A Model for a Process Approach in the Governance System for Sustainable Development

Abstract

The paper refers to the governance of “sustainable development (SD)” and aims to describe a new way of addressing it consisting of a process-based approach. In accordance with this objective, the paper presents three distinct sections: basic concepts on SD and public administration governance; an overview of publications on the SD governance framework; schematic presentation and description of the key SD governance processes, with reference to the “United Nations (UN)” governance system for SD. Applying the process approach to the UN governance for SD is a novelty, and results in a model that reflects its global picture and links with other governance levels. The proposed model is important for decision makers in multilevel governance for SD, helping to better coordinate the changes needed to build inclusive and effective governance systems. It also addresses academics and researchers, creating the framework for the future studies on SD governance processes and ways to improve them.

1. Basic Concepts: Sustainable Development and Public Administration Governance

Sustainability and “sustainable development (SD)” are two interrelated concepts, with different meanings. According to Leuenbergen and Wakin, sustainability is “a philosophy associated with the long-run maintenance or improvement of human welfare and the preservation of natural capital and environmental integrity” [1] (p. 397). The collocation SD defines actions based on the philosophy of sustainability. In other words, the expression SD refers to a process, and the concept of sustainability to the result of the process.

The first official definition of SD is the one given in the framework of the “World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED)”: “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [2] (p. 37). According to Bartle and Leuenberger, “this concept attempts to more explicitly consider the future consequences of current behaviors” [3] (p. 191). In essence, SD is a way of developing society so that it can exist in the long run.

This new philosophy began to take shape in the second half of the last century, in the context of the worsening environmental problems caused by the economic development of society and the oil crisis. The first global studies on this subject were carried out under the auspices of a think tank organization called the “Club of Rome”, which signaled the danger of resource depletion, emphasizing that an inevitable general crisis threatens the planet [4]. The signals given by the scientists preceded the practical actions related to the environment. Global actions were undertaken after 1980 under the auspices of the UN, and later by the “European Union (EU)” and other regional bodies [5,6,7,8].

Although the SD has appeared in connection with environmental issues, the meaning given to the concept today is broader. In the traditional approaches to SD, three dimensions are taken into account: ecological, economical, and social [9]. Each of these dimensions has multiple facets, which makes the actions for sustainability a very complex demarche.

The complexity of the SD movement is also due to the fact that it involves the whole of society, citizens and organizations, national governments, and other local, regional and international governing bodies. In this regard, is noteworthy that “public administration (PA)” is an essential factor for sustainability in all aspects of general interest, being actively engaged in the design and implementation in society of new management and governance models based on SD values [10]. According to Meadowcroft, “SD is really all about governance” [11] (p. 536).

Several studies point out that environmental protection and SD are major requirements of society that involve a modern PA [12,13]. The current concerns about modern administration are related to the application of the new doctrines known as “New Public Management (NPM)” and “New Public Governance (NPG)”. According to Popescu, Mandru, and Deas [14], NPM refers to principles, structures, and regulations regarding the governance system and its components, and aims to improve quality and efficiency in PA sector. NPG concentrates mainly on PA management at a high-level, being especially macro and supra-organizational oriented, and involves changes aimed at improving the management tools used to connect the networks of actors operating in the PA area. The concept of multilevel governance is also used, which considers the need for better coordination of public activities in the wider global environment, at national, sub-national, and transnational levels. Modern PA governance presumes: leadership and public strategy, innovative and open governance, public employment and management, digital government, anti-corruption and integrity in the public sector, etc. An essential requirement in the current context is the PA’s ability to manage crisis situations, an ability that is associated with the concept of resilience. These characteristics are found in the OECD “Recommendations on Policy Coherence for SD” [15], which provides a comprehensive standard to help countries’ policy-makers develop mechanisms for enhancing the coherence of SD policy. These are also found in specific forms in approaches focused on PA quality and good governance, which aim to measure PA performance. The expression “Good Governance”, also called “Quality of Governance”, is a complex concept used to describe the high-quality and properly functioning PA, with respect for democratic values and the rules of a modern state [16] (p. 25). According to Dhaoui, “Good governance is widely acknowledged as a foundation for SD, including sustained and inclusive economic growth, social development, environmental protection and the eradication of poverty and hunger” [17].

Starting from the recognition of the decisive role of PA in SD, the present work aims to introduce a new way of describing multilevel governance for SD in terms of process. The process-based approach is a basic principle of the modern management that allows an integrated approach of the activities on which the overall results depend. In this case, it is about the “SD governance system (SDGS)”. In accordance with this objective, the paper presents three distinct sections: an overview of official documents and previous works on the governance for SD; a process-based model for the SDGS applied to the governance for SD at the UN level, with reference to key actors; and framework documents associated with the processes of the governance system. The final conclusions highlight the benefits of this new approach from the perspective of SDGS understanding and efficient functioning, and point towards directions of future research supporting the implementation of the new model in multilevel governance for SD.

The paper uses the process-based approach methodology, applied to describe the system of SD governance at the UN level. The study is based on a large documentation on the governance for SD, including official documents and other publications.

2. Official Documents and Prior Works on the Governance for SD

Governance for SD is the object of numerous publications. Most of them are official documents published by international, regional, and national bodies. There are also studies and research that address SD governance at different levels (international, regional, national and sub-national), globally or in thematic areas, studies that focus on the whole SD governance system or its components.

The official documents refer mainly to the SD strategic objectives and results, presented in strategies and reports. Given that this paper focuses on the first level of the multilevel governance for SD, the official documents analyzed are those launched by the UN.

As previously stated, the UN has a decisive role to play in promoting SD in the world. The starting point in this regard was the establishment in 1972 of the “UN Environment Program (UNEP)”, the global authority that sets the environmental agenda and promotes the implementation of the environmental dimension of SD within the UN system [18]. Subsequently, other SD-related events took place, in which global strategic plans and statements were adopted. The most important are [19]: the comprehensive plan of action “Agenda 21” (UN Conference on Environment and Development, 1992); the Millennium Declaration and specific development goals, with a deadline of 2015 (Millennium Summit, 2000); and the UN Conference on SD, Rio+20 (2012), which established the UN “High-Level Political Forum (HLPF)” on SD and initiated a process of creating a set of SD objectives for the post-2015 agenda (2013). The UN actions on SD culminated with the adoption of the 2030 agenda, including the 17 “SD goals (SDGs)”, which currently apply in all UN member states [20]. The SDGs provide a framework for shared actions “for people, planet and prosperity,” to be implemented by “all countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership”. Two goals present explicit targets for improving SD governance, namely: the SDG16 addresses “institutions, rule of law, and peace” and the SDG17 addresses “partnership, and means of implementation”. The 2030 agenda also refers to the assessment of progress towards implementing the SDGs, encouraging governments to voluntarily submit to the UN, national reports. Based on these, annual reports are performed at the UN level by the HLPF on SD.

The above presentation shows that SD strategies have been adopted through several international conferences and agreements. The periodic revision of SD objectives is part of the logic of continuous improvement, specific to modern management and government. This process of improvement is based on systematic assessments, which reflect performance in implementing SD and show the priority directions of action. Both the SDG setting and evaluation activities are based on a broad collaboration between the UN and the regional bodies, as well as with member state governments and other specialized SD national structures, NGOs, companies, and civil society.

It is worth noting that, over time there have been important transformations in the organizational framework, methods, tools, and resources used for planning and achieving the SDGs. These changes aimed at improving governance and developing a more effective SDGS. There are currently numerous documents that regulate processes of multilevel governance for SD, with some of them presented in the next section of the paper. The overview presented below aims to clarify the meaning of SDGS and its evolution based on papers carried out over the last decade.

The first analyzed publication was elaborated under the auspices of the “European Sustainable Development Network (ESDN)”, an informal network of public administrators and other experts dealing with SD. The ESDN Quarterly Report No 38 [21] focuses on the 2030 agenda and the features of governance for achieving the SDGs. The authors emphasize the link between SD and good governance, and define governance for SD, which “encompasses the steering requirements and mechanisms that enable the formulation of concerted and adaptive policies that foster the cooperation of diverse actors in delivering SD” [21] (pp. 21–22). Below are presented the principles of the SD governance, namely: long-term principle, integration, participation, and reflexivity. The authors investigate how these principles are applied in the 2030 agenda, and also briefly describe the architecture of SD governance in Europe and EU member states.

The work of Bernardo, Mullholand, and Berger [22] presents theoretical considerations on SD governance and the main changes for effective governance. In the authors’ view, a priority direction for action is to develop a new framework for SD policy coherence, as called for by target 17.14 of the SDGs: “enhance policy coherence for SD”. The paper refers to the framework created by the OECD [23] in this regard, which is an integral part of the means of implementing the SDGs. Other aspects discussed in this paper are: the new trends in governance, the science–policy interface, and strategic foresight for policy planning.

The study elaborated by Niestroy [24] refers to the state of the 2030 agenda implementation from the perspective of PA and governance. In the author’s opinion, the implementation of the 2030 agenda requires rethinking institutions, tools, skills, human resources development, and governance processes at all levels. In a distinct chapter, concepts and principles for effective SDGs governance are presented. The principles listed in the paper coincide with those defined by the “UN Committee of Experts on PA (UNCEPA)” [25] (see

Table 1. Overview of papers on governance systems for SD.

Aspects/Issues	Paper
SD concept History of the SD concept, objectives, and governance	Pisano, Lange, and Berger (2015) [21]
Principles and competences of SD governance
(1) Long-term principle, integration, participation, and reflexivity	Pisano, Lange, and Berger (2015) [21]; Bernardo, Mullholand and Berger (2017) [22]
(2) Effectiveness (competence, sound policymaking, collaboration), accountability (integrity, transparency, independent oversight), inclusiveness (leaving no one behind, non-discrimination, participation, subsidiarity, intergenerational equity)	UNCEPA and UNECOSOC (2020) [25]; Niestroy (2021) [24] Meuleman (2021) [13]
(3) Effective, responsive and accountable state institutions, openness and transparency, addressing corruption and curbing illicit financial flows, justices and the rule of law, participation in decision-making, curbing violence and combating transnational organized crime	Dhaoui (2019) [17]
(4) Pillar 1—power (leadership, networking and stakeholder management, empowerment), Pillar 2—knowledge (knowledge cooperation, adaptiveness and resilience, reflexivity), Pillar 3—norms and value (equity, creating horizontal and vertical trust, inclusiveness and pluralism)	Monkelbaan (2019) [26]
Policy coherence
Target 17.14 of the SDGs	Bernardo, Mullholand, and Berger (2017) [22] OECD (2016) [23] Monkelbaan (2019) [26]
OECD framework	Meuleman (2021) [13]
Architecture of the SD governance
Levels of SDG implementation: global, regional, national	Pisano, Lange, and Berger (2015) [21] Niestroy and Meuleman (2015) [12]
Processes of SD governance
Strategy: process of elaborating 2030 agenda	Pisano, Lange, and Berger (2015) [21]
Risk management	Monkelbaan (2019) [26]
New trends in SD governance Network governance/NPG; the science-policy interface; strategic foresight for policy planning; Types of governance	Bernardo, Mullholand and Berger (2017) [22]; Niestroy and Meuleman (2015) [12]; Monkelbaan (2019) [26]; Niestroy (2021) [24] Meuleman (2021) [13]

). The paper also refers to different types of governance and states that implementing effective governance for SD involves adopting a combination of styles appropriate to the national context. Some comments are being made on the EU’s meta-government for SD, addressed to open method coordination and a set of means (“meta-governance toolbox”) used for implementing the SDGs. In the author’ opinion, the meta-governance is the means of coordinating governance by combining tools from three different governance styles: hierarchical, network, and market governance [25] (p. 17).

Monkelbaan’s book [26] is a complex study that includes theoretical considerations on essential elements for a global analysis of SD governance and several case studies. The book aims to support the construction of the Integrative Sustainability Governance framework and presents an organizational framework specific to meta-governance, with reference to governance for the 2030 SDGs. According to Monkelbaan [26] (pp. 27–28), meta-governance is “an approach that aims to design and manage sets of situational preferences for a mix of institutions, instruments and processes with elements from the main modes of hierarchical, market and network governance”. A distinct chapter shows the key competences of governance for SDGs, which are structured in three pillars, namely: power, knowledge, and norms and value (see Table 1). An original idea developed in this book is to address risk in SD governance as a distinct goal and, implicitly, to include integrated risk management in SDGS. Another contribution consists of the conceptualization of the process of solving complex SD problems based on design thinking methodology, which can be a useful tool in processes of deliberative governance.

The paper of Glass and Newig [27] presents, in the first part, theoretical foundations of governance for SD based on a comprehensive literature review. In the authors’ opinion, “There is no comprehensive analysis systemically examining the relationship of governance and SD in its social, economic, and environmental dimensions as defined by the UN in the 2030 Agenda”. They refer to the dimensions of effective sustainability governance and present in more detail four central aspects of governance for SD, namely: participation, policy coherence, reflexivity and adaptation, and democratic institutions.

The paper of Dhaoui [17] refers to good governance as a basis for SD, and states that a single governance model should not be imposed given that governance varies across contexts and cultures. In the author’s view, to see whether governance is good, three dimensions must be assessed: the mechanisms promoted, the processes used, and the outcomes achieved. In separate sections, the principles of good governance and the priority areas needed to achieve the SDGs are presented.

The paper of Meuleman [13] analyzes the governance of the SDGs in EU member states in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and emphasizes that achieving the SDGs requires first and foremost the promotion of effective PA and governance. The author identifies four key reform challenges in this regard. First of all, it is necessary to define SDGs 16 and 17 as a strategic priority and to control the application of the principles of effective governance for SD established by UNCEPA [25]. The second priority consists in developing mission-oriented reform in PA and governance to ensure better coordination of governance at all levels and increase the agility of institutions addressing different types of problems. The third change concerns meta-governance, emphasizing the need to simultaneously ensure the flexibility and stability of governance through the use of a more balanced mix of governance styles and tools. The last priority refers to the effective increase of the policy coherence by harmonizing behaviors at the national, institutional, and individual levels (as the author says, political, institutional, and mental silos).

Table 1 summarizes the main ideas from the publications discussed above.

As a conclusion of this analysis, it can be said that the multilevel governance for SD has been the subject of several studies, which aim to improve it by creating an appropriate governance framework. According to Meuleman and Niestroy [12], a governance framework can be defined as “the totality of instruments, procedures, processes and role division among actors designed to tackle a group of societal problems”. Several works refer to meta-government as a means of producing coordinated governance by combining different styles of governance, depending on the circumstances. Monkelbaan [26] stresses the need to develop an integrative sustainability governance framework, aiming to ensure effective and coherent approaches. From a hierarchical point of view, it is essential to achieve the integration of SD actions at all levels of governance. As Meuleman and Niestroy [12] remark, “If governance frameworks at one level are not well linked to those on other levels, the result may be total failure”. Concern in this regard has increased in recent years in connection with the implementation of the 2030 agenda and SDGs, with various guidelines frameworks and tools created by scientists and specialized SD bodies. Progress has also been made in conceptualizing the SDGS by defining the key concepts, fundamental principles, and determinants of effective/good governance. Several publications refer to the architecture of the governance system for SD, processes, and specific tools. The visions of the authors are generally different, but there are also some common solutions.

The progress is obvious, but the high complexity of the field and the diversity of solutions make difficult to understand and apply the concepts and tools proposed in various publications. We consider it necessary for governmental bodies at all levels to continue with the unitary conceptualization of multilevel governance for SD, as well as the development of common framework documents and tools. Applying the process-based approach to SD governance, addressed in the next section, may be useful in this project of improvement.

3. The Process-Based Approach Principle and Its Application to the Governance System for SD

The concept of process is a comprehensive notion, widely used in all areas of economic and social life. This paper approaches the process from the perspective of the organization, defining, in a general sense, the way in which action is taken in order to obtain results [28]. The best known definition of the process concept is: “a set of activities that are interrelated or that interact with one another” [29].

The process-based approach is one of the basic principles in modern management and represents an effective way to manage organizations to create value for customers and other interested parties.. Using a process approach means that managers focus on the processes developed within organization. It also means that they manage the process interactions as a system [30] (p.34). Note that the processes do not represent the activities carried out within the departments of the organization, but are, generally, trans-departmental.

The process-focused vision of the organization dates back to the 1980s and is found in specific forms in various management models and methods. The best known are: value chain analysis [31], Deming flow diagram [32], reengineering [33], and more recent, business process management [34]. The process-based approach is also found as a fundamental principle of the ISO 9000 models for quality systems (starting with the 2000 edition), as well as of other ISO models for management systems (e.g., management systems for environment, innovation, etc.). The widespread application of these standards in all areas of activity and around the world has helped to promote this new way of addressing organizations, with beneficial effects on overall performance.

According to the ISO 9000 (2015) standard, the process-based approach refers to the identification of the organization’s processes and the interactions between them, as well as their management [29]. Figure 1 presents the distinctive elements of a process, namely: inputs, activities, resources and equipment, and outputs. The management of each process is assigned to a coordinator, who is responsible for planning, controlling, and improving the running of the process and its performance.

As the ISO 9000 standard specifies, process identification and management make possible a better understanding of stakeholders’ requirements, systematic control and improvement of process performance, better coordination of the links between the structures involved in achieving common objectives, and harmonization of processes assembly with organization’s strategy. Note that a correct application of the process approach includes setting the level of performance/maturity of the processes and prioritizing the improvement projects in a global perspective.

So far this methodology has been applied in SD management at the organization level, e.g., [35,36]. In our opinion, the process-based approach can be applied to multilevel SDGS at the international, regional, national, and community levels. The present study refers only to the first level, the UN governance system for SD. The other systems will be the subject of future works.

The design of the SDGS is based on the general process classification, which distinguishes three categories: processes of management, basic processes, and support processes [29]. Meaning given to them is as follows: the basic processes contribute directly to the achievement of the general objectives; the management processes are those through which the planning, control, and improvement of the activity are performed, as well as the leadership; and support processes contribute to ensuring the necessary human, material, informational, and financial resources.

The processes of the SDGS at the UN level are schematically presented in Figure 2. What follows is a brief analysis of these processes, with a focus on the documents that describe them and the structures involved.

(1)

Management processes are those through which planning, control, and improvement of the activity are performed, as well as leadership.

Effective SD governance requires sustainability in all actions and involving all people. Leadership is essential in this regard. According to Popescu, Mandru, and Gogoncea, leadership refers to “the process to set the vision and goals of the organization, build commitment and involve staff to achieve them” [30] (p. 115). The main levers through which the SD leadership is achieved are: defining SD vision, values, principles and policies; establishing responsibilities/SD structures, managing the SDGS, and communication and development in all departments of a culture that favors the SD implementation.

Many of these elements are materialized in UN governance documents. As previously stated, the 2030 agenda for SD is currently applied with 17 SDGs and 169 targets, which represents the SD global strategy for 15 years. Central to this document is the shared vision to “end poverty, rescue the planet and build a peaceful world”. At the heart of the 2030 agenda are five critical dimensions: people, prosperity, planet, partnership, and peace, adding two components to the traditional SD approach. Related to these dimensions are the SD values: people—a thriving society; prosperity—a prosperous economy; the planet—healthy ecosystems and environments; peace—ethics and justice; and partnership—collaboration and collective action. There are also defined the principles of SD governance [25].

SD leadership must be implemented in all PA organizations, including the UN structures for SD, which comprise own departments, specialized agencies, programs and funds, research and training institutes, and also a variety of affiliated and related bodies. The owner of the “leadership” process must be at the highest level (UN General Assembly), but the overall guidance and coordination for SD is the responsibility of the “UN Economic and Social Council (UNECOSOC)”. The link with stakeholders from all countries is provided by the “UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA)” through the organization of conferences and summits, the processing of statistical data, and the provision of technical assistance in creating national capacity for SD. Each of the three UN departments has specialized SD divisions, offices, and working groups.

All these UN structures are engaged in an extensive communication processes regarding SD, thereby contributing to the dissemination of SD values and development of SD culture.

The cycle of planning-controlling-improving as a component of the UN government system is important to tracking global progress in implementing the SD strategy and making the necessary changes. The implementation of an agenda is a basic process, which will be described distinctly. As will be seen, the main actors in achieving the SDGs are the country governments, with the role of the UN being to assist countries in this process by providing guidelines and support. Annual planning of global SD targets is not feasible, but at the UN level annual reports on SD are performed, which provide an overview of the world’s results, highlighting progress in SDG implementation and areas where more action needs to be taken, e.g., [37]. The control actions are supported by several UN mechanisms and framework documents, e.g., [38,39,40]. The process of “improving” refers to the improvement of results and governance system through systematic actions. In this regard, at the UN level, at the end of a four-year cycle in a special HLPF (known as the “SDG summit”) under the auspices of the UN-General Assembly, world leaders set priority actions to improve the implementation of the 2030 agenda. As an example, in 2019, the UN Secretary-General declared “The Decade of Action” and called for accelerating sustainable solutions to all the world’s largest challenges [41]. The UN-SD Solution Network is an important actor in this process, with the mission of mobilizing global scientific and technological expertise to promote practical problem solving for SD, including the design and implementation of SDGs.

(2)

Basic processes are those that directly contribute to the achievement of general objectives.

The “operation” process, in the context of the SD governance, means implementing the agenda and SDG. Direct responsibility in this regard lies with the government of each country, but the participation of the UN and regional structures is also important. The role of the UN is to assist countries in this process by: providing guidance and support in the development of national SDG strategies and plans; providing consulting and training programs; financing development projects; and monitoring actions. As the 2030 agenda states, the goals and targets for each country result from an inclusive process of intergovernmental negotiations and are based on the proposal of the Open Working Group on SDGs. Each year, the UN member states and other stakeholders provide feedback on their success, challenges, and lessons learned during a HLPF for SD.

The owner of the “operation” process is the UN-ECOSOC, but the UN-DESA has also an important role, as a vital interface between the global SD policies and national actions. The reference guidelines elaborated by the UN Development Group [42,43] are reference documents for this process, aiming to help member states adapt the global SDGs to national contexts.

In Figure 1, besides the process of “implementing agenda”, the category of basic processes also includes: “policy integration”, “stakeholder engagement”, and “relationship management”. In our opinion, these processes directly contribute to the achievement of objectives, justifying their inclusion in the category of basic processes. However, they could also be considered support processes for the implementation of SD agenda. Note that the processes’ inclusion in one category or another has a relative character and is less important.

“Policy integration” is a process with a multilevel deployment, its purpose being to guide the national policy-makers and foster policy coherence for SDGs. There are several global guiding documents on this regard and reports, e.g., [15,44,45].

The process of “stakeholder engagement” integrates actions aiming to enhance the participation of all stakeholders in SD governance. The reference document for this process is the “Stakeholder Engagement Guide” [46]. A framework was also launched recently to analyze the quality of stakeholder engagement in implementation and follow-up of the 2030 agenda [47], with this document regulating the control of the process performance.

The process of “partnership management” refers to actions aiming to enforce partnerships for SD by developing appropriate mechanisms. This process is essential to achieving the SDGs and supposes a holistic approach, considering the wide range of interconnections between the SDGs. A guiding document for this process has recently been developed [48]; it focuses on the description of partnerships for SD, considering the partnering lifecycle. The guide refers to the mechanisms to be developed for the design of a value-creating partnership, but also to its implementation, ongoing monitoring, and the making of the necessary changes to maintain or improve the partnership performance.

(3)

The support processes aim to assure the necessary resources for SD.

The “human resource (HR)” process refers to the specific actions of HR management with effects on performance in SD. Responsibilities in this regard lie with each organization, central and local government structures, international and regional agencies and associations, etc. At the UN level, the SDGS’ process of HR aims to establish guidelines for HR for SD, as well as organize training programs for people involved in SD governance. The UN agency for education, UNESCO, has an important role, considering the essential role of education in achieving the SDGs and also the dedicated Goal 4, which aims to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”. In 2017, UNESCO published “Education for SDGs”, designed as a general guide for education professionals on the use of education for SD in learning for the SDGs [49]. Another reference document is the “ESD Roadmap 2030”, adopted with the aim of “increasing the contribution of education to building a more just and sustainable world” [50] (p. 3). Other global actions related to HR for SD are co-organized by the UNDESA and “UN Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)”, e.g., special events on SDG learning and training [51], open online courses aiming to strengthening stakeholder engagement for the implementation and review of the 2030 Agenda, e.g., [52], etc. There are also other structures created at the UN level or in partnership with the mission of training in supporting the 2030 agenda, e.g.: UN Global Compact Academy [53], UN System Staff College [54], and 2030 Agenda Partnership Accelerator [55].

The complex processes of transformation for achieving the SDGs require adequate financial resources. In SD governance, providing these resources is the purpose of the multilevel process of “funding”. At the UN level, the activities for financing SD are based on the financial strategy and the Secretary General’s roadmap, which aim to prioritize areas of action [56]. Likewise, financial reports are prepared annually, e.g., [57]. There are also other UN specialized structures involved in this process, e.g., the Financing for SD Office and the “UN Department Program (UNDP)”, which is the lead UN development agency with a key role in supporting member countries to implement the SDGs, along with the Joint SDG Fund [58], a multipartner trust fund created to support SD activities through integrated and multidimensional joint programs. Furthermore, the ECOSOC Forum on Financing for Development is organized annually.

The SDGS process of ‘information/knowledge administration’ is very important, considering the multitude of information/knowledge on SD governance, and also the large number of stakeholders, people, and organizations to whom it is addressed. Currently, there is a SDGS knowledge platform, subordinated to the UNDESA, which presents information on SDGs, including intergovernmental processes, events, news, etc., aspects generally related to the UNDESA activity. There is also information about the SDGs and governance system published on the central page and other UN departments’ pages. However, the fact that the SD documents and records are dissipated and often redundant makes it difficult to find information and, especially, to understand the SDGS architecture and functioning.

Based on the previous presentation, which makes a description of the UN governance system for SD in terms of process, some conclusions can be formulated. The first idea to note is that, although the process-based approach is not defined as the basic principle of the SDGS, the UN governance actions are implicitly associated to some processes. Most of them are regulated by framework documents, being planned, controlled, and continuously improved. Information on the governance system for SD is published on the UN website.

Although brief, the analysis reveals the concern for improving the management of SDGS processes and their performance. As an example, for the management of the “stakeholder engagement” process, a framework document was created in 2020 to analyze the quality of stakeholder involvement in the implementation and follow-up of the 2030 agenda [47]. Conceptually, the measurement is based on a grid with four levels of performance established in relation to six criteria (three key principles, each with two dimensions). This tool allows the transition from subjective evaluation, based on anecdotal evidence, to a more rigorous examination of stakeholder engagement practices, implicitly contributing to the improvement of process performance.

However, the existence of some efficient processes does not guarantee the success of the governance system for SD, as the overall performance is determined by the weakest link in the chain. In our opinion, the effective application of the principle of process-based approach in a systematic way would give greater rigor to the planning, control, and improvement actions carried out at the process level, as well as to the management of the SDGS as a whole. The introduction of performance indicators is essential in this regard for each process and for the governance system as a whole. Measuring the performance of the governance system involves the development of evaluation tools based on points, which allow the monitoring of progress over time through periodic evaluations and the identification of areas for improvement. The system of indicators should include criteria related to the system (maturity of key processes), but also result indicators (effectiveness and quality). The process approach also creates the premises for improving the description of the SDGS through another structuring of knowledge about the system architecture, functioning, and performance.

4. Conclusions

This paper focuses on the multilevel SDGS and proposes a new manner of approaching it, based on processes. The process-based approach is a principle of modern management that contributes to a better understanding of a complex set of activities given the key processes and the interrelationships between them. The application of this principle involves the assignment of process managers and the design of processes considering the working and control methods and tools, as well as the necessary resources. It is also very important to describe the processes through appropriate documents, which specify the procedures to be followed, resources needed, and process results.

In this paper the process-based model is applied at the UN level of multilevel SD governance using information from official documents and other studies on the topic addressed. As the analysis shows, SD is one of the general objectives of the UN. Nowadays, the 2030 agenda and the 17 SDGs, elaborated under the auspice of UN, are a strategic guide that applies to the whole of society. The analysis of SD actions from the governance perspective illustrates the continuous efforts to improve the governance system, considering policies and principles, mechanisms and tools for the SD planning, and implementing and controlling activities. All these are interrelated processes, representing the components of the UN governance system, but they also interact with the regional and national governance systems for SD. However, although many actions and documents refer to the processes of SD governance systems, one cannot speak of an explicit and rigorous application of the process-based approach.

The paper presents the authors’ proposal for the key processes of the UN governance system for SD, with comments on the main actors and official documents (specific regulations and reports). The description of the processes highlights some shortcomings, but the paper does not focus on process analysis. The aim of the paper is to establish the global process architecture and illustrate the multiple benefits that might result from the process-based approach of SD governance system, which creates the premises for:

• A unitary conceptualization and better understanding of governance for SD at all levels (UN, regional, national, and local). The process architecture of governance systems is similar at all levels, with the complex relationships between the different levels of governance being more rigorously analyzed and defined at the level of processes;
• Reinforcement of leadership in SD governance, which involves a strategic approach with long-term goals and the development of a culture based on SD values at all levels. The process of leadership for SD and governance focus on cultural issues must become priority objectives in future research and action aimed at improving the SDGS at all levels;
• Keeping under control the processes on which global performance depends by appointing process managers who are responsible for the systematic realization of the process planning-control-improvement cycle. It is important that the process managers fully conduct a process, providing the necessary tools for its efficient operation and systematic improvement;
• Defining key indicators for measuring the global and process performance of governance systems. There are systems of indicators and metrics for some SDGS processes (e.g., “policy integration”, “stakeholder engagement”, etc.), but the development of systems of indicators and control mechanisms for measuring the performance of governance processes remains a priority topic of study;
• Better controlling the framework documents, working and control tools, and their continuous changes. The multitude of documents related to the SDGS is easier to manage when it is associated with the process architecture of the governance system. The document management refers to their elaboration, revision, dissemination, withdrawal, etc.;
• Improving the management of data/knowledge about SD governance and access to the knowledge system. Organizing data/knowledge based on the process architecture of the SDGS helps easier understanding, use, and management of information.

Note that the description of the SD governance systems processes is not complete, the authors’ purpose being only to illustrate the benefits of promoting the process-based approach in SD governance systems at all levels. An exhaustive approach to processes of SD governance systems was not possible for at least three reasons: first of all, a complete description of such a system could not be presented in a work of reasonable size; secondly, such an approach necessarily requires the participation of multidisciplinary teams, with specialists from the UN and regional structures, as well as experts from other organizations; finally, to implement the SDGS model, approval by recognized bodies is essential. In this case, UN participation in the elaboration of the SDGS model would create the premises for the official approval and implementation of the model. Similarly, generic models for SDGS can be created at the regional, national, and community levels.

Regardless of the level of governance, the application of the process approach principle is a very complex demarche, with many sequences. The first step is a diagnosis of the SD governance system from a process perspective, in order to assess the existing situation: working methods, procedures, available resources, etc. The second step consists in the identification of processes and links between them, and establishing the function/body in charge of each process. The next step is to design each process, considering: the purpose, work and control activities, specific tools and resources, and performance indicators. In SD governance, the tools are generally in the form of guiding methodologies/frameworks, procedures, and other regulations appropriate for each process, and must obviously be subject to a continuous process of updating and improvement. Special attention should be paid to the management of knowledge on SDGS, which includes reference documents, but also to information on the processes’ unfolding and results. The outputs of the process design can serve as a basis for the system implementation.

All these changes increase the effectiveness of the SDGS and create the prerequisites for the continuous improvement of governance for SD through systematic actions.

The novelty of this paper consists in the idea of applying the process-based approach to the multilevel governance for SD and the case study referring to the SDGS at the UN level. As the paper illustrates, this methodology involves a holistic view of governance for SD, contributing to a better understanding and management of governance systems at each level, as well as a better correlation of SD governance across multiple levels.

The paper addresses the functions and bodies with responsibilities in SD governance, which directly contributes to the implementation of process-based approach principle in SD governance, but is also important for academics and research, creating a framework for future studies on processes and ways of improving governance systems for SD. The topics to be studied are diverse, from the process architecture of SD governance systems at regional, national, subnational, and organizational levels to the analysis of the processes and sub-processes of the governance systems, specific tools, and performance indicators. Last but not least, this paper contributes to a better systematization of teaching materials in the training process on governance for SD.