The impact of global governance networks on social innovation for sustainable development: Linking setup, enablers and cooperation results of the Managing Global Governance (MGG) Network

Vogel, Johanna; Reiners, Wulf Working Paper The impact of global governance networks on social innovation for sustainable development: Linking setup, enablers and cooperation results of the Managing Global Governance (MGG) Network IDOS Discussion Paper, No. 31/2025 Provided in Cooperation with: German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), Bonn Suggested Citation: Vogel, Johanna; Reiners, Wulf (2025) : The impact of global governance networks on social innovation for sustainable development: Linking setup, enablers and cooperation results of the Managing Global Governance (MGG) Network, IDOS Discussion Paper, No. 31/2025, ISBN 978-3-96021-276-8, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), Bonn, https://doi.org/10.23661/idp31.2025 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/333386 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ The Impact of Global Governance Networks on Social Innovation for Sustainable Development Linking Setup, Enablers and Cooperation Results of the Managing Global Governance (MGG) Network Johanna Vogel Wulf Reiners IDOS DISCUSSION PAPER 31/2025 The impact of global governance networks on social innovation for sustainable development Linking setup, enablers and cooperation results of the Managing Global Governance (MGG) Network Johanna Vogel Wulf Reiners Bonn 2025 Dr Johanna Vogel is a Senior Researcher in the department “Knowledge cooperation & training” at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) in Bonn. Email: [email protected] Dr Wulf Reiners is Head of the Managing Global Governance (MGG) Programme at IDOS. Email: [email protected] The German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) is institutionally financed by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), based on a resolution of the German Bundestag, and the state of North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) as a member of the Johannes-Rau-Forschungsgemeinschaft (JRF). Suggested citation: Vogel, J., & Reiners, W. (2025). The impact of global governance networks on social innovation for sustainable development: Linking setup, enablers and cooperation results of the Managing Global Governance (MGG) Network (IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025). IDOS. https://doi.org/10.23661/idp31.2025 Disclaimer: The analyses expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS). Except otherwise noted, this publication is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0). You are free to copy, communicate and adapt this work, as long as you attribute the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) gGmbH and the author(s). IDOS Discussion Paper / German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) gGmbH ISSN 2751-4439 (Print) ISSN 2751-4447 (Online) ISBN 978-3-96021-276-8 (Print) DOI: https://doi.org/10.23661/idp31.2025 © German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) gGmbH Tulpenfeld 6, 53113 Bonn Email: [email protected] https://www.idos-research.de Printed on eco-friendly, certified paper. IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 III Abstract Networks as relational infrastructure play an important role in strengthening cooperative efforts toward sustainable development. This paper analyses the Managing Global Governance (MGG) Network – a transnational, multi-stakeholder network that employs collaborative training, knowledge cooperation and policy dialogue instruments. The network includes members from Brazil, China, the EU, India, Indonesia, Mexico and South Africa. To understand how the implementation of Agenda 2030 through cooperation in networks can be fostered, this paper examines the conditions under which global governance networks create impact. Using a literature review, external evaluation studies and 27 qualitative interviews, the paper categorises impact across four levels: individual, organisational, network and systemic– institutional. Additionally, it analyses the impact on the network itself – not only as an enabler of impact but also as a subject affected by cooperation within the network. In this context, several types of impact can be distinguished, ranging from improved international cooperation structures to behaviour change and the reorientation of organisational policies. We conclude that three dimensions of a network’s setup are key to enabling social innovation for sustainable development: 1. the composition of network members 2. the cooperation infrastructure 3. the cooperation culture. These insights contribute to the ongoing debate on how to link change at the individual level with transformation in more institutionalised structures – particularly in organisations and broader systemic contexts. The paper is especially relevant for scholars engaged in network analysis and development, decision-makers involved in transnational multi-stakeholder networks, and international cooperation actors aiming for sustainable development impact. IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 IV Acknowledgements This study was possible only with the support from many sides. We extend our sincere gratitude to the members of the Managing Global Governance Network who have shared their stories about how the network changed their lives, and enabled them to achieve impact in various ways. We are also very thankful to colleagues at IDOS, especially Eva Lynders, Albert Thönniges, Dr Charles Martin-Shields, Dr Dorothea Wehrmann and Dr Sven Grimm for their invaluable comments, additions and guidance throughout the drafting and peer-review process. Naturally, the study would not have been possible without the fantastic work and contributions of the entire team at IDOS in conceptualising and constantly improving the MGG programme objectives and activities along with corresponding monitoring and evaluation schemes. Finally, we would like to thank Jannet King for the careful language editing. Bonn, September 2025 IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 V Contents Abstract Acknowledgements Abbreviations 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Global governance networks and global sustainability challenges 2 1.2 Methodology 3 1.3 Main findings of the study 5 1.4 Structure of the paper 6 2 Impact leading to sustainable development 6 2.1 Impact assessments via theories of change in development cooperation 6 2.2 Impact-enabling setups of global governance networks 8 2.3 Impact of global governance networks 10 3 The Managing Global Governance Network 12 3.1 Background and objectives of the MGG Network 12 3.2 MGG’s theory of change 14 4 The quest for impact: empirical evidence and stories of change 21 4.1 Individual level 21 4.2 Organisational level 23 4.3 Systemic–institutional level 27 4.1 Impact on the network itself 29 5 Discussion of results 33 5.1 Enabling factors: how a network’s setup makes impact more likely 33 5.2 Types of impact 38 6 Conclusions 41 References 44 Annexes 49 Annex 1: MGG Network members who contributed change stories 49 Annex 2: Interview guideline/questions 50 Annex 3: Follow-up consultation on MGG Academy 2018–2023: impact of MGG Network 53 Annex 4: Number of MGG publications 2009–2024 55 IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 VI Figures Figure 1: The impact cycle 8 Figure 2: Impact levels 11 Figure 3: Linking network setups and impact 12 Figure 4: IDOS theory of change 13 Figure 5: Competencies for sustainable futures 15 Figure 6: MGG Academy participants per sector 2018–2024 16 Figure 7: Cooperation hexagon 18 Figure 8: Enabling factors of impact 33 Figure 9: Impact types highlighted by network members 39 IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 VII Abbreviations ASCI Administrative Staff College of India BMZ Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development CO2 carbon dioxide CSIS Centre for Strategic and International Studies DEI diversity, equity and inclusion ENAP National Institute of Public Administration of Brazil EU European Union G20 Group of Twenty GIZ Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit IDOS German Institute of Development and Sustainability MGG Managing Global Governance NeST Network of Southern Think Tanks OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PRODIGEES Promoting Research on Digitalisation in Emerging Powers and Europe Towards Sustainable Development QCI Quality Council of India SDG Sustainable Development Goals TCU Brazilian Federal Court of Accounts UN United Nations UNFSS United Nations Forum on Sustainability Standards VSS Voluntary Sustainability Standards 2030 Agenda 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 7 improve actions of actors to enable them to strive for impact in an informed way (Ebrahim & Rangan, 2014, p. 122). Faced with the need to adapt to changing environments, impact assessments help individuals, implementing organisations and networks alike to find out how activities, services and measures perform – whether or not they create a particular type of effect, and what the most promising entry points are for achieving greater leverage (Corvo et al., 2021, p. 2). Achieving impact starts with defining the objective of collaboration. To be effective in a targeted manner, activities should follow a strategy that sets out which form of intervention may bring about the desired change. In such a “theory of change”, actors combine their (long-term) goals with a causal logic of effects. This reflects the conditions in which the actor operates, and the process of targeted interventions required (Valters, 2022). Interventions can directly contribute to the achievement of goals, or do so indirectly when they establish a prerequisite for an intervention that is necessary in a longer chain of effects. Theories of change and impact assessment have, for a long time, played an important role in international development cooperation, where it is employed to improve the credibility and legitimacy of development initiatives (Vähämäki et al., 2011, pp. 2-4). Whereas early concepts of social impact assessment date back to the 1970s (Vanclay, 2020), the current results-oriented approach developed in the 2000s, and includes the introduction of the OECD concept of “management for development results” in 2005 (Vähämäki et al., 2011, p. 14). However, a onesize-fits-all results-based management approach does not exist. There are research gaps at different levels, notably the impact of global governance networks on (sustainable) development (Eilstrup-Sangiovanni 2016), and the link between changes in the lives of individuals and societal change (Vähämäki et al., 2011). Such conceptual diversity and gaps in knowledge of the conditions that lead to impact are problematic in academic terms, and they come with operational consequences for networks in the field of development cooperation. The assessment of collaborative work is not only necessary in order to evaluate and improve a network’s impact, but is often also needed to satisfy the accountability expectations of (funding) partners. Theories of change connect input (invested resources), output (the immediate results of input, a service or product), outcome (change resulting from output) and impact (the wider and longterm effects of outcome) with the challenges (and needs arising from them) that require addressing. The concept of the theory of change plays a prominent role in development cooperation. To illustrate, the Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), a central provider of Germany's international cooperation services, measures its results in terms of the categories of output, outcome and impact. They describe output as changes achieved through their activities (e.g. products, transferred knowledge, new skills), outcomes as direct shortand medium-term results of an activity (including benefits for the target group and any concomitant behavioural changes), and impact as longer-term, overarching development results (GIZ, 2020). In a similar vein, the German Institute of Development and Sustainability works with a theory of change that connects the institute’s activities across the fields of research, policy advice and training to outputs, outcomes and impacts that contribute to developing sustainable futures (IDOS, 2024b). Putting emphasis on the lasting and structural nature of impact, leads on to a discussion of social innovation. Social innovation is defined as “a complex process of introducing new products, processes or programs that profoundly change the basic routines, resources and authority flows, or beliefs of the social system in which the innovation occurs” (Antadze & Westley, 2012, p. 133). Social innovation involves groups of people developing solutions to such demands, and although it is a collective activity, it is not a mass movement, which is located on the demand side. Figure 1 visualises the interconnected elements involved in creating impact in terms of the water cycle, and an organisation as like a ship, harnessing the power of the elements (strategy, resources, services and products) to make progress towards a beneficial outcome that creates impact. IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 8 Figure 1: The impact cycle Source: Kurz & Kubek (2014) In practice, however, the areas of outcome and impact cannot always be rigidly differentiated (Harding, 2014), as it is done in the above-mentioned GIZ definition. Arguably, for research institutions such as IDOS, where the MGG programme is implemented, such differentiation is not always sensible, as the mode of operation differs from that of implementing agencies. Providing policy advice or facilitating “actionable research” may not necessarily result in longterm impact for numerous reasons, including causes rooted beyond the quality of research or the evidence-basis of the recommendations. Impact assessment therefore needs to take into account that research organisations have a rather limited corridor of direct contributions to development. In contrast to the rigid definition of impact – as for instance applied by GIZ (see above) – for the purpose of this study we thus focus both on immediate, measurable outcomes and on the longer-term impact of collaborative work of network partners. 2.2 Impact-enabling setups of global governance networks Interested in a better understanding of the conditions under which the impact of global governance networks on sustainability challenges occurs, the study follows the guiding assumption that a network’s internal setup is one of the key enabling factors. In view of this analysis, the concept of collective impact provides suitable tools. Collective impact is a framework for collaborative social change (Ennis & Tofa, 2020). It refers to the “commitment of important actors from many different sectors to a common agenda for solving a specific social problem” (De Moor, 2018). In more detail, the “collective impact framework involves crosssector, interdisciplinary collaborative work aimed at addressing complex social problems” (Ennis & Tofa, 2020, p. 3). Typically, “it involves stakeholders such as organisations, community leaders, government and business, coming together to develop a common understanding of a problem and working collaboratively to address it” (Kania & Kramer 2011). This participatory multi-stakeholder approach is important in our context, as solutions to complex systemic sustainability challenges require contributions from, and the meaningful collaboration of, a heterogeneous group of actors from different backgrounds, including countries, sectors and IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 9 disciplines. This principle is enshrined in the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals, in particular “Goal 17 – Partnership for the Goals”. The concept of collective impact thus stresses key aspects relevant for the analysis of networks, understood as the space where social innovation – as a form of collective impact – can take place or be initiated (Plastrik et al., 2022, p. 13): the composition of actors, their collaborative work, their commitment and the structure supporting interactions. Connected to the debate about global governance networks and the impact debate in the development cooperation field, these aspects can be translated in a broader sense to three relevant categories as key components to analyse a network. In very simple terms, a network is a social structure that consists of actors that interact with each other (Marin & Wellman, 2011; Scott, 2012). On the relevance of interaction, three fundamental questions can be asked: 1. Who cooperates? – the composition of network members 2. On what structural bases do actors cooperate? – the cooperation infrastructure (including input and output) 3. How do actors cooperate? – the cooperation culture of a network. (1) The composition of members of a network is crucial, as the members provide the knowledge, skills and social and political capital that can be employed in collaborative action that leads to social innovation. Any transformation requires, amongst other things, the right combination of expertise (Lazarus & Funtowicz, 2023), along with access to information and decision-making processes. In other words, whether or not a network can achieve impact depends on the members whose cooperation it makes possible, and on whether these members consider the network to provide a valuable match-making function that will help them to work (reciprocally) towards their own goals.11 Network members are typically individuals, but, in principle, entire organisations or sub-units of entities can be regarded as members. (2) The cooperation infrastructure refers to the tools, mechanisms and structures that enable relevant decision makers to access a network of other like-minded people, who contribute expertise and have the capacity to shape decisions or outcomes in line with their objectives. It includes resources and instruments that enable collaboration between network members. As such, the impact assessment may consider them as in both the input and output area. (3) The cooperation culture in a network is determined by the values, norms and principles that characterise the approach of the network members to cooperation. Cultures may vary across the different “behavioural dimensions” of cooperation (Messner & Weinlich, 2016), such as trust among network members, decision-making and enforcement processes in the network, stronger or weaker hierarchies in the governance setup, and the strength of a common identity. Clearly, the three key aspects of a network setup are interdependent. To illustrate, cooperation infrastructure and culture influence which actors can be attracted to join network activities. Similarly, the composition of actors comes with strong implications for the reputation of the network and has an effect on infrastructural elements (e.g. financial resources) and cooperation culture. The availability of a cooperation infrastructure, in turn, affects the possibility of selforganisation (Biggs et al., 2010; Vogel, 2021) and thereby the cooperation culture of a network. 11 Further information can be found in Reiber & Eberz, 2024, p. 64, in the section “Identifying and connecting change makers”. IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 10 2.3 Impact of global governance networks When we take a closer look at impact on sustainable development in the context of networks and collaborative cooperation, it becomes clear that it can take many different forms. The reason sits in the integrated and global nature of the 2030 Agenda and the (potentially) wide range of areas where networks operate. To illustrate, relevant impact can occur across the entire spectrum of SDGs, from poverty reduction, to climate action, to the development of public– private partnerships. It can span all political levels, from the local to the global. In this context, a highly institutionalised nature of impact, such as is represented in the form of social innovation, is relevant and ultimately desirable. At the same time, contributions that seem to be smaller or initially of a temporary nature, can constitute important steps towards a fundamental change in the field of sustainable development. Against this background, our analysis applies a flexible scheme to grasp different types of impact along two basic dimensions: the number of people affected and the degree to which a change is institutionalised, in the sense of being lasting and of a structural nature. Along these criteria, we can differentiate three levels of impact (Vogel & Reiners, 2022). The individual level of impact refers to the situation when network activities affect a person’s life. To illustrate, the output of a training format provided by the network can be the strengthened competencies or the enlarged network of a civil servant. Impact at the individual level takes place when these competencies or network contacts lead the individual realise progress in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Analytically, impact also takes place at the level of the individual when the effect can be seen on a group of individuals as, for instance, when a cohort of trainees benefits from competence development. The organisational level is addressed when structural change can be observed for an entity, for instance a public body or a company. To illustrate, a network activity may lead to a curriculum update of a training institution. The analytical level of organisations is also addressed when a group of organisations undergoes such a change. The level of institutionalisation is typically higher in this context due to the “stickiness” of organisations and their formalised governance structures. Impact takes place at the systemic–institutional level, when network activities result in fundamental change in wider (political, societal, economic) systems. Network members might influence international discourses and understandings of “good practice” regarding training related to the 2030 Agenda, or contribute in another form to the structural re-shaping of the training landscape. This highest degree of institutional change is based on deep epistemic and societal rootedness, and a wide range of actors, individual and organisational, perpetuating and protecting the innovation. Last, but not least, a particular impact level for transnational network activities is the network itself. Network activities can be mutually reinforcing, and, linked to the network’s size, character and modus operandi, collaborative work can affect the setup of the network. In most cases, this impact would qualify as organisational-level impact (at the level of the network’s partner organisations, and for the network as a form of organisation) but is mostly grounded initially in individual change. However, in principle, the re-structuring of very large and highly influential networks can also come with impact at the systemic–institutional level. For the purpose of this study, these self-related effects are treated as a distinct category of impact. IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 11 Figure 2: Impact levels Source: Authors Figure 2 illustrates the approach. The spectrum of impact is here marked on the one side (x-axis) by the number of people involved and on the other side (y-axis) the degree of institutionalisation. The greater the number of people involved in a change process, the further right on the graph the change can be located. Similarly, the longer, the more regular, natural or integrated a change, the higher it is located within the spectrum of change. Both axes can be viewed as a continuum or as fluid, because in many concrete cases investigated over a comparatively short period of time, it is hard to conclusively determine how many people exactly were affected, both directly and indirectly, and how deeply a certain impact has ultimately been rooted in the respective system. Consequently, the assessment is not purely quantitative. While that is a start, qualitative elements – narratives of the depth of change – have to be taken into consideration, too. Building on these conceptual underpinnings, Figure 3 presents the interrelations between the impact of networks at different levels and the network setup as introduced in Section 2.2. Essentially, it condenses the research framework of this study, illustrating our research interest in the interconnection between network setup and impact created by the network at the individual, organisational and systemic–institutional level. Beyond this interrelation, the study also investigates the types of impact that are created. IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 12 Figure 3: Linking network setups and impact Source: Authors 3 The Managing Global Governance Network Our study of a global governance network that strives for a positive impact on sustainable development is the Managing Global Governance (MGG) Network. Analysing MGG with reference to the conditions that facilitated impactful collaborative action, we will, in a first step, present its theory of change as well as its cooperation setup along the categories of composition, infrastructure and culture. In preparation for this, a brief introduction on background and history will help understand the network development since 2007. In a second step, we will scrutinise the impact of the network achieved across different levels and types of impact. 3.1 Background and objectives of the MGG Network MGG is a transnational and interdisciplinary multi-stakeholder network, which has been developed since 2005 (Fues, 2018a). Funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Ministry of Culture and Science of North RhineWestphalia, the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) has the central role in implementing, maintaining and nurturing its activities. In 2025, the network encompasses around 500 individual network members and around 100 organisations that are or have been involved in its activities. According to the terms of reference, the MGG programme’s activities are aimed at the joint development and implementation of contributions to address global sustainability challenges. The MGG programme operates within the framework of IDOS’s theory of change (IDOS, 2024b) and conceptualisation of pathways to impact. At IDOS, impact is defined as successful shaping of academic, policy and public debates as contributions to a transformation that leads to sustainable futures. Consequently, the impact assessment for the MGG Network is aligned with the institute's strategic mandate to implement interdisciplinary research, impact-oriented policy advice and internationally oriented training. In this vein, the objectives of individual projects and networks are evaluated in view of their scientific, advisory and educational outcomes across planning and reporting cycles. The assessment focuses on both quantitative and qualitative indicators – such as publications, policy influence and engagement with target groups – emphasising the importance of substantiated narratives and plausibly argued links between research activities and observed changes in discourse or practice (IDOS, 2020). Figure 4: IDOS theory of change Source: IDOS (2024b, p. 43) IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 14 The institute employs external evaluations, feedback mechanisms, tracer studies and qualitative assessments, such as policy interactions and alumni engagement, to highlight success beyond numerical metrics. Consequently, the activities of MGG and its impact assessment are embedded in the institutional framework of IDOS, and in particular its department “knowledge cooperation and training”, mandated to develop individual competencies, shape organisational cultures, foster institutional linkages and promote self-sustained networks. Building on this, MGG’s work starts from the assumption that a commonly agreed agenda is key to addressing any (sustainability) challenge. Despite growing contestation amid geopolitical tensions, the 2030 Agenda and its SDGs offers such a global reform agenda, agreed upon by all member states in the UN General Assembly. As an existing and transparent system of goals that also provides guidance for local and regional actors, it offers a common point of reference for collective action. The ambitious and interrelated goals of the 2030 Agenda, however, exceed the scope of action of individual policies and individual states. They can only be achieved in a cross-sectoral and cross-policy approach through cooperation between government institutions, academia, civil society and the private sector, when cooperation and cross-border problemsolving go beyond intergovernmental processes. MGG’s setup as a multi-stakeholder network is based on this understanding. Following a concept for global cooperation by the German government, MGG brings together actors from countries with wide global reach: Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico and South Africa, as well as from Germany and the EU. Cooperation with these rising global powers is of particular importance, as they combine aspiration for global influence and regional impact due to their geographical and demographic situation as well as their economic and political development. At the same time, they face enormous internal development challenges (see: BMZ (Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development), 2021). 3.2 MGG’s theory of change MGG’s theory of change operates in the context of the IDOS theory of change (Figure 4), which strives for successful shaping of academic, policy and public debates in view of transformations towards sustainable futures based on IDOS research, policy advice and training (impact). In this context, MGG and IDOS employ academic publications, events, policy publications and competence development (outputs) to contribute to the institute’s ambitions. In the specific setup of a global governance network, MGG’s theory of change is based on a combination of (1) relevant actors, (2) an effective cooperation infrastructure that develops and employs the competencies combined in the network, and (3) a distinct form of cooperation culture. In this context, competence is understood as a combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes, enabling an actor’s effective engagement in various situations and contexts (Reiber, 2025, pp.62-67). MGG considers a dedicated set of competencies as key to enabling change towards sustainable development. These competencies (Figure 5) are needed for sense-making (including systems thinking, normative competence and critical thinking), innovation and transformation (including futures thinking, leveraging creativity and strategic action), and cooperation competencies (including reflexivity, communication and dialogue, conflict management and leveraging diversity) (Reiber, 2025, Reiber & Eberz, 2024; Chattopadhyay, 2018). IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 15 Figure 5: Competencies for sustainable futures Source: Reiber (2025) (1) Composition of network members With the ambition to bring together a strong representation of these competencies so that peer learning across sectors and countries can unfold, the network implements a member selection and on-boarding strategy. The overarching objective is to bring together “change-agents” and key organisations whose collaboration allows for targeted transnational and transdisciplinary work towards global sustainable development (Reiber & Eberz, 2024). This approach ultimately aims to impact the domestic and international spheres, and follows the insight that interdisciplinary and inter-sectoral collaboration increases the possible impact of initiated processes (Biggs et al., 2010, p. 4). Consequently, the selection of network members is based on criteria regarding the relevance of applicants’ work area for sustainable development and global cooperation, individual expertise and qualification, organisational affiliation and position therein, as well as motivation and change-making potential. On this basis, what is aspired to is a balanced representation of countries, sectors (government institutions and public administration, research institutions and think tanks, international organisations, civil society, the private sector, arts), disciplines and gender. Also, a strong diversity in terms of cultures, socio-economic status and personalities (Domínguez, 2021) is considered as beneficial to the multi-stakeholder setup needed to address the systemic nature of sustainability transformations (Andrade, 2020). Recruitment and on-boarding of network members can take two forms. Either candidates are accepted in response to an open call for application for one of the activities, or they are invited to participate in an activity based on their reputation and recommendations from network members. A key activity for bringing new members to the network is the Academy that runs about three months every year. Here, participants are accepted only in response to an open call against the complex set of criteria and quotas previously mentioned.12 Although opportunities for candidates from different nationalities to participate in time-intensive activities abroad are not equal, continuously high number of applications demonstrate interest in the format and the ensuing network membership from all partner countries and regions (MGG, 2025a). 12 For a complete overview of the Call for Application see https://mgg.network/page/mgg-academy. IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 16 Partner organisations play an important role in the strategic development of the network, as their quality, position and relevance translate into opportunities for the network as a whole to have impact. An organisation is considered a partner if individual employees or affiliates are network members, and if the leadership of the organisation supports the organisation’s affiliation to the network. MGG seeks to build lasting cooperation among institutional partners by engaging multiple individuals from the same organisations over time, while also fostering diversity and openness by facilitating exchange across different partner institutions, and by continuously welcoming new actors into the network. Among long-standing partners are organisations that have proved to play a key role in driving sustainable transformations both in the domestic context and in global discourse. For example, in the public sector, partner organisations with multiple individual network members include the Ministry of Environment and the Central Bank of Brazil, and the Ministry of Finance in Indonesia. A cooperation agreement with the German Federal Foreign Office ensures joint training and dialogue activities with international diplomats. In the field of academia and think tanks, leading organisations such as the Shanghai Institutes of International Studies (SIIS), the Research and Information System for Developing Countries in India (RIS), the Institute of Applied Economic Research (IPEA) in Brazil, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Indonesia, or Instituto Mora in Mexico are cases in point. Leading universities and training institutions for the public sector are key partner organisations as well, including the National School of Government of South Africa (NSG), the Administrative Staff College of India (ASCI), the National Institute of Public Administration of Brazil (ENAP), or the National Institute of Public Administration of Indonesia (NIPA/LAN). Civil society organisations with a global orientation, and innovators from the private sector, for instance working for Amazon, complement the mix of organisations. Figure 6 illustrates the sectoral distribution of MGG Academy participants between 2018 and 2024. Figure 6: MGG Academy participants per sector 2018–2024 Source: Own calculation based on MGG Academy Participants Statistics 2018-2024 (2) Cooperation infrastructure MGG offers a multi-layered cooperation infrastructure that facilitates both the further development of competencies and cooperation in the network, aiming to unfold the potential for changemaking. The infrastructure comprises: an annual training and dialogue format (MGG Academy), knowledge cooperation and policy dialogue initiatives across relevant issue areas, and a set of instruments to continuously strengthen the bonding and cooperation of members. IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 23 programme backed by additional funding to pursue insights from the Academy. Improved expertise and international career development ultimately come with chances to contribute to global debates, participate in the systemic–institutional arena, and to access relevant forums. The promotion of network members to international organisations is a case in point, as happened for instance to a network member, who moved from the Indonesian National Bureau of Standardisation to the central secretariat of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Impact on the individual level also becomes visible (and fungible) when network members change their communication on sustainability-related topics to diverse target groups, be it in publications, newspaper contribution or on social media. Increased communication can be both a reflection of the cooperation approaches of MGG and the involvement of different network members: Inspired by the vibrant Glocal village at MGG [Academy] 2022, I initiated a podcast named “Going Glocal”. The name itself encapsulates the essence of MGG’s philosophy – the concept that our ideas, like the world, should have no boundaries. (Simran Dhingra, India, Academy 2022) 16 Mauricio D. Aceves from my batch started writing regularly for Gateway House (Aliasger Bootwallas’s Home Institution) on issues of West Asia and foreign relations. (Ali Bootwalla, India, Academy 2022).17 To sum up, impact on the individual level typically materialises in the form of strong development across a wide spectrum of competencies needed for international cooperation and sustainability transformations. Based on deepened and widened knowledge, the range and number of individual sustainability-oriented initiatives increases too. Following strengthened awareness and knowledge, network members change their communication – individually, and in country teams – to advance the sustainability agenda through publications or other media. If communication and dissemination addresses decision-makers in the global governance arena, we can assume the ambition to achieve impact at further levels, including the systemic–institutional. The developed competence set can also constitute the basis for academic promotion and the decision to advance expertise in specialised fields, for instance in the form of pursuing a PhD or taking up a fellowship. More often than that, however, impact takes the form of a change in job and career development, which can be facilitated by the reputation associated with the Academy training programme, or with contacts in the network that support job promotion. Most importantly, the aspiration to change the position is typically associated with the ambition to engage more (profoundly) with sustainability. 4.2 Organisational level In many cases, impact on the individual is – and is aspired to be – the first step towards larger sustainability-oriented change processes. On the organisational level, it takes place when processes, programmes or other type of actions within an organisation are altered following an initiative of, or the collaboration with, the network, its actors and infrastructure. Whereas the 16 The podcast can be found here: https://open.spotify.com/show/48GicVQnE51jv4Ja92BbfP?si=eUMSQeRGRfyEme9DqnsubA&utm_sourc e=whatsapp&utm_medium=whatsapp&nd=1&_branch_match_id=1262681721794004715&_branch_referr er=H4sIAAAAAAAAA8soKSkottLXLy7IL8lMq9TLyczL1k8udrJ0DHQ1NHNOAgAUGnqOIAAAAA%3D%3D . Accessed: 19 May 2025. 17 The contribution of Mauricio D. Aceves for Gateway House India can be found here: https://www.gatewayhouse.in/author/mauricio-d-aceves/. Accessed: 19 May 2025. IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 24 individual level involves only one or a few actors, at the organisational level, more people than one network member must be subject to impact; it needs to be a group of members or additional colleagues, an entire unit, or more. In this sense, impact at the individual level is an integral element of broader impact at the organisational level. Organisational change is, hence, a level at which impact on and of individuals can be multiplied. At the same time, organisational change involves a stronger degree of institutionalisation as impact becomes embedded in organisational structures. Consequently, in our view, impact at the organisational level ranges from the changed behaviour of multiple individuals in the same organisation to changes in an organisation’s internal modus operandi, policies or strategic orientation. Naturally, similar impact on a larger number of organisations, in parallel, is possible too. In the MGG context, organisational change is often connected to the Academy’s impact on participants, when the learning and dialogue experience of an individual is the starting point to develop related training formats for their home organisation or external partners. Given the multiplication function of trainers, alumni of the Academy thereby advance progress towards the implementation of the 2030 Agenda through the development of competencies in a wider set of individuals. The following quotes illustrate this type of impact: Within the (MGG) Academy I have learned […] how to design virtual workshops and how to prioritise the most relevant topics for different stakeholder groups to promote the Agenda 2030. Together with another MGG Alumni (2021) we had the opportunity to transfer these learnings into practice and design a virtual workshop for a group of highranking public servants in Guadalajara who were planning for sustainable development at the municipal level. We could experience directly how our learnings from the MGG Network made a difference for the work of these public servants, who gained more clarity on how to integrate priorities of sustainable development in their plans. (Miriam Ordonez, Mexico, Academy 2020) During my MGG journey, I worked on the change-maker project: How to create a deeper understanding of the newly adopted concept of feminist development policy (on a municipal level? […] I took this workshop back to my organisation and we were able to realise a team day on […] this topic with all my 40 colleagues. […] As a consequence, we included questions in our funding application forms on feminist development policy and how projects deal with gender equality. (Sabrina Dieter, Germany, Academy 2022) My change story started in the MGG Academy 2019, where I met two fellows who were also interested in mainstreaming gender across all parts of the SDGs. We conceptualised a workshop and facilitated it in the next virtual Academy. I was able to include the learning […] at my job as a Gender Scientist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). As part of a project on watershed research, we trained 22 technical scientists how to include gender in this engineering and bio-physical science dominated field. […] I could experience how the awareness level of the participants was changing during the workshop. (Ananya Chakraborty, India, Academy 2019). The examples illustrate how MGG Network members employ increased knowledge, improved skills and nurtured attitudes to address a larger group of people. The impact on a larger number of individuals from the same organisations translates to changing actions, processes or programme structures within the organisation. The trainings differ in terms of form, scope and intensity. Here, impact is more strongly multiplied when a whole series of seminars is implemented, or when wider audiences are addressed through universities or international organisations. IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 25 As a part of the Expert ODS (Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible / Sustainable Development Goals) group, I have a seminar on sustainable governance. It emerges from the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) of the United Nations and the Municipal Studies Center. 23 public servants and specialists from Mexico, Colombia, Germany, Norway and Sweden have participated, exposing successful cases of multistakeholder alliances in achieving 16 of the 17 SDGs of the 2030 Agenda. (Blanca Elena Gómez García, Mexico, Academy 2021) Even stronger impact is achieved when an organisational change starts to formalise and addresses organisational structures or processes. This has happened for instance during the setup of the Policy Unit of the Quality Council of India (QCI) following the contributions of the MGG Network member Rudraneel Chattopadhyay (India, Academy 2017), who led the formation process, reporting to the Secretary General of QCI in August 2019. In the underlying concept note, the working principles of the unit make explicit reference to MGG.18 Further examples, in which new working routines have been established, document the impact of MGG in the area of management or leadership. A report from a network member exemplifies how the principle of multi-stakeholder engagement and competence development played out in the context of a research organisation. Alternatives in planning activities and alignment between all parties involved in the projects, as well as the formation of new capabilities for social impact projects in rural development, were some of the changes brought about by the knowledge acquired on my journey at the MGG Academy 2022. (Marcel Artioli, Brazil, Academy 2022) Whereas sometimes the change initiated at the organisational level is of an incremental nature, possibly less observable to the outside, the MGG trajectory also includes examples with widely visible impact. The strengthening of the sustainability orientation of the Central Bank of Brazil is a case in point, as illustrated by the “Sustainability Dimension of the Agenda BC#”.19 A MGG Network member played a central role in the development of this initiative, and connected his instrumental contributions to the core of the network’s cooperation infrastructure, the MGG Academy: Thanks to what I learned at the MGG Academy, I got involved with the early efforts to integrate sustainability into the Central Bank of Brazil operations, acting as a liaison with sustainability NGOs and helping shape grassroot structures that later gave birth to the Sustainability Dimension at the Central Bank of Brazil, integrating environmental and social criteria into the heart of the country’s financial system. […] The MGG Academy is the source of all of this. Without what I learned there, I couldn’t have been involved in such an important systemic change in Brazil’s financial system. (Raphael Andrezo, Brazil, Academy 2017, forthcoming) Another example from Brazil, where the MGG Network generated tangible impact at the organisational level, comes from the National School of Public Administration (ENAP). The institution has sent multiple staff members to participate in the MGG Academy, and developed into a key partner in the network’s knowledge cooperation and policy dialogue initiatives. Over the years, sustainability has become part of the organisational culture; today, it is one of its 18 The concept note is an internal document; it was shown to the authors of this study. 19 The “Sustainability Dimension” (#BC) is an initiative launched by the Central Bank of Brazil in 2020, which aims to integrate environmental, social and climate considerations into the financial system. It comprises a series of measures and rules, including the establishment of the bank’s Social, Environmental and Climate Responsibility Policy. This policy guides the bank’s internal governance and the approach towards the national financial system. For more information see: https://www.bcb.gov.br/en/financialstability/sustainability, and the video documentation of the launch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxYmzkTTVOU. Accessed 31 January 2025. IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 26 strongest fields of expertise. The contribution of MGG to this organisational development is illustrated by the statement of one of the MGG Network members working at ENAP: Through the MGG Network I have influenced decision-makers to make the 2030 Agenda an integral part of the mind set of our institution, the Brazilian National School of Public Administration (ENAP). We have become a reference training institution in Latin America on the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in our curriculum. (João Vitor Domingues, Brazil, Academy 2018) Additionally, network impact also reaches the organisational level if a new working area linked to sustainable development is introduced in an organisation following the cooperation with the MGG Network. This has been the case for the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Jakarta, Indonesia, an internationally recognised research institution, which belongs to the leading think tanks of Southeast Asia. Whereas the organisation traditionally focused on other topics, the setup of a climate change unit is partly associated with MGG. Today, the institute runs multiple projects in this field. […] and in our case […] we established a climate change network within CSIS, which has been traditionally focusing on trade and foreign affairs. This is a huge success for us. We are now integrating climate studies and disaster risk management within trade economics. (Beltsazar Krisetya, Indonesia, Academy 2019) The following example of organisational change – in an engineering context – illustrates that such forms of innovation can be historic for an organisation, and potentially involve a high number of sub-units and affiliated individuals: This year, my dean invited me to become an advisor for international cooperation of my institute. In this function I […] promoted a competition for our 22 campuses (in Bahia State) to develop a sustainable project related to at least one of the SDGs with an international context. This competition with the focus on the SDGs is completely new to our institute which has a more than 100-year-old history. The institute will offer a financial support for the implementation of the four best project proposals. (Maria Cândida Mousinho, Brazil, Academy 2007) A distinct type of organisational change is the realisation of new collaborative projects between actors and organisations initiated by the network.20 Such impact often takes the form of joint publication processes, when more than one organisation contributes to its implementation. This process includes the creation of a common understanding of the research object and its analysis, the generation of new knowledge, as well as the communication of the insights to relevant target groups. In this way, joint publication projects contribute to the formation of a common understanding of sustainability challenges and solutions across organisations. Here, typically, the cooperation in the network takes over the function of an intellectual trigger or matchmaker. The following examples of the G20 Energy Transitions and Climate Finance Task Force Report sheds light on these network-internal processes from two sides: I was also able to connect with [an MGG alumna from Brazil, Batch 2, 2007] – who was invited to be a member of Gateway House’s G20 Energy Transition and Climate Finance Taskforce at the recommendation of the Indian Ambassador to Brazil. (Aliasgar Bootwalla, India, Academy 2022) 20 See Annex 4 for a graphic showing the publication of joint projects over time. IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 27 […] the Indian Embassy in Brazil invited me to a discussion in a G20 group with Gateway House India (another partner organisation of the MGG Network) on energy transition and energy finance. (Maria Candida, Brazil, Academy 2007) 21 MGG encouraged research and intellectual growth. Together with two MGG peers, we contributed to an article in the World Public Sector Report 2023 (Lustosa et al., 2023). Our piece highlighted the impact of transnational networks and underscored the indispensable role MGG plays in advancing the SDGs. (Simran Dhingra, India, Carlos Lustosa, Brazil, and Isabela Blumm, Brazil, all Academy 2022) Building on these examples, we can summarise that impact at the organisational level often starts with the development of individual competence, which is translated into the conceptualisation and implementation of relevant trainings by network members. In this way, they develop among a group of colleagues the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to implement the 2030 Agenda, and the organisation as a whole is better positioned to engage with sustainability issues. Beyond development of competence, organisational impact takes place when partners implement structural changes such as setting up new units or departments, or shifting the focus of research. In this way, they embed the work on sustainability issues deeply in the organisation. Establishing innovative instruments like the “sustainability competitions” in an organisation, where sustainability has not been a priority before, is another way of strengthening organisational structures towards systemic transformations. At the same time, we can observe that engagement in network activities and socialisation within the network´s cooperation culture can trigger organisations to internalise cooperation patterns, taking the form of a change of organisational culture and thematic orientation. 4.3 Systemic–institutional level Global structural change towards sustainable development takes place at the systemic– institutional level. Achieving impact at this level is far-reaching and effective, and therefore most desirable for a network like MGG. At the same time, it is the level where impact is most difficult to achieve. Building on the definition of social innovation towards sustainable development, impact at this level materialises when basic routines, resources and authority flows, or related changes in beliefs of social systems, are modified towards the SDGs (Antadze & Westley, 2012, p. 133). In the area in which MGG operates, cooperation on sustainable development, the social system at the highest political level includes international forums such as the various bodies of the UN and the G20 and its engagement groups, as well as similar related interand transnational institutions, forums and processes. Aspirations are thus located at the global political level. However, relevant underlying social systems can also be located at other political levels, such as the regional or national level, with implications for the global level. Whereas impact at the systemic–institutional level by definition goes beyond the individual and organisational levels, it often builds on developments at these levels and, thus, can include them. Crucially, network impact at the systemic–institutional level is characterised by a higher degree of institutionalisation; change takes place in a higher number of (influential) organisations and on a more regular, possibly more formalised, basis. A concrete example, which links such a process to MGG, is the change of the composition of stakeholders in the so-called ClimateScanner Initiative. ClimateScanner is a global assessment tool of government actions related to climate change.22 The initiative has been proposed by the Brazilian Federal Court of Accounts (TCU) as Chair of the International Organization of Supreme 21 The results of the collaboration in the G20 process can be found in Gateway House, 2023. 22 See https://sites.tcu.gov.br/climatescanner/ingles.html IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 28 Audit Institutions (INTOSAI). A network member from Brazil working at TCU, who played a central role in its creation and roll-out, testifies to the impact of MGG on the representation of actors (especially from the Global South) in the multi-stakeholder process: As supervisor of the global initiative ClimateScanner, I insisted, inspired by the MGG Academy, to include various countries from the Global South and Asia (in the executive group). ClimateScanner is an innovative initiative of National Audit Institutions which will provide a global and unprecedented panorama about the challenges, strengths and good practices relating to Climate Crisis. (Carlos Lustosa, Brazil, Academy 2022) Learning and collaboration principles, including methods as introduced and practised in MGG, have also been integrated into the re-design of a political process in South Africa: In the context of the Academy I discovered innovative methods, such as Design Thinking, used to break traditional ways of thinking and support to jointly define the problem and come up with new solutions that I now implement in my courses at University. Participants of my courses are usually senior government officials, senior technocrats or other senior political officials who report that using these innovative methods helps to design political processes in a different way. In the National Policy Development Framework 2020 (Presidency South Africa, 2020) this could be materialised. (TK Pooe, South Africa, Academy 2018) The paper also speaks of systemic–institutional changes, when competence and career development, typically understood as impact at the individual level, is translated to impact at a wider national setting. Here, the organisational background can provide a powerful leverage point. The SDG-alignment of government investments in Indonesia through the Ministry of Finance is a case in point: After going through the MGG Academy, I became, together with my team, the driving force behind strategic projects aimed at embedding sustainability into government frameworks. In 2020, within the Ministry of Finance in the Ministry of Finance (Indonesia), I supported the implementation of a regulation that mandated the alignment of all government investments with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and specific targets. (Radhitiono Wicaksono, Indonesia, Academy 2018) A good example for systemic–institutional impact in the form of institution building is the ongoing cooperation in the MGG Network on Voluntary Sustainability Standards (VSS). VSS offer demand-led or market-based regulatory instruments that can help implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Hernandez et al., 2021). Over many years, the activities of network members have played a catalysing role for interand transnational cooperation on the topic, with a strong focus on joint knowledge. The project started in 2015 as a research collaboration of alumni of the Academy and brought forward pioneering publications, including a book and a large number events focused on knowledge cooperation and policy advice with key actors from the VSS communities in Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico and South Africa, as well as the United Nations Forum on Sustainability Standards (UNFSS). It has also supported the establishment of national VSS platforms in several of the countries – China, Brazil, India and Mexico – typically in collaboration with national standardisation organisations. The national platforms serve as hubs of information on VSS, bring together stakeholders and provide advice to businesses to foster a better understanding and adoption of VSS in local contexts. The network was also successful in bringing together researchers, government officials and stakeholders from the private sector to explore the potentials of VSS in general, and to set up the UNFSS Academic Advisory Council with the participation of a number of MGG Network members. IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 29 These systemic–institutional effects of the network in the areas of institution building and agenda setting, and the influence on (inter)national discourses, become visible in the following statements by involved network members:23 As a result of my participation in the MGG Academy, I got involved in the working strand on sustainability standards in 2015. After a project spanning several years and connecting across several continents, I published as co-editor, the book Sustainability Standards and Global Governance: Experiences of Emerging Economies, together with MGG alumnus Jorge Antonio Perez Pineda and former IDOS researcher Johannes Blankenbach, in 2020 (Negi et al., 2020). […] Through this process, we strengthened awareness on this topic and fostered academic exchange as well as policy advice among a wide range of actors and international organisations. (Archna Negi, India, Academy 2007) As a scientist and policy analyst at a Chinese think tank, I had the chance to influence this project on voluntary sustainability standards process on a global level together with my colleagues from the MGG Network. I could contribute with many other MGG colleagues in setting up the Chinese National platform for voluntary sustainability standards. It can be seen as a model for Indonesia´s efforts to build its own platform. (Jiahan Cao, China, Academy 2014) The emergence of the Network of Southern Think Tanks (NeST) is an additional example of how the network unfolded impact on a systemic–institutional level. NeST was established on the sidelines of the first high-level meeting of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC) in Mexico in April 2014 (NeST, 2025). The meeting provided a forum of intricate exchange on norms and practices in South–South Cooperation amongst key researchers with close relations to policy-making in their respective countries. As a sort of subnetwork of MGG, NeST emerged with the support of MGG with the aim of “collaboratively generating, systematising, consolidating and sharing knowledge on the South–South Cooperation approaches for international development” (Kompetus, 2021, p. 46). By supporting the institutionalisation of the group, MGG contributed to the creation of an actor in today’s research and policy-advice structures for South–South cooperation (Fues, 2018a; 2018b, p. 16; Kompetus, 2021, p. 6). Building on these examples of systemic–institutional impact, we can summarise that the MGG Network has contributed to diversifying actors in global initiatives, redesigning political processes on a national level based on changes in the cooperation culture, SDG-alignment in government-investments on a national level, and institution-building and agenda setting through the global cooperation infrastructure. 4.1 Impact on the network itself As developed in the conceptualisation of impact (see 2.1), the network itself can be a distinct level of impact. This type of impact materialises when the collaboration of members or partner organisations affects the network, its structure or modus operandi as such. Ultimately, network activities may alter the orientation of future activities, the composition of network actors, its cooperation infrastructure or culture. Often these types of impacts are very effective, because they engage members and organisations in long-term processes and support the further improvement of the network´s performance. In this understanding, the impact at the network level is a form of impact at the organisational level with potential to reach up to the systemic– institutional level. 23 Further information on the work of MGG on Voluntary Sustainability Standards can be found at: https://www.idos-research.de/en/managing-global-governance/voluntary-sustainability-standards-vss/ IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 30 In this context, the conceptual relation between a network’s activities on the one hand, and impact on the network on the other, is not easy to handle, as the variables must be treated separately, even if they are closely intertwined in reality. Still, the development of a global governance network belongs to the areas in which impact on progress towards sustainable development can become manifest. Consequently, to understand the forms of impact, and the role of networks as enablers, this level of impact should also be tracked and analysed with academic rigour, as far as possible. An illustrative example in the context of MGG is the case of a Brazilian alumna, Tâmara, whose activities showed different effects on the network. She joined the network through her participation in the MGG Academy, when she was co-founder and director of Vetor Brasíl, a civil society organisation based in Sao Paolo that identifies and develops professionals to increase the efficiency of the public sector and reduce social inequalities in Brazil.24 After completing the Academy in 2021, and building on her experiences therein, she applied – with support from IDOS – for the German Chancellor Fellowship implemented by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Whereas the use of MGG’s cooperation infrastructure thus generated leverage effects (and individual impact), the engagement continued as Tâmara brought a workshop on inclusion and diversity to the 2024 edition of the Academy. Her work thus extended to effects on the network level by changing the Academy curriculum, and the hosting institution of the Academy and her fellowship programme. As a fellow affiliated to IDOS, she made use of her position in the network to work out and help embed institutionally a structural guide and process for preventing harassment and discrimination, which she also documented on social media. Furthermore, she built on IDOS’s role in the science system of North-Rhine Westphalia to implement a workshop on diversity, inclusion and equity with more than 15 heads of leadership programmes in the wider region.25 At the same time, she also contributed to the development of the composition of actors in the MGG Network, as the workshop brought together representatives of leadership programmes that were previously unconnected. The example illustrates how the targeted use of the network’s cooperation infrastructure can lead to impact on the network itself and individual organisations within the network alike, with the potential to reach the systemic–institutional level if further organisations inside and outside the network follow, or at least take inspiration from, the initiated change process. Another case that illustrates the combination of different impact levels with clear effects on the network level has occurred on the topic of “gender in interand transnational cooperation towards sustainable development”. Once again, the core element of MGG’s cooperation infrastructure, the Academy, served as the starting point, and was subject to modification as well: My change story started in the MGG Academy 2019, where I met two fellows who were also interested in mainstreaming gender across all parts of the SDGs. We conceptualised a workshop and facilitated it in the next virtual Academy. […] I was able to include the learning from the MGG Academy workshop at my job as a Gender Scientist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). (Ananya Chakraborty, India, Academy 2019) This example illustrates how individual members serve as agenda setters and resource persons in future network developments. Besides the effect on the curriculum of the Academy 2020, further gender-related activities document the agenda-setting impact of the network at the organisational and network level. The cooperation formats that emerged in the network and changed its approach to the topic ranged from internal online events to international research 24 See materiais.vetorbrasil.org/central-vetor. 25 Tâmara Andrade’s achievements have been documented on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/tamarabandrade_diversity-equity-inclusion-activity-7239241206247899136dbpl/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop. Accessed 18 June 2025. IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 31 projects26 and discussion rounds – designed and implemented by network members – at the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development.27 A case in point is the international research project hosted by IDOS on “Local feminist perspectives as transformation levers for greater gender equality”, in which two network members got involved (Sengupta et al., 2025). Their contributions document how changes, which had originally taken place at the level of the network infrastructure, laid the foundation for collaboration with partners beyond the MGG circles. Prominent cases that demonstrate how MGG Network activities create long-term impact within but also beyond the network are also the development of thematic working strands. As longterm initiatives in the network cooperation, two examples stand out in this context. First, under the heading of “Training and Learning - Implementation of the 2030 Agenda with the public sector” the network cooperates on capacity development for the civil service. The cooperation was initiated by discussions and experiences in the Academy 2016 and a peerexchange in 2018 among national schools of public administration, facilitated by IDOS and the Brazilian National School of Public Administration. The idea of this cooperation is to connect and strengthen key multiplier organisations in MGG partner countries. It follows the rationale that the public sector is of key importance for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, and that competent civil servants are needed to localise its objectives. As officials and civil servants acquire relevant knowledge and practical skills at colleges, academies and schools of public administration (SPAs), these training institutions of the civil service are strategic entry points with strong leverage for the integration of the global sustainability goals. At the same time, the interest in exchange is mutual, as documented by the facts that the cooperation idea was originally developed with a participant of the MGG Academy, and included activities with contributions from many partners. Since the start of this work strand, the network’s related knowledge cooperation and policy dialogue formats in Brazil, India, Mexico, South Africa and at the UN provided space for a systematic and in-depth exchange on strategies for integrating and mainstreaming the 2030 Agenda into course programmes, awareness raising among decision-makers, training for multipliers, and research. The example is illustrative of the impact of organisations and individuals on the orientation of the network. Building on existing cooperation infrastructure elements, network members jointly developed a cooperation agenda, originally as a New York Programme of Action for Schools of Public Administration and partner institutions on the margins of the UN High Level Political Forum 2018, with several updates since then (see .28 The cooperation, in turn, shows (mutual) leverage effects on the partner organisations, for instance their training curriculums, and has potential for systemic–institutional impact. To illustrate, the Administrative Staff College of India reported that as a consequence of the cooperation the institution would propose a “National Curriculum for SDGs” to the NITI Aayog, a key public policy think tank of the Government of the Republic of India, and pivotal agency tasked with fostering economic development. The proposed curriculum was described by the Administrative Staff College of India (ASCI) to “help in developing localised training tools, courseware and methodologies” (ASCI, 2019). 26 See: Local feminist perspectives as transformation levers for greater gender equality. https://www.idosresearch.de/en/research/description/details/local-feminist-perspectives-as-transformation-levers-forgreater-gender-equality/. 27 See: Feminist foreign and development policy – How to encounter anti-gender movement? https://mgg.network/networks/events/121923. 28 For more information on the work in this area, see https://mgg.network/page/training&learning IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 32 The PRODIGEES (Promoting Research on Digitalisation in Emerging Powers and Europe Towards Sustainable Development)29 project, initiated and hosted by MGG, is another example that illustrates how actors of the network employed the cooperation infrastructure first to influence the network’s orientation and then to generate individual, organisational or systemic– institutional impact. The project was initially conceptualised as the result of a series of network meetings to explore the interconnection of digitalisation and sustainable development, and to identify actors in the network who share an interest in it. With the concluding meeting of that series, in December 2018, a core group decided to run for a competitive EU research and network grant application. Following the success of this application, PRODIGEES materialised as a sub-network of MGG partners interested in creating a deeper comprehensive understanding of the impact of digitalisation across the social, economic and environmental dimension of sustainable development and its governance. Funded by the EU’s Horizon2020 programme, the project provides a structured exchange scheme for research and innovation staff, transnational training and multi-stakeholder dialogue to analyse conditions under which positive effects of digitalisation can be realised, while at the same time potential negative effects can be mitigated. The project thus documents the network’s ability to employ participatory infrastructure (in this case, the national network meetings of MGG) in view of not only agenda setting for cooperation, but also the setup of complementary infrastructure (structured staff exchange scheme, including financial resources30). Beyond the network impact of PRODIGEES, the intensive cooperation among partners to implement more than 70 international research projects in five years comes with a high potential for impact at other levels, in particular the individual and the organisational levels. To illustrate, at the individual level, the project promoted digital literacy among participants as well as competencies in understanding and using digital technologies for society and the common good. Given the fact that many participants have positions in renowned research institutions or in key institutions of the public sector, including the foreign offices or ministries of environment, this impact reaches individuals with great leverage to shape affairs at the organisational or even systemic–institutional level. At the organisation level, the PRODIGEES project “has had an impact on curricula development, university seminars taught, and bachelor and master theses written” (Schneider, 2025). Impact examples also extend to the inclusion of concepts and use cases of digitalisation across partner countries, for instance from the Global South in European partner institutions. The international exchange has thus “provided differentiated answers to the including and excluding effects of digitalisation in different areas, such as education, finance, access to public services, protection of privacy, and the common good in general” (Schneider, 2025). Policy advice resulting from the project was taken up in the field of “the regulation of AI and the importance of ethical and human rights frameworks to avoid discrimination and digital exclusion” (Schneider, 2025). 29 See www.prodigees.info 30 The total costs of PRODIGEES as originally specified in the EU Grant Agreement (2019) was EUR 1,067,200 for a period of three years. IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 39 − improved international cooperation, including the advancement of the network’s cooperation infrastructure and better access to international experts and high-level forums. Figure 9: Impact types highlighted by network members Source: Authors When mentioning competence development, respondents refer to a direct output of MGG cooperation; the evaluations of the Academy, knowledge cooperation formats and network meetings show that participants confirm how their competencies have developed, in particular through the completion of the Academy as the central training and dialogue programme. This development of competencies primarily relates to knowledge, skills and attitudes in the area of sustainable development, as well as leadership skills. Although all participants possess prior expertise in relevant areas, they report that following their attendance, their expertise related to the 2030 Agenda and global governance has grown. The impact on Academy participants often takes the form of a change in perspective that enables them to better grasp the systemic nature of global challenges and the value of diversity. This result is therefore highly relevant to effective development cooperation, seeing that the Academy participants are (or are likely to become) future decision-makers in national and international key organisations. Another change regularly ascribed to MGG is career development of network members. This result is a type of impact that can be associated with the individual level. However, it implies a general “upgrading” of the network in terms of expertise, decision-making power and potential leverage over time as well. Although not investigated in detail in this study, the examples show career development connected to a mix of factors, including competence development and connectedness to an international network. Career development typically materialises in the first year after the completion of the Academy in the form of promotion, a prestigious fellowship or acceptance to a higher study programme, or the assignment of new tasks with more responsibilities.51 The German chancellor fellowships of different alumni are a case in point. More responsibility often comes with more decision-making powers to advance a sustainable 51 See change story Gómez García https://mgg.network/news/1290585. The tracer study for the Academy batch of 2022 shows that 59% of the Academy participants were given more responsibilities, 24% were promoted and another 24% were given more tasks related to the 2030 Agenda. 29% of the participants stated that these changes were influenced by the participation in the MGG Academy (Uzbonn, 2024). IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 40 development and international cooperation agenda at the individual and organisational level. The implications of the new assignment and job promotions of network members in different Brazilian institutions, including ENAP and the Central Bank, illustrate this type. Clearly, in this context, opportunity and timing plays a role here, when participants return to their home institutions after they have spent a couple of months in Germany. Career development also finds expression in job change outside the original sending organisation. This impact is typically associated with increased awareness about sustainability concerns, so that alumni translate the experiences in the network to the decision that another institution promises greater potential for contributions to sustainable development or international cooperation in the future.52 A further type of impact that we can derive is improved international cooperation. This impact type implies better access to and stronger engagement with international experts and high-level forums for network members. At the same time, as shown by the analysed examples, members also advance the infrastructure of the network themselves to increase cooperation and leverage for impact. This happens through expansion to further key organisations, the creation of new organisations, the institutionalisation and professionalisation of network structures, or the creation of dedicated sub-networks, with the result that MGG today consists of about 500 members and 100 partner organisations, with many key actors in international development cooperation around the globe. Crucially, the improvement of international cooperation finds expression in the development of both the joint definition of global challenges and possible solutions. Common understandings and solutions can take many different forms, ranging from co-authored publications to the development of multiannual, multi-partner projects. The list of research papers and policy briefs developed in the MGG framework that come from two or more authors adds up to 98 (from 178 in total) between 2009 and 2024. More than 60% come from authors with different nationalities, thereby preparing ground for common understanding in practical cooperation and building bridges between partners in the participating countries and regions.53 In the case of the before-mentioned PRODIGEES project, a series of network conferences culminated in the common understanding of how the fields of digitalisation and sustainable development – which, at the time of project development in 2018, were mostly unrelated concepts – and a related staff exchange scheme can be approached. The examples of NeST and the national platforms for VSS show that network collaboration can even lead to institution building. Observations, evaluations and impact reports brought forward many more examples of how collaboration in the network improved international cooperation. Finally, network cooperation results in the re-orientation of individual behaviour or organisational policies towards sustainable development. This impact type essentially means the applied translation of the upgraded prioritisation of sustainability concerns into action, and thus de facto implementation of solutions. Here, impact starts with everyday life decisions at the individual level, but these practices can change routines within organisations too. Following such individual initiatives or network cooperation formats, the reorientation of government, research and training institutions in the network to integrate the 2030 Agenda or climate change questions in their thinking and field of activity goes up to the organisational and systemic–institutional impact level. New tools to align finances to the SDGs or to monitor climate impact are examples from the MGG Network. 52 See change story Jaqueline Aguila Baca (forthcoming); See also Jaqueline Aguila Baca summarising her story on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jacquelineaguilarbaca_my-journey-in-sustainabledigitalization-activity-7293150443411517440-aXg?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAD_R1a8BgviunQTqli2kUIQCUXew G2GIttw 53 These numbers have been calculated based on the annual reports of the project between 2009 and 2014 https://www.idos-research.de/en/managing-global-governance/. See Annex 4 for a visual representation of this data. IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 41 Change in behaviour and policies often comes with an altered form of communication about sustainable development that also addresses actors and target groups outside the original MGG sphere. It includes the founding of relevant research units, changed policy guidelines, or the establishment of sustainability conferences by partner organisations, all initiated by individuals or groups of network members. Another field is curriculum development or the re-design and implementation of training formats. In the MGG context, these formats stand out for two reasons. First, the Academy is the biggest component in the network’s cooperation infrastructure and has a foundational role for competence development and the cooperation culture within the network as a whole. Against this background, many participants get inspiration from it in terms of content and methods for the development and implementation of their own training and learning formats; the experience of meaningful training and dialogue apparently feeds the motivation to offer such an experience to more people. Second, what makes this impact type special is its huge potential for multiplying effects; trainings are by design geared towards impact on many individuals and organisations, so that their relevance for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda cannot be overestimated.54 6 Conclusions Global governance networks enable social innovation to address complex global problems such as sustainable development. They can provide the space for the complex processes of “introducing new products, processes or programs that profoundly change the basic routines, resources and authority flows, or beliefs of the social system” (Antadze & Westley, 2012, p. 133). This study sheds light on the conditions that make it more likely that networks will have a positive impact. To analyse the performance of a network, and thereby strengthen its relevance and credibility, a social impact assessment is helpful. In this context, we developed a differentiation across enablers, levels and types of impact. With this innovative analytic framework, we also aim to contribute to the conceptual debate about the impact assessment of global governance and other transnational networks. This study should not be confused with an attempt to describe the full design and impact of the MGG programme of the last 18 years; it is, rather, a step towards conceptualising and tracking selected cases in order to illustrate the type and quality of impact during this long period. Clearly, the hundreds of network members have created impact in many other forms based on or associated with MGG activities. With a focus on the experience of network members, we analysed 27 impact stories, enriched by available feedback questionnaires and external evaluations. They show that the MGG Network is full of examples of social innovation at an individual, organisational and institutional– systemic level, and document the relevance of the network. These examples testify that members are interested in working with the network’s actors, infrastructure and culture, and that the network facilitators’ investments pay off – the network seizes the opportunities to align on objectives, and makes progress towards achieving them. The analysed impact types, be it career development, implementing trainings or institution building, require more than isolated actions. The outcomes and impact depend on quality cooperation infrastructure nurtured by a cooperation culture based on reciprocity, diversity and trust, which enables meaningful exchange, long-term commitment and collective problem54 The workshop on Feminist Foreign Development Policy implemented in Engagement Global and initiated by Sabrina Dieter (see change story Dieter https://mgg.network/news/1829943) or a workshop on the 2020 Agenda in Dolores Britos organisation (see change story Brito https://mgg.network/news/1005138) are cases in point. IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 42 solving. Such an environment is crucial to drive social innovation, as it transforms fragmented efforts into coherent, synergistic progress across sectors and borders. Key enablers for this impact can be found in the network setup. In the case of MGG it consists of a diverse group of individuals and organisations with relevant expertise from seven global powers, united by the joint objective to address global sustainability challenges through interand transnational cooperation. Given the complexity of global sustainability challenges, the multinational, cross-sectoral and interdisciplinary nature of the network with relevant partners is key. An encompassing cooperation infrastructure ensures continuous communication and offers fair, participatory formats for the reciprocal development of common definitions of global challenges and innovative solutions. The cooperation culture practices the cherishing of inclusion and diversity, and aims at the formation of trust, reputation and a common identity. With the integration of these elements – the right mix of actors, infrastructure and culture of cooperation – impact on sustainable development can materialise in many forms, including improved international cooperation towards the common definition of challenges and innovative solutions, and the (re-)orientation of behaviour and policies even behind the group of members. For the case of MGG, which has a training and dialogue format at the core of its cooperation infrastructure, the study has shown that the most immediate effects take place at the individual level. Far from being “easy” to achieve - and despite its fundamental nature for the cooperation in the network as a whole -, this result is rather weakly institutionalised as it sits with few people in a hardly formalised setup. Consequently, more intermediary, institutionalised impact at the organisational or the systemic–institutional level is much harder to achieve, and requires a complex favourable cooperation setup. Given its potential scope and institutionalisation degree, it appears most desirable to strive for systemic–institutional impact, the type of impact that has the widest and most lasting effects on the largest number of people. Furthermore, change processes at the systemic–institutional level also build on change processes, skills, knowledge, attitudes and behaviour changes at the individual level, often combined with changes at the organisational level. Consequently, it makes sense to take individuals and their embeddedness in cooperation networks as the starting point when it comes to addressing global challenges.55 To illustrate how the different types of impact build upon each other, once competencies and awareness of the 2030 Agenda develop (in the case of MGG typically in the Academy), changed patterns of international cooperation and individual behaviour change follow a new prioritisation for contributing to the implementation of the SDGs. This change can spill over to the working environment of network members. Inspired by participatory and inclusive methods that characterise MGG’s cooperation culture, and equipped with respective skills, many network members start communicating (differently) to relevant decision-makers in their organisations. They start implementing workshops, publishing on sustainability-related topics, or re-shaping processes in their home organisations. For many cases in the MGG context, change on the organisational level has started with a training or a joint publication implemented by Academy alumni. These changes bear the potential to create change in a wider social or even international context, if (further) network members and partner organisations team up. We have observed changes on the systemic–institutional level initiated by individuals and due to favourable environments – supportive colleagues, influential positions, professional experiences or networks that complement the new skills and knowledge. Institutional changes can also result from long-standing (knowledge) exchange, which bring together interested actors on a topic of common interest, as the examples of the cooperation of training institutions, VSS and PRODIGEES have shown. Going back to the definition of social innovation, once new products, processes or programmes are initiated that change basic routines, resources or authority flows and beliefs in the organisational environment, social innovation happens. In the MGG case, impact at the 55 On this point, see also Reiber & Eberz (2024, p. 65). IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 43 individual level can be linked to a change in fundamental beliefs (awareness and knowledge changes) and is applied in one’s working environment. Change at an organisational level often takes the form of processes or programmes introduced (trainings, workshops, seminars) or changes in processes implemented within one’s organisation. Change at an institutional level refers to change in authority flows or changes in basic beliefs (e.g. due to national policy frameworks having been changed). Connected to the organisational and network levels of impact, it should not be forgotten that the network’s cooperation infrastructure can be of significant permanent value for the work of participating members, including key organisations of the network such as IDOS. For an internationally oriented research organisation whose quality of work also depends on the cooperation opportunities in the partner countries, the value of the network becomes apparent when its members develop research cooperation or establish groups of actors that are then taken up in further research initiatives of the institute. IDOS’s cooperation on value chains (linked to VSS) or South–South cooperation (SSC) are examples in this regard. PRODIGEES is a special case of the network’s value, as it provided third-party funded cooperation opportunities to all research and innovation staff of IDOS. Despite these impact examples, we must not confuse favourable conditions with automatism. When opportunities provided in or beyond the network meet willingness to act, change processes towards sustainability transformations are more likely to unfold – but there is no guarantee. In the context of global governance and development cooperation, social innovation typically does not happen in a linear, predictable manner. Any theory of change for networks across different levels will face a variety of uncertainties. Crucially, besides all the network enablers, factors outside the control of the network actors play important roles, ranging from the circumstances of individuals’ lives and their level of self-organisation to political conditions and resources supporting or hindering international and sustainability orientations. Against this background, MGG might be an exceptional example in terms of impact achievement, partly thanks to favourable external conditions and related resources that have allowed the network to develop for almost two decades. Certainly, a strong and effective network requires continuous investment from people, resources and time to nurture and develop its infrastructure and culture of cooperation in order to unfold its potential. In this context, it must be mentioned that MGG benefited enormously from being conceptualised, developed and run from the very beginning by individuals who combined thoughtfulness with deep empathy and personal dedication. Against this background, the study also sets an agenda for future research into how better to grasp the results of network cooperation and to understand the conditions of impact on sustainable development. The expansion of systematically analysed change stories from network members, along with regular network-wide questionnaires beyond a focus on the Academy, will help to strengthen the explanatory value of future studies. Institutionalising impact reporting among network members and connecting the reports to further data sources, possibly employing quantitative instruments of social network analysis, could work in a similar direction. Beyond that, a comparative analysis with networks of a similar kind could help shed light on the conditions of network impact. The external conditions for interand transnational cooperation towards sustainable development between global powers are not getting easier. In times of scarce resources, when the global agenda is being derailed from a common sustainability perspective, lessons on how to optimise the impact of global governance network are more relevant than ever. IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 44 References Andrade, T. K. B. d. (2020, 2025, 30 April). Desafios da promoção de igualdade de gênero no setor público: os aprendizados do programa de diversidade do Vetor Brasil. https://repositorio.fgv.br/server/api/core/bitstreams/fcf86387-594d-4277-8d054e8494d732f9/content Antadze, N., & Westley, F. R. (2012). Impact metrics for social innovation: Barriers or bridges to radical change? Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 3(2), 133-150. ASCI (Administrative Staff College of India). (2019). Training and dialogue for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, April 24-26 2019 (Internal document). ASCI. Barole, N., Bolanti, J., & Reon, v. d. M. (2024). Global perspectives on knowledge co-production: transformative insights from the MGG Academy/Interviewer: L. Drieling. Romanian International Development Review. Romanian Association for International Cooperation and Development (ARCADIA). Benetytė, D., & Jatuliavičienė, G. (2013). Building and sustaining trust in virtual teams within organizational context. Regional Formation & Development Studies, 10. Kurz, B., & Kubek, D. (2014). Social impact navigator: The practical guide for organizations targeting better results. PHINEO. https://www.phineo.org/uploads/Downloads/PHINEO_Social_Impact_Navigator.pdf Biggs, R., Westley, F. R., & Carpenter, S. R. (2010). Navigating the back loop: Fostering social innovation and transformation in ecosystem management. Ecology and Society, 15(2). BMZ (Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2021). Shaping the future together – Strategic cooperation with global partners. BMZ POSITIONS. https://www.bmz.de/resource/blob/99794/bmz214-positionspapier-globale-partner-gb-211116v04web-002-.pdf Castelli, I., Massaro, D., Sanfey, A. G., & Marchetti, A. (2010). Fairness and intentionality in children’s decision-making. International Review of Economics, 57(3), 269-288. Castro-Arce, K., & Vanclay, F. (2020). Transformative social innovation for sustainable rural development: An analytical framework to assist community-based initiatives. Journal of Rural Studies, 74, 45-54. Chattopadhyay, R. (2018). Managing Global Governance (MGG) Alumni Meeting India 2018. A Digital Agenda for Sustainable Development – Perspectives from India. (Report). https://www.idosresearch.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/veranstaltungen/2018/20180413_Report_MGG_Conferenc e.pdf Cheng, X., Yin, G., Azadegan, A., & Kolfschoten, G. (2016). Trust evolvement in hybrid team collaboration: A longitudinal case study. . Group Decision and Negotiation, 25(2), 267-288. Clark, T. (2020). Behavioral guide. A practical, how-to guide to help you increase your team’s psychological safety. https://www.leaderfactor.com/psychological-safety/behavioral-guide. Corvo, L., Pastore, L., Manti, A., & Iannaci, D. (2021). Mapping social impact assessment models: A literature overview for a future research agenda. Sustainability, 13(9), 4750. Dayson, C. (2017). Evaluating social innovations and their contribution to social value: The benefits of a “blended value” approach. Policy & Politics, 45(3), 395-411. De Moor, A. (2018). A community network ontology for participatory collaboration mapping: Towards collective impact. Information, 9(7), 151. Domínguez, J. C. (2021). Identity and discourse within diverse international networks: The Managing Global Governance network seen through the lens of thematic oral history (Discussion Paper 14/2021). German Development Institute/Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik/. Ebrahim, A., & Rangan, V. K. (2014). What impact? A framework for measuring the scale and scope of social performance. California Management Review, 56(3), 118-141. IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 45 Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, M. (2016). Global governance networks. In Victor, J. N., Montgomery, A. H., & Lubell, M. (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of political networks (pp. 689–714). Oxford Academic. Ennis, G., & Tofa, M. (2020). Collective impact: A review of the peer-reviewed research. Australian Social Work, 73(1), 32-47. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817-868. Fues, T. (2018a). Investing in the behavioural dimensions of transnational cooperation. A personal assessment of the Managing Global Governance (MGG) programme (Discussion Paper 12/2018). German Development Institute/Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE). doi:10.23661/dp12.2018 Fues, T. (2018b). Convergence on South-South cooperation: The Delhi process after five years. Development Cooperation, 1(6), 3. Gateway House. (2023). G20 Task Force for Energy Transitions & Climate Finance. Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations. https://www.gatewayhouse.in/wpcontent/uploads/2023/02/Gateway-House-G20-Energy-Transition-and-Climate-Finance-TaskForce-Report.pdf Gimenes, R. M. T., Queiroz, R., Silva, I., Souza, S. V., Garcia, D. C., & Cangirana, L. S. (2022). Relational governance as a mediator between perceptions of justice and cooperative identity: A theoretical essay. International Journal of Development Research, 12(11), 60370-60378. GIZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für internationale Zusammenarbeit). (2020). Knowing what works. Capturing and contextualising results on a global level. https://www.giz.de/en/downloads/giz2021-enwirkungsdaten.pdf Grimm, R., Fox, C., Baines, S., & Albertson, K. (2013). Social innovation, an answer to contemporary societal challenges? Locating the concept in theory and practice. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 26(4), 436-455. doi:10.1080/13511610.2013.848163 Harding, A. (2014). What is the difference between an impact and an outcome? Impact is the longer term effect of an outcome. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/10/27/impact-vs-outcomeharding/ Hernandez, A., Reiners, W., & Grimm, S. (2021). Voluntary sustainability standards (VSS) – Mobilising public and private rule-makers in managing global governance (Two-Paper 1/2021). German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE). Hernandez, A., & Vogel, J. (2022). Transnational networks as relational governance infrastructure. https://blogs.idos-research.de/2022/02/09/transnational-networks-as-relational-governanceinfrastructure/ Higham, I., Bäckstrand, K., Fritzsche, F., & Koliev, F. (2024). Multistakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: promises and pitfalls. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 49. Holley, J. (2012). Network weaver handbook: A guide to transformational networks. Network Weaver Publishing. Huppé, G. A., Creech, H., & Knoblauch, D. (2012). The frontiers of networked governance. International Institute for Sustainable Development. IDOS. (2020). Pathways to impact (Internal report). German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS). IDOS. (2024a). International Futures (IF) programme: Insights into sustainable digitalisation. https://blogs.idos-research.de/2024/10/24/international-futures-if-programme-insights-intosustainable-digitalisation/ IDOS. (2024b). Sustainable futures. Research, policy advice and training for a collaborative multipolar world. German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS). IDOS. (2025). Managing Global Governance zur strategischen Zusammenarbeit mit Globalen Partnern bei der Umsetzung der Agenda 2030 für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Zwischennachweis. German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS). IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 46 Jarvenpaa, S. L., Shaw, T. R., & Staples, D. S. (2004). Toward contextualized theories of trust: The role of trust in global virtual teams. Information systems research, 15(3), 250-267. Kania, J., & Kramer M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 57, 36-41. Kim, R. E. (2020). Is global governance fragmented, polycentric, or complex? The state of the art of the network approach. International Studies Review, 22(4), 903-931. Kompetus, M. C. (2021). Evaluierungsbericht für das Programm „Managing Global Governance“ des Deutschen Instituts für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE). Internal report. Kurz, B., & Kubek, D. (2021). Kursbuch Wirkung: das Praxishandbuch für alle, die Gutes noch besser tun wollen: Mit Schritt-für-Schritt-Anleitungen & Beispielen: Phineo. Lazarus, M. D., & Funtowicz, S. (2023). Learning together: Facing the challenges of sustainability transitions by engaging uncertainty tolerance and post-normal science. Sustainable Earth Reviews, 6(1), 18. doi:10.1186/s42055-023-00066-3 Leighton, J. P., Seitz, P., Chu, M.-W., & Gomez, M. C. B. (2016). Operationalizing the role of trust for student wellbeing, learning and achievement. .International Journal of Wellbeing, 6(2), 57-79. Li, X., Zhang, R., Yin, Y., & Deng, J. (2021). Reviewing global relational governance research from 2002 to 2020. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 28(4), 421-439. Lucatello, S., & Reiners, W. (2024). Agenda and coalitions beyond techno-fix illusions. Can we bring digitalisation and the environment together? (The Current Column, 13 February 2024). IDOS. https://www.idosresearch.de/uploads/media/German_Institute_of_Development_and_Sustainability_EN_Lucatello_ Reiners_13.02.2024.pdf Lustosa, C., Blumm, I., & Dhingra, S. (2023). The role of transnational networks and professional exchanges in supporting an integrated implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. In UNDESA (Ed.), Transforming institutions to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals after the pandemic, World Public Sector Report 2023. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Public Institutions. Lynders, E. (2024). From individual to systemic impact: Transnational networks and the meso-level of change. In S. Grimm & S. Klingebiel (Eds.), Transnational cooperation – an explorative collection (IDOS Discussion Paper 4/2024, pp. 57-61). German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS). https://doi.org/10.23661/idp4.2024 Marin, A., & Wellman, B. (2011). Social network analysis: An introduction. The SAGE handbook of social network analysis (pp. 11-25). Sage. Messner, D., Guarín, A., & Haun, D. (2016). The behavioral dimensions of international cooperation. In D. Messner & S. Weinlich (Eds.), Global Cooperation and the Human Factor in International Relations (pp. 47-65). Routledge. Messner, D., & Scholz, I. (2018). Globale Gemeinwohlorientierung als Fluchtpunkt internationaler Kooperation für nachhaltige Entwicklung – Ein Perspektivwechsel. Zeitschrift für Außenund Sicherheitspolitik, 11(4), 561-572. Messner, D., & Weinlich, S. (2016). Global cooperation and the human factor in international relations. Routledge. MGG (Managing Global Governance). (2024). Conference report: International capacity development for the civil service – The sustainable digitalisation agenda. IDOS. https://www.idosresearch.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/veranstaltungen/2024/20241104_MGG-IDOSNSG_Conference_Report_20241110_xomp_x3.pdf MGG. (2025a). Endbericht. Forschungsund Beratungsvorhaben: „Abschluss der Ertüchtigung des Programms Managing Global Governance für die Integration in den institutionellen Haushalt des IDOS ab dem Wirtschaftsjahr 2024“. Internal Report. German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS). IDOS. IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 47 MGG (2025b). MGG/PRODIGEES final conference report: Digitalisation towards sustainable development. IDOS. https://blogs.idos-research.de/2025/03/27/mgg-prodigees-final-conferenceexperts-discussed-digitalisation-and-sustainability/ Negi, A., Pérez-Pineda, J. A., & Blankenbach, J. (2020). Sustainability standards and global governance: Experiences of emerging economies. Springer Nature. NeST (Network of Southern Think Tanks). (2025). About NeST. https://southernthinktanks.org/en Plastrik, P., Taylor, M., & Cleveland, J. (2022). Connect > Innovate > Scale up: How networks create systems change: Independently published. Presidency South Africa. (2020). National Policy Development Framework 2020. The Presidency Republic of South Africa. https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/202101/national-policydevelopment-framework-2020.pdf Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229-252. Reiber, T. (2025). Competences for Sustainable Futures. IDOS Website – Training. https://www.idosresearch.de/en/training/#caccordionmanual-1 Reiber, T., & Eberz, I. (2024). The role of training and dialogue formats for transnational cooperation. In S. Grimm & S. Klingebiel (Eds.), Transnational cooperation – An explorative collection (IDOS Discussion Paper 4/2024, pp.62–67). German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS). https://doi.org/10.23661/idp4.2024 Repo, P., & Matschoss, K. (2019). Social innovation for sustainability challenges. Sustainability, 12(1), 319. Schneider, I. (2025). Impact of PRODIGEES: Questions to the PRODIGEES Steering Committee Members. Internal Report. Scott, J. (2012). What is social network analysis? Bloomsbury Academic. Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2020). Social innovation: Specifying pathways for impact. In Research handbook of responsible management (pp. 624-639): Edward Elgar Publishing. Sengupta, S., Singhal, D., & Chakraborty, A. (2025). Local feminist perspectives as transformative levers: Women’s health and climate action in India (IDOS Discussion Paper 8/2025). IDOS. https://doi.org/10.23661/idp8.2025 Seppänen, R., Blomqvist, K., & Sundqvist, S. (2007). Measuring inter-organizational trust – a critical review of the empirical research in 1990–2003. Industrial marketing management, 36(2), 249-265. Soerensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2007). Theories of democratic network governance. Palgrave Macmillan. Tanimoto, K. (2012). The emergent process of social innovation: multi-stakeholders perspective. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development 5, 4(3-4), 267-280. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 547-593. Uzbonn. (2018). MGG Network Tracer Study. (Preand Follow Up Consultation MGG Academy 2018). Available from Umfragezentrum Bonn Preand Follow Up Consultation MGG Academy 2018. Uzbonn. (2018–2022). MGG Network tracer study. (Preand follow up consultation MGG Academy 2018– 2022). Available from Umfragezentrum Bonn. Uzbonn. (2019). MGG Network tracer study. (Preand follow up consultation MGG Academy 2019) (Internal document). Available from Umfragezentrum Bonn. Uzbonn. (2020). MGG Network tracer study. (Preand follow up consultation MGG Academy 2020). (Internal document). Available from Umfragezentrum Bonn. Uzbonn. (2021). MGG Network tracer study. (Preand follow up consultation MGG Academy 2021). (Internal document). Available from Umfragezentrum Bonn. Uzbonn. (2022). MGG Network tracer study. (Preand follow up consultation MGG Academy 2022). (Internal document). Available from Umfragezentrum Bonn. IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 48 Uzbonn. (2024). Ergebnisworkshop. MGG Teilnehmendenbefragung 2023. MGG Folgebefragung 2022. Internal report. Available from Umfragezentrum Bonn. Vähämäki, J., Schmidt, M., & Molander, J. (2011). Review: Results based management in development cooperation. Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, Stockholm. Valters, C. (2022). Theories of change: time for a radical approach to learning in development. ODI Global. Vogel, J. (2021). The transformative capacity of transnational and transdisciplinary networks and the potential of alumni work (IDOS Discussion Paper 24/2021). German Insitute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS). https://doi.org/10.23661/dp24.2021 Vogel, J., & Reiners, W. (2022). How do transnational knowledge networks create impact? (Current Column, 28 November 2022). IDOS. https://www.idos-research.de/en/the-currentcolumn/article/how-do-transnational-knowledge-networks-create-impact/ IDOS Discussion Paper 31/2025 55 Annex 4: Number of MGG publications 2009–2024