to answer the question: can inter-

disciplinary literature on knowledge governance con-

tribute to understanding and analysing the insti-

tutional knowledge-based dimensions of sustainable

development? I will first outline what is meant by

knowledge governance, and how it relates to other

knowledge-based concepts that have currency in

sustainable development literature. I will then present

a model of sustainability that highlights the foun-

dational role of knowledge as proposed by Nilsson et

al. [1], as a framework for analysing the literature. I

will then review literature that discusses and develops

the concept of knowledge governance in relation to

private sector management and public sector reg-

ulation and legal frameworks. From this review I will

return to Nilsson et al.'s model and suggest ways in

which the knowledge governance literature may con-

tribute to understanding and analysing the relationships

between governance and knowledge for sustainable

development.

2. What is Knowledge Governance?

Knowledge and governance are both contested terms

with various definitions. Here, following our original

project, I define knowledge simply as justifiable belief

(where different forms of knowledge reflect different

justifications) [8], and governance as a "system of

formal and informal rules, rule-making systems, and

actor-networks at all levels of human society (from

local to global) that are set up to steer societies…"

[31]. The essential proposition of knowledge gover-

nance is that the ways we conduct or engage in

knowledge processes (such as creating, sharing, ac-

cessing, and using) are subject to formal and informal

rules and conventions that shape our decisions and

actions, and that these can be manipulated towards

defined goals [32].

The different disciplinary contexts in which the

specific concept of knowledge governance has been

developed offer various definitions or interpretations

of this broad idea. In the context of organisational

economics, Foss [33] defines his "knowledge gover-

nance approach" as seeking to match knowledge

transactions (or processes) with governance mech-

anisms, with a view to maximising economic effi-

ciency. In relation to public problem-solving, Gerritsen

([34] p. 605) defines knowledge governance as "…the

intentional achievement of societal and policy change

through the purposeful production and dissemination

of knowledge." Similarly, Burlamaqui describes know-

ledge governance as an approach that seeks "…to

understand the interaction among knowledge pro-

duction, appropriation and diffusion and, from a public

policy/public interest point of view, to open up the

space for a set of rules, regulatory redesign and

institutional coordination which would favor the

commitment to distribute (disseminate) over the right

to exclude" ([35] pp. 4–5). These definitions point to

two distinct sets of concerns that sit rather uncom-

fortably under the banner of "knowledge governance"—

from the economic view, a means to improving efficiency

and maximising return through understanding, designing

and deploying knowledge governance mechanisms and

tools; and from the public policy point of view, as a base

for re-conceptualising the public interest and promoting

societal transformations.

The implications and limitations of these perspec-

tives will be examined in the next sections. For now,

however, there are two key points to be made. First,

importantly for the purposes of this review, know-

ledge governance relates to the 'institutional layer'

mentioned earlier. It is broader in scope than know-

ledge management [32], which sits within the domain

of projects and organisations, and is concerned with

the institutional structures, rules and norms that enable

or constrain knowledge management decisions. As

Gerritson et al. ([34] p. 605) have written, "whereas

knowledge management focuses on the management

of the specific processes of knowledge production, like

making knowledge questions explicit, organizing

funding or sharing knowledge in workshops, knowledge

governance is about engaging actors in innovative

ways of solving societal issues". An illustration of the

distinction is the often-heard tension between re-

searchers understanding the importance of collab-

orative research agenda-setting with communities and

co-production of knowledge (a way of organising and

managing knowledge processes); but sitting within

academic institutions that reward disciplinary focus

and publication in academic journals (institutional

rules and norms that devalue and divert effort from

collaboration and co-production) (see, for example,

Wiek et al. [36]). Knowledge governance as concep-

tualised here is concerned primarily with the broader

scale of institutional rules and norms. Second, know-

ledge governance is regarded here as both a noun and

a verb. As a noun, it is a description of existing phe-

nomena, seeking to shine an analytical spotlight on the

range of governance structures that already shape our

knowledge processes in relation to sustainability, but

are often obscured or subsumed by more tangible

concerns. As a verb, knowledge governance is a suite

of actions that may re-design or re-formulate these

processes, towards sustainability-related goals.

Knowledge governance as a specific concept has

not be widely used in sustainability-related domains,

but has strong resonance with a number of areas

such as post-normal science [37], sustainability

science [10,4] Mode-2 knowledge production [38,39],

adaptive governance [18,20] and social-ecological

systems analysis [17]. Each of these areas emphasises

the importance of collaborative knowledge construction

for addressing complex problems, the crucial role of

reflexivity and learning in the face of uncertainty, and

the need for transdisciplinary, problem-focused know-

ledge strategies. The origins of this work, as outlined

in the introduction, came from a study that was

situated in the domain of sustainability science. A

central concern of sustainability science has been to

overcome the perceived 'gap' between knowledge and

action [4]. The apparent intractability of shifting

knowledge-based processes to models and practices

that are better suited to tackling complex sustain-

ability problems [9,12,40] is the area this review is

intending to inform. The key point here is that this

review focuses solely on the governance of knowledge

processes, not on the role of knowledge in the gover-

nance of other issues related to sustainability (such as

water, forests, energy etc). By drawing on literatures

outside the more common sustainability parameters, I

hope to complement the work that addresses

knowledge processes related to sustainability science.

3. Sustainable Development: Knowledge

Foundations

The potential connection between knowledge gover-

nance and sustainability can be framed in many ways.

There are many definitions and constructs of sustainable

development that have emerged since the popularisation

of the term in 1987, and it is not possible to outline them

here (but see, for example, Hopwood et al. [41]). In this

review I draw on a model of sustainability proposed by

Nilsson et al. [1] that was presented as a framework for

sustainable development goals. It is particularly well

suited to the purposes of this review as it specifically

places both knowledge and governance as foun-

dations for sustainable development. In the 'layer

cake' diagram developed by Nilsson et al. (see Figure

1), they present three nested "tiers" of the sustain-

ability agenda—human wellbeing, resource base

management, and global public goods—that represent

the ultimate goals of sustainable development. These

tiers are applied across multiple "enabling goals", of

which capacity and knowledge form the base layer, and

institutions and governance form the layer above (see

Figure 1). Analysis can then be conducted for a range of

sectors ("slices"), relating each of the three nested tiers,

across all four layers, in relation to the specific sector (in

their paper they illustrate with the energy sector).

I will use this framework to analyse the knowledge

governance literature presented in the next sections.

Specifically, I will draw out whether and how the

perspectives covered offer insights relevant to the tiers

of human well-being, resource-base management; and

global public goods. Nilsson et al.'s conceptualisation

offers a clear role for analysing the governance

dimensions of capacity and knowledge—essentially, the

interplay between the two base layers, indicated by the

dashed line in Figure 1. I do not argue that knowledge

governance is the only resource needed for such a task

—a full understanding of the capacity and knowledge

dimensions of sustainable development and their

relations to governance will require a broader scope

than this. It is, however, a useful way to structure the

following review that makes a ready connection to a

relevant sustainability framework.

Figure 1. Sustainable development framework: three tiers of ultimate goals and four layers of enabling goals.

Knowledge governance sits at the dashed line between the two base layers. Adapted from Nilsson et al. [1].

4. Review Methodology

The methodology for the review was to conduct a

keyword text search for the string "knowledge

governance" in the academic database SCOPUS, and

the book catalogues of the National Library of Australia

and the Australian National University, cross checked

against the US Library of Congress. Titles, keywords

and abstracts were included. The review focused

exclusively on the use of knowledge governance as a

single phrase, so all returns that were revealed as

"knowledge, governance" or similar were rejected.

Computer science literature, where knowledge gover-

nance has a technical meaning, was also rejected. For

academic publications, only peer-reviewed material was

included. Where keywords indicated knowledge gover-

nance but the phrase was not used in the title or the

abstract of an article, it was rejected. Books with

"knowledge governance" in the title were included,

those without were examined for relevance in descrip-

tions provided and/or table of contents.

This search strategy generated 47 articles and 3

books. They were grouped into private sector

perspectives (31 articles and 1 book); public sector

perspectives, including legal, policy and socio-political

areas (15 articles and 3 books). Articles appear to

demonstrate a growing interest and use of the term

knowledge governance, from 1 article in 2001 and

2002, to 13 articles in 2013. Interestingly, for all the

overlaps between well-established sustainability-related

areas of inquiry described in the previous section, only

two articles from this sample specifically related the

term "knowledge governance" to sustainability. One of

these [23] was developed from the original knowledge

systems project mentioned in the introduction.

Each of these articles and books were analysed

with a view to how they may inform the three nested

sustainability goals of human well-being, resource

base management, and global public goods. They

were grouped into private and public sector per-

spectives; as indicted in the section outlining definitions

of knowledge governance, these two literatures were

quite distinct in their fundamental approach to know-

ledge governance, and so were best addressed

separately.

5. Private Sector Perspectives

As indicated in the previous section, knowledge

governance has received considerable academic

attention in the private sector context. Early work by

Grandori [42] drew linkages between knowledge and

governance, with a particular emphasis on mech-

anisms for governing (setting institutional rules, incen-

tives and processes) knowledge management activ-

ities. This was followed up by Foss and colleagues in

the organisational economics context [32,33,43].

Foss's development of the concept [33] is tied to the

private sector context, most clearly by using economic

efficiency as the criterion by which to examine and

assess knowledge governance. Foss presents an

analytical approach that articulates how to go about

investigating and analysing knowledge governance.

He writes that knowledge governance "starts from the

hypothesis that knowledge processes (i.e. the creation,

retention and sharing of knowledge…) can be

influenced and directed through the deployment of

governance mechanisms, in particular the formal

aspects of organization that can be manipulated by

management, such as organization structure, job

design, reward systems, information systems, standard

operating procedures, accounting systems and other

coordination mechanisms" [33]. These are described

as critical antecedents to the conduct of knowledge

management processes. However, the primary concern

of the knowledge governance approach proposed by

Foss is to examine these organizational or institutional

characteristics in relation to their effects on individuals'

behaviour and choices. In Foss's words: "governance

mechanisms are, of course, deployed in the belief that

influencing the conditions of actions…in a certain

manner will lead employees to take those decisions…

that, when aggregated…lead to favourable organi-

zational outcomes" ([33] p. 36). Important to note

here is that these governance mechanisms are seen

as the product of deliberate "deployment", in other

words, they are not taken as given features of an

institutional environment, but as structures and rules

put in place to achieve certain goals.

Michailova and Foss's work [32], combined with

that of Grandori [42], laid the foundations for a range

of cases that developed the concept of "knowledge

governance mechanisms (KGMs)". This work applied

the knowledge governance concept to learn how

different approaches to knowledge-based processes

and relationships enhanced (or didn't enhance) firm

creativity, innovation and ultimately, profitability. One

case showed that mechanisms to enhance knowledge

sharing based on a concept of transactions can

actually increase individuals' hostility towards know-

ledge sharing, while those based on commitment

were more successful [44]. Another [45] highlighted

how knowledge governance can help firms organise to

identify 'valuable' problems and search efficiently for

their solutions. They argued that complex, ill-

structured problems require very different governance

arrangements than comparatively simple problems,

where authority-based hierarchies become less efficient

at finding solutions, the more complex the problems

become. Similarly, a case study of a large, complex

aerospace R&D collaboration [46] concluded that in

complex cases knowledge governance may be more

effective the more flexible it is. Rather than seeking the

'best' knowledge governance mechanisms, the authors

suggest knowledge governance should adapt as the

innovation process proceeds. This resonates strongly

with adaptive governance approaches to complex

social-ecological systems.

Research in China has examined knowledge gover-

nance in relation to the guanxi effect, the complex

networks of interpersonal obligations and commitments

that characterise Chinese business relations [47]. The

authors found that guanxi partly mediated the relations

between knowledge governance strategies and know-

ledge sharing actions. This highlights that cultural norms

can play an important role in knowledge governance.

The private sector literature shows that active

knowledge governance is relatively new, with only a

small amount of empirical testing and theory devel-

opment. It does, however, highlight some key features

of knowledge governance in relation to the 3 tiers of

sustainability goals. First, even at the scale of firms

and businesses, knowledge governance operates

within socially and culturally shaped contexts. The role

of interpersonal networks and individual agency

remains important, but embedded within broader

institutional norms. Second, the private sector interest

in knowledge governance stems from seeking ways to

enhance knowledge creation and to best capitalise on

it. In the organisational economics context, this is

driven by enhancing efficiency and comparative ad-

vantage; in the sustainability context, it can help to

foster new solutions to natural resource-base chal-

lenges. The private sector literature suggests that

actively deploying knowledge governance mechanisms

can help foster knowledge creation and innovation.

Third, the private sector knowledge governance

perspective has started to make inroads on frame-

works and analysis to help practitioners choose

between different knowledge-based processes, based

on different kinds of problems. More complex problems

of sustainability may require quite different knowledge

governance from simple problems.

6. Public Sector Perspectives

The public sector, legal and socio-political perspectives

take a more critical approach to understanding and

influencing knowledge governance than the private

sector. While the private sector emphasis was largely

on "mechanisms" to enhance knowledge processes

and practices, the public sector perspective more

commonly examines existing legal and socio-political

knowledge governance through a critical lens. The

public sector approach looks predominantly at the

public regulation of private sector activity, from a

perspective of protecting the public interest.

Knowledge governance in this context examines

the tensions inherent in the need to protect 'private'

knowledge as an asset to encourage innovation,

alongside the public interest in accessible knowledge

and the benefits from such innovations. In a major

study of patent law, Drahos demonstrates the ine-

quality of the 'global' knowledge system that is

dominated by a small number of large patent offices

[48]. He argues that their ability to create a knowledge

governance system that favours the interests of

transnational corporations is extended through 'tech-

nocratic trust', assisting developing countries to

establish rules and procedures that favour the same

groups.

In another major contribution drawing from evo-

lutionary economics, patent law and other intellectual

property regulation, the edited volume by Burlamaqui

et al., Burlamaqui [35] places knowledge governance

as an approach for re-thinking innovation and

creativity, and how it may best be fostered in societies

increasingly characterised by open source, inclusive

knowledge practices. They are concerned with the

question "how should government-issued intellectual

property rules and regulations interact with com-

petition policies, publicly funded R&D and other forms

of technology policy in order to help craft and govern

socially inclusive development strategies?" ([35] p. 6).

They highlight the "tension and potential trade-off

between private interests and the conception of

knowledge as a global public good" ([35] p. 10). This

trade-off relates directly to the sustainability frame-

work and will be returned to later. In a later chapter in

the same volume, Wilbanks and Rossini [49] use

knowledge governance to shed light on why academia

has been relatively slow to embrace distributed

innovation such as open source publishing and wiki-

style communications: "rewards, incentives and

metrics for academic professionals are deeply tied to

print-based metrics like citations, references and

impact factors. The existing systems of knowledge

governance and credit allocation are not well aligned

with a distributed knowledge creation environment,

and the kind of authority rewarded in academia

(typically resulting from award of advanced degrees)

is not always the same kind of authority rewarded in a

distributed knowledge system". These studies point to

the direct interplay between knowledge governance

and creativity, innovation, access and sharing.

Lemmens [50] works through these issues in a

critical analysis of how regulatory and legal structures

shape the knowledge governance landscape in

development and provision of new pharmaceutical

drugs. She argues that the current knowledge

governance arrangements favour industry to the

detriment of populations who are excluded from the

benefits of pharmaceutical discoveries due to pro-

prietary law and regulation. She goes on to suggest

that human rights obligations may be leveraged to

challenge the existing governance of pharmaceutical

knowledge, drawing particularly on the formalised

human right to benefit from scientific progress. In an

argument highly relevant to the sustainability

framework, she contends that pharmaceutical know-

ledge should be regarded as akin to a public good,

but that the global nature of knowledge production

limits national capacities to regulate how that

knowledge is shared or applied. Taking a human

rights perspective highlights the rights of individuals

to be able to exercise informed choice in relation to

their health, and the role of knowledge governance in

allowing or preventing such informed choice.

At the less legalistic end of the socio-political

spectrum knowledge governance is related to the

concept of "knowledge politics" described by Stehr as

"strategic efforts to move new scientific and technical

knowledge, and thereby the future, into the centre of

the cultural, economic and political matrix of society"

([51] p. X). This edited volume analyses knowledge-

related legal and policy processes from the per-

spective of broader social, political and philosophical

agendas. For example, Fuller argues that the thrust of

the concept of knowledge governance (as opposed to

knowledge management or government) indicates a

collective and conscious endeavour that has autonomy

from management and government, and hence that

'knowledge-bearing institutions' such as universities

play a special role in self-regulating the governance of

knowledge [52]. This has indeed played out in

controversies over science, such as the so-called

"climategate" scandal, where universities and related

academic institutions sought to both defend and

reform the governance of academic knowledge in

response to external challenges [53].

Taking a less regulatory approach, Gerritsen et al.

propose knowledge governance can be regarded as a

form of governance, like 'network governance' or

'adaptive governance', rather than the governance

knowledge [34]. These authors see knowledge gover-

nance as an avenue for social change (see definition

earlier). This leads them to identify a set of principles

for knowledge governance such as self-organisation,

transdisciplinary knowledge production, social learning,

reflexivity and boundary management. Interestingly,

these principles share many characteristics with

approaches to sustainability science [54–56], although

this connection is not made explicitly by Gerritsen et al.

Their approach highlights the importance of learning as

a fundamental 'knowledge process', a point that was

rare in the previous studies that favoured terms like

'knowledge creation and sharing', but relates to the

substantial sustainability literature on social learning

[57]. In their application of their conception of know-

ledge governance to a case study of Dutch farmers, they

highlight the importance of a collaborative approach to

innovation and change, but also that they encountered

resistance to social change based on entrenched views

and habits of the communities involved.

In the first of the two studies in this review to

directly relate knowledge governance to sustainability,

Manuel-Navarette and Gallopìn [23] apply the concept

analytically to agricultural research in Argentina. They

document how a particular research agency trans-

formed its knowledge-based processes from a simple,

linear model of technology transfer to more complex

knowledge governance arrangements that drew on a

network of public and private actors, including

universities and farmers' organisations. This network

supported a highly effective strategy to promote no-till

agricultural practices, and contributed to the rapid

adoption of this method, from 2% to 66% of

cultivated area between 1984 and 2006 (in 2006 the

world average area of no-till cultivation was 6%).

They highlight the ways in which a shift from a

'vertical' knowledge governance structure to a more

'horizontal' network arrangement increased the know-

ledge flows around no-till agriculture, and suggest

that the development of effective public-private

partnerships to facilitate these knowledge flows were

crucial. The second sustainability-related study [58]

examined how collaborative sustainability research

approaches sought to include local knowledge on

water management, but prevailing academic conven-

tions led to that knowledge being aggregated and

standardised to conform to conventional standards of

"epistemic authority", thereby losing its complexity

and nuance.

The variety of perspectives, theoretical devel-

opments and applications shows that knowledge

governance as a concept reflects its multiple origins,

but also indicates a core set of ideas that remain

reasonably consistent—enthusiasm for opportunities

to design and manipulate knowledge processes for

desired outcomes, coupled with an understanding of

the broader constraints of the socio-political know-

ledge governance landscape. Both public and private

sector perspectives demonstrate that existing know-

ledge governance arrangements, which are often

embedded in broader institutional frameworks such as

performance reward systems, economic imperatives,

commercial law, or scientific norms, can impede or

hinder the achievement of those goals. Understanding

existing constraints imposed on knowledge processes,

as well as strategies and institutional interventions for

improving them, may hold considerable promise for

addressing the "persistent gap" between knowledge

and action for sustainability. This is where we now

turn.

7. Implications of Knowledge Governance for

Sustainable Development

In this section I will analyse the points that emerged

from the previous review in relation to the three tiers

proposed by Nilsson et al.: human well-being, re-

source-base management and global public goods.

7.1. Human Wellbeing

How might knowledge governance contribute to

human wellbeing? In presenting well-being in their

framework, Nilsson et al. express the importance of

wellbeing as an individual, rather than an aggregate

pursuit: "opportunity for each individual to pursue

wellbeing and freedom". Dasgupta, cited in Nilsson et

al. [1], included 'knowledge' as one of the deter-

minants of wellbeing. The role of knowledge gover-

nance with regard to human well-being can therefore

be regarded as facilitating opportunity and access to

the knowledge-based processes that enable wellbeing.

The literature reviewed here offers some insights

into the relations between institutions and governance

and knowledge in the context of individual human

wellbeing. There are clear wellbeing benefits from

ensuring equitable access to the products generated

by knowledge intensive practices such as research.

Lemmens' [50] argument in relation to access to

pharmaceuticals (knowledge-intensive products) is

that access to these products enhances wellbeing

through health. However recognising the right to

knowledge itself, as a direct determinant of wellbeing,

suggests that opportunities to learn and make

informed decisions is a broad concern of sustainability

in its own right. The trade-offs between proprietary

knowledge and public access speak directly to the role

of knowledge governance in ensuring citizens have

the freedom and opportunity to pursue wellbeing

through access to knowledge. The example of no-till

farming uptake demonstrates the specific opportunities

that can be opened up by reforming knowledge

governance institutions to support collaborations and

connections between farmer associations, research

institutions and producers. Evaluating whether and how

access to knowledge contributes to wellbeing may be a

promising area for sustainability research and practice.

7.2. Resource-base Management

As it becomes more urgently recognised that complex

sustainability challenges require creative solutions [59],

it would seem that knowledge governance to facilitate

creativity and innovation in resource-use efficiency and

transitions away from resource-intensive development

is needed [21]. The literature confirms the sustain-

ability science view that knowledge-based approaches

that support collaboration, connections and learning

appear to be better suited to addressing complex

problems. More open, networked, horizontal ap-

proaches to organising knowledge processes facilitate

collaboration and learning across interconnected

groups. Within both public and private sector appli-

cations of knowledge governance, there was a rec-

ognition that protective approaches to knowledge that

are 'hostile' to sharing stifle the development of more

efficient outcomes. The private sector literature

highlighted that knowledge governance can be used at

organisational scales to encourage innovation and

knowledge sharing, although empirical work in this

area is in early stages.

At a broader scale, the public sector analyses

showed knowledge governance shapes incentives or

disincentives for creativity and innovation. Yet it also

placed knowledge governance actions within a broader

social and institutional context that remains largely

hostile to knowledge sharing. Finding the most

productive balance between openness for innovation

and creativity and the privatisation of knowledge for

profit ('inclusive' versus 'exclusive', to use Burlamaqui's

[35] terms) is a core knowledge governance challenge

that flows through legal and socio-cultural avenues to

permeate sustainability. From resistance to collaborative

approaches by communities culturally embedded in

existing knowledge practices to paper-bound academic

reward systems and transnational corporations that

exercise sophisticated strategies to maximise their gain

from intellectual property, the broad context continues to

favour exclusion over inclusion. Sustainability efforts to

foster innovation and creativity through collaboration

and openness should be understood to be struggling

against these larger forces.

7.3. Global Public Goods

Finally, in relation to global public goods, the concept of

knowledge as a global public good appeared in the

literature both directly and indirectly. As noted in the

Public Sector Perspectives section, Burlamaqui described

the tension between knowledge for private gain and

knowledge as a global public good. The overall struggle

to reassert knowledge in the public interest across a

wide range of social issues noted above, places sustain-

ability efforts to support more collaborative approaches

in a context of much broader political tension over what

knowledge governance should be aiming for.

This issue has received attention in relation to

sustainability. In their examination of whether current

intellectual property rights help or hinder the pro-

duction and dissemination of knowledge to address

global sustainability challenges, Claude Henry and

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz conclude

that "the current global intellectual property regime, as

well as serving the interests of the international

electronic and pharmaceutical companies, is an im-

pediment to the kind of global cooperation necessary in

so many arenas, especially in development, global

health, and even addressing the problems of global

warming. Nor is it good for global science" ([59] p.

245). While they do not use the phrase "knowledge

governance" (and hence were excluded from the

previous sections of this review) their arguments relate

strongly to those of the public sector knowledge

governance perspective outlined earlier. They argue for

a more holistic view of innovation systems that reform

intellectual property laws and open up to other types of

knowledge governance that stimulate and support

innovative solutions to global sustainable development

challenges.

The findings from this review in relation to the

three tiers of Nilsson et al.'s model of sustainable

development are summarised in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Knowledge governance for sustainable development—a framework for future research.

Analysing the findings of the review in relation to

the layer cake framework demonstrates not only that

knowledge governance is relevant to sustainable

development, but also that it relates across the three

scales of Nilsson et al.'s [1] model. From individual

wellbeing and rights to organisational and institutional

structures, through to global scale innovation systems,

the knowledge governance literature presents a multi-

scalar suite of issues. It helps to explain the

'persistence' of science-policy gaps [9], as efforts to

overcome these gaps at project or organisational

scales come into contact with broader social, cultural

and legal systems that favour exclusion and private

gain over inclusion and collaboration. This framework

offers guidance to further examine this broader context

of knowledge governance in relation to sustainability.

8. Limitations and Adaptations

In terms of the methodology of the review, there are

immediate limitations in the scope of the material. For

example book chapters that sit within volumes that

did not have 'knowledge governance' in the title were

not revealed through the search strategy. Material

that was conceptually related but did not use the

specific term of knowledge governance was also

excluded, which helped to focus the study but meant

that a wide range of associated topics were not

covered. Grey literature was also excluded.

Conceptually, this review was deliberately limited to

consideration of knowledge governance as a stand-

alone concept. There are, of course, many overlaps

with domains of sustainability-related research that

are close but only summarily alluded to, such as

adaptive governance and science and technology

studies. Similarly, there is a fuzzy line between

knowledge governance and knowledge management,

which was particularly evident in the private sector

literature. Hence one might argue that there are plenty

of equivalent strategies or practices in the sustainability

domain that speak to this fuzzy boundary. This is not

denied here—as a researcher involved in science-

governance connections I am aware of many insti-

tutional and organisational innovations that have been

made to facilitate better relationships between know-

ledge and practice [8,22]. Yet these are typically not

presented as knowledge governance interventions or

strategies. The point of this review was to examine

specifically what knowledge governance as a concept

might add to these areas of scholarship and practice.

There are likewise other related issues that readers

may feel should be incorporated into the model

presented in Figure 2 (education, empowerment and

participation, de-coupling, adaptation come to mind,

and there are no doubt many more). Incorporating

these in any meaningful way would have been counter

to the aim of keeping the governance of knowledge

front and centre. Hopefully, this review may encourage

others to examine more specific connections between

established sustainability concepts and issues and the

governance of knowledge processes.

9. Conclusion

The aim of this review was to answer the question:

"can interdisciplinary knowledge governance literature

contribute to understanding and analysing the insti-

tutional knowledge-based dimensions of sustainable

development?" By analysing the existing knowledge

governance literature through the construct of Nilsson

et al.'s sustainability model [1], I have shown that

knowledge governance offers a conceptual basis from

which to think critically about knowledge processes as

foundational to sustainable development, and to

consider how they are shaped and influenced by

formal and informal institutions. By bringing the gover-

nance of knowledge to the fore (rather than regarding

knowledge as an input to other governance goals), a

range of opportunities and constraints have emerged.

Far from there being a 'gap' between knowledge and

action, this review suggests that this space is thick with

institutional arrangements that have little to do with

sustainability, but still strongly shape the knowledge-

action landscape. This includes current formal and

informal rules that tend to favour exclusion over

inclusion, convention over innovation, and knowledge as

a private asset rather than a human right.

The opportunities for enhancing sustainability out-

comes through the knowledge governance domain are

many [59]. From the deployment of knowledge gover-

nance mechanisms for greater efficiencies, to organi-

sational and institutional reforms for enhanced

innovation, to considerations of access to knowledge as

a human right or a global public good, it brings the

many rules shaping the dynamics of knowledge creation,

sharing, access and use into consideration as a funda-

mental issue in sustainable development. It demon-

strates that researchers may be able to develop

knowledge governance strategies that address persistent

challenges in sustainability, especially around access,

innovation, and the re-conceptualisation of knowledge as

a global public good. But more importantly, it places the

challenges of doing so in a broader governance context.

Ultimately, the usefulness or otherwise of the

concept of knowledge governance will be demonstrated

in its application as guiding theoretical framework for

sustainability research and implementation. Quan-

titative research could design metrics for assessing and

comparing the sustainability impacts of different

knowledge governance arrangements, as has been

done in the private sector [47]. Empirical case studies

could test the effects of new institutional arrange-

ments on knowledge governance, and gather and

compare different strategies for brokering or

designing knowledge processes in the light of existing

governance arrangements. Qualitative research could

identify key constraints and facilitators to the effective

application of knowledge either within or across

organisations or sectors, considering the wide range

of knowledge governance arrangements that affect

practice. Such research would need to emphasise the

practical utility of knowledge governance: has it

helped researchers and practitioners to identify new

interventions towards sustainability? Has it helped to

enhance their functionality or performance? Has it

helped people to navigate the difficult terrain that

connects knowledge and action, and to generate new

options for reconfiguring that landscape? Positive

answers to these questions would support the rationale

for viewing knowledge governance as underpinning

efforts to achieve sustainable development, and start to

build theoretical and practical tools to enhance these

processes.

References

1. Nilsson M, Lucas P, Yoshida T. Towards an

Integrated Framework for SDGs: Ultimate and

Enabling Goals for the Case of Energy. Sustainability.

2013;5(10):4124‒4151.

2. Bocking S. Nature's Experts: Science, Politics, and

the Environment. New Brunswick, NJ, USA: Rutgers

University Press; 2004.

3. Jasanoff S, Long Martello M, editors. Earthly

Politics: Local and Global in Environmental Governance.

Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press; 2004.

4. Clark WC, Dickson NM. Sustainability science:

The emerging research program. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the USA.

2003;100(14):8059–8061.

5. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM,

Eckley N, Guston DH, Jaeger J, Mitchell RB.

Knowledge systems for sustainable development.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of

the USA. 2003;100(14):8086–8091.

6. Jasanoff S. A New Climate for Society. Theory,

Culture & Society. 2010;27(2–3):233–253.

7. Hulme M. Problems with making and governing

global kinds of knowledge. Global Environmental

Change. 2010;20(4):558–564.

8. van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L. Linking Knowledge and

Action for Sustainable Development. Annual Review of

Environment and Resources. 2006;31(1):445–477.

9. Kirchhoff CJ, Carmen Lemos M, Dessai S.

Actionable Knowledge for Environmental Decision

Making: Broadening the Usability of Climate Science.

Annual Review of Environment and Resource.

2013;38(1):393–414.

10. Board on Sustainable Development, National

Academy of Sciences, editors. Our common journey:

A transition toward sustainability. Washington, DC,

USA: National Academy Press; 1999.

11. UNEP. 21 Issues for the 21 Century: Results of

the UNEP Foresight Process on Emerging

Environmental Issues. 2012. Available from:

http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/foresightrep

ort/ (accessed on 22 October 2013).

12. Glaser G, Bates P. Enhancing Science-Policy

Links for Global Sustainability. 2011. Available from:

http://www.stakeholderforum.org/fileadmin/files/ICSU

%20Science%20Policy%20Final.pdf (accessed 2

December 2013).

13. Inglis JT, editor. Traditional Ecological Knowledge:

Concepts and Cases. Ottawa, Canada: IDRC; 1993.

14. Knudtson P, Suzuki D, editors. Wisdom of the

Elders: Native and Scientific Ways of Knowing about

Nature. Vancouver, Canada: D&M Publishers; 2006.

15. Gómez-Baggethun E, Reyes-García V, Corbera

E. Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Global

Environmental Change : Research findings and policy

implications. Ecology and Society. 2013;18(4)Art72.

16. Reed MS. Stakeholder participation for

environmental management: A literature review.

Biological Conservation. 2008;141(10):2417–2431.

17. Ostrom E, Cox M. Moving beyond panaceas: A

multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological

analysis. Environmental Conservation. 2010;37(4):

451–463.

18. Folke C. Social-ecological systems and adaptive

governance of the commons. Ecological Research.

2006;22(1):14–15.

19. Rijke J, Brown R, Zevenbergen C, Ashley R,

Farrelly M, Morison P, van Herk S. Fit-for-purpose

governance: A framework to make adaptive gover-

nance operational. Environmental Science & Policy.

2012;22:73–84.

20. Olsson P, Gunderson LH, Carpenter SR, Ryan P,

Lebel L, Folke C, Holling CS. Shooting the Rapids:

Navigating Transitions to Adaptive Governance of

Social-Ecological Systems. 2006;11(1)Art18.

21. Cornell S, Berkhout F, Tuinstra W, Tàbara JD,

Jäger J, Chabay I, de Wit B, Langlais R, Mills D, Moll P,

Otto IM, Petersen A, Pohl C, van Kerkhoff L. Opening

up knowledge systems for better responses to global

environmental change. Environmental Science & Policy.

2013;28:60–70.

22. van Kerkhoff L, Szlezák NA. The role of

innovative global institutions in linking knowledge and

action. Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences

of the USA. 2010, EarlyEdition. pp. 1–6.

23. Manuel-Navarrete D, Gallopín GC. Feeding the

world sustainably: Knowledge governance and

sustainable agriculture in the Argentine Pampas. Envi-

ronment, Development and Sustainability. 2011;14(3):

321–333.

24. McCullough EB, Matson PA. Evolution of the

knowledge system for agricultural development in the

Yaqui Valley, Sonora, Mexico. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 2011, Early

Edition.

25. Jacobs K, Lebel L, Buizer J, Addams L, Matson

P, McCullough E, Garden P, Saliba G, Finan T. Linking

knowledge with action in the pursuit of sustainable

water-resources management. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 2010,

EarlyEdition. pp. 1–6.

26. Buizer J, Jacobs K, Cash D. Making short-term

climate forecasts useful: Linking science and action.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of

the USA. 2012, Early Edition.

27. Clark WC, Tomich TP, Van Noordwijk M, Guston

D, Catacutan D, Dickson NM, McNie E. Boundary work

for sustainable development: Natural resource

management at the Consultative Group on Inter-

national Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Proceedings

of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA.

2011, Early Edition.

28. van Kerkhoff L, Szlezák N. Linking local

knowledge with global action: Examining the Global

Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria through

a knowledge system lens. Bulletin of the World Health

Organization. 2006;84(8):629–635.

29. Miller CA. Climate science and the making of a

cglobal political order. In: Jasanoff S, editor. States of

knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social

Order. Abingdon, UK and New York, NY, USA:

Routledge; 2004. pp. 46–66.

30. Young OR. The institutional dimensions of

environmental change: Fit, interplay, and scale.

Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press; 2002.

31. Biermann F, Betsill MM, Gupta J, Kanie N, Lebel

L, Liverman D, Schroeder H, Siebenhüner B. Earth

System Governance: People, places and the planet.

2009. Available from http://www.earthsystem

governance.org/publications/science-plan (accessed

on 21 November 2013).

32. Michailova S, Foss NJ. Knowledge governance:

Themes and questions. In: Foss NJ, Michailova S,

editors. Knowledge governance: Processes and Per-

spectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2009.

pp. 1–24.

33. Foss NJ. The Emerging Knowledge Governance

Approach: Challenges and Characteristics. Organization.

2007;14(1):29–52.

34. Gerritsen AL, Stuiver M, Termeer CJAM.

Knowledge governance: An exploration of principles,

impact, and barriers. Science and Public Policy.

2013;40(5):604–615.

35. Burlamaqui L. Knowledge Governance: An

Analytical Approach and its Policy Implications. In:

Burlamaqui L, Castro AC, Kattel R, editors. Knowledge

governance: Reasserting the public interest. London,

UK and New York, NY, USA: Anthem Press; 2012.

pp. 3–26.

36. Wiek A, Withycombe L, Redman C, Mills SB.

Moving Forward on Competence in Sustainability

Research and Problem Solving. Environment: Science

and Policy for Sustainable Development. 2011;53(2):

3–13.

37. Funtowicz S, Ravetz R. Science For The Post-

Normal Age. Futures. 1993;25:739–755.

38. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H,

Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M. The New Production

of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research

in Contemporary Societies. London, UK: SAGE; 1994.

39. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M. Re-Thinking

Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of

Uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2001.

40. Bradshaw GA, Borchers JG. Uncertainty as

information: Narrowing the science-policy gap.

Conservation Ecology. 2000;4(1)Art.7.

41. Hopwood B, Mellor M, O'Brien G. Sustainable

development: Mapping different approaches. Sustain-

able Development. 2005;13(1):38–52.

42. Grandori A. Neither Hierarchy nor Identity:

Knowledge-Governance Mechanisms and the Theory

of the Firm. Journal of Management and Governance.

2001;5(3–4):381–399.

43. Foss NJ. Knowledge Governance: Meaning,

Nature, Origins, and Implications. In: Grandori A,

editor. Handbook of Economic Organization: Integrating

Economic and Organization Theory. Cheltenham, UK

and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar; 2012.

44. Husted K, Michailova S, Minbaeva DB,

Pedersen T. Knowledge-sharing hostility and

governance mechanisms: An empirical test. Journal of

Knowledge Management. 2012;16(5):754–773.

45. Heiman B, Nickerson J, Zenger T. Governing

Knowledge Creation: A Problem Finding and Problem‐ ‐

Solving Perspective. In: Foss NJ, Michailova S, editors.

Knowledge Governance: Processes and Perspectives.

New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press; 2009. pp.

1–23.

46. Scarbrough H, Amaeshi K. Knowledge

Governance for Open Innovation: Evidence from an EU

R&D Collaboration. In: Foss NJ, Michailova S, editors.

Knowledge governance: Processes and Perspectives.

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2009.

47. Cao Y, Xiang Y. The impact of knowledge

governance on knowledge sharing: The mediating role

of the guanxi effect. Chinese Management Studies.

2013;7(1):36–52.

48. Drahos P. The Global Governance of Knowledge:

Patent Offices and Their Clients. New York, NY, USA:

Cambridge University Press; 2010.

49. Wilbanks J, Rossini C. An Interoperability

principle for Knowledge Creation and Governance:

The role of emerging institutions. In: Burlamaqui L,

Castro AC, Kattel R, editors. Knowledge governance:

reasserting the public interest. London, UK and New

York, NY, USA: Anthem Press; 2012.

50. Lemmens T. Pharmaceutical knowledge

governance: A human rights perspective. The Journal

of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2013;41(1):163–184.

51. Stehr N, editor. The Governance of Knowledge.

New Brunswick, NJ, USA: Transaction Publishers;

2004.

52. Fuller S. In search of vehicles for knowledge

governance: On the need for insitutions that creatively

destroy social capital. In: Stehr N, editor. The

Governance of Knowledge. New Brunswick, NJ, USA:

Transaction Publishers; 2004. pp. 46–71.

53. Heffernan O. "Climategate" scientist speaks

out. Nature. 2010;463(860).

54. van Kerkhoff L. Developing integrative research

for sustainability science through a complexity principles-

based approach. Sustainability Science. 2013;1–13.

55. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M,

Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ. Trans-

disciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice,

principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science.

2012;7(S1):25–43.

56. Wiek A, Ness B, Schweizer-Ries P, Brand FS,

Farioli F. From complex systems analysis to trans-

formational change: A comparative appraisal of

sustainability science projects. Sustainability Science.

2012;7(S1):5–24.

57. Ison R, Blackmore C, Iaquinto BL. Towards

systemic and adaptive governance: Exploring the

revealing and concealing aspects of contemporary

social-learning metaphors. Ecological Economics.

2013;87:34–42.

58. Duncan R. Converting Community Knowledge

into Catchment Nutrient Limits: A Constructivist

Analysis of a New Zealand Collaborative Approach to

Water Management. Nature and Culture. 2013;8(2):

205–225.

59. Henry C, Stiglitz JE. Intellectual Property,

Dissemination of Innovation and Sustainable Devel-

opment. Global Policy. 2010;1(3):237–251.