Advancing Global Social Change: Systems Approaches to the Role of Nonprofits in Climate Policy

2.1 Engineering: Social Change as Machine

One dominant, if not the dominant, view of achieving change is to envision the collection of actors and policies involved in the climate sphere as a complex system that operates like an elaborate machine. In this view, the relations between elements can be broken down into composite parts with clear causal relations and effects. The causality can be highly complicated, involving several steps and multiple moving parts. But overall, a problem like climate change is imagined as solvable the way we would build a complex operating system through engineering principles. This approach has long been central to the nonprofit sector, particularly considering the historical view of the sector as service-oriented and designed to fulfill social needs unmet by government and the private sector (Hansmann 1980; Weisbrod 1977).

This engineering approach, rooted in general systems thinking, emerged as a dominant strain in sociology, management, and organization theory especially since the 1950s (Jackson 2001). One of the foundational figures of this work, Parsons, was influenced by engineering and the use of automated control systems. Parsons adapted this thinking to compare society to an organism where every part has a clear purpose or function. In functional conceptions, social and political factors are largely absent, they are envisioned simply as necessary and manipulable components for proper machine-link functioning of a system or treated as minor distortions to what otherwise ought to be a rational system.

Functional approaches gained steam in the 1990s as new public management approaches amplified the view of all economic, political and social processes as driven by rational individual decisions. From an engineering perspective, nonprofit activities are often viewed in relation to government. For example, nonprofits contract to provide government services efficiently and use their expertise in particular domains to give feedback and recommendations to government bodies on appropriate policies. Nonprofits are often assumed to emerge to fill a pre-existing and self-evident demand or need in society, filling in for the failures of markets and state (or vice versa) (Hansmann 1980; Salamon 1987; Weisbrod 1977). In public policy, functional views are commonly underpinned by a utilitarian moral ethic that assumes the best (i.e. morally justifiable) option is the one that benefits the greatest number of people (or the average person) (Mulgan 2014).

The environmental policy literature increasingly emphasizes collaborative governance regimes as one key piece of the machinery needed to address environmental issues (Bauer and Steurer 2014; Bodin 2017; Brandtner 2022; Cheng et al 2023; Ostrom 1990). While operating as a functional system, environmental governance is often decentralized with an increasing emphasis on participatory processes (Ostrom 1990; Lemos and Agrawal 2006).^[3] In the case of large-scale environmental issues, such as climate change, individual participation may not be feasible, placing the onus on nonprofit organizations to aggregate public voices and represent individual interests (Heikkila and Gerlak 2005). This also tracks with broader nonprofit literature that describes nonprofits as “mediating structures” and “civic intermediaries” connecting individuals and government (Berger and Neuhaus 1977; LeRoux 2007; Lowry 1995).

As another example, functional roles are widely evident in the climate adaptation and disaster response space. Governments often depend on nonprofit organizations for assistance with disaster relief. In response to the fires that ravaged Lahaina on August 8, 2023, Hawaii Community Foundation, a 501(c) (3) community foundation, in consultation with state and local governments, almost immediately created the Maui Strong Fund to funnel money to nonprofits and other organizations to support recovery (HCF 2024).

In this special issue, Gazley and Cash build on research in this area by exploring whether the nonprofits likely to provide disaster relief in Indiana are engaged in their own planning for climate change. In response to findings that these organizations should focus more attention on planning and risk mitigation, they suggest specific opportunities for doing so. Their research expands on prior work by exploring internal aspects of nonprofits as part of a broader disaster response system.

In sum, an archetype of the engineering view of nonprofit influence in public policy has the following features:

1. Main depiction of change: assumes an underlying machinery that can be technically rational if understood; emphases on rationality, efficiency, effectiveness.

2. Main mechanisms of change: focus on decisions of actors and policies they create; can be driven by market-like competition (especially since 1990s) or rational bureaucratic control.

3. Role of nonprofits in public policy: contracting to implement government policies through service provision; providing input on policy design in domains related to implementation expertise.

4. Key policy focus: measuring and evaluating outcomes; optimizing implementation.

5. Key tools: econometrics, policy analysis and evaluation, cost-benefit analysis, engineering models, experiments and randomized control trials.

2.2 Evolutionary: Social Change as Ecosystem

Like engineering views, an evolutionary view of social change imagines a process that tends towards optimal outcomes. Here, the assumption is that adaptive systems will select the policies, technological advances, structures, and governance schemes that are the best fit for the current environment (for a review, see Porter and Córdoba 2009). In theory, a globe existentially threatened by climate change will come to favor actors and institutions that protect the natural world. However, unlike the policy- and actor-centric nature of functional views, an evolutionary lens only partly attributes change to intentional and rational decisions that may manifest as policies or other phenomena. Instead, idiosyncratic interactions and random variation also play a role, alongside learning about how to adapt to the environment. The key aspect of the system is that greater diversity of alternatives, interactions, and actors will, over time, allow for greater adaptability. The process is thought to parallel species evolution; some individuals learn new skills that allow them to adapt and others experience random genetic variation that end up proving more suited to the context. But it is difficult to determine or predict in advance which adaptations will be most valuable, minimizing the centrality of rational decision-making by specific actors or policies in controlling the success of the system. Overall, homogeneity hinders a system from adapting effectively and heterogeneity promotes success. Instead, system dynamics such as levels of interaction, diversity, and feedback loops shape the outcomes.

The state is fundamental in bringing solutions to scale and creating incentives or requirements to comply with climate-friendly policies, but nonprofits are especially important in catalyzing innovation (Anheier and Toepler 2019), the issue of central importance from an evolutionary view. Frumkin (2002), for example, cites social entrepreneurship as a foundational role of the nonprofit sector in society as it spurs innovation. This approach to social changes emphasizes not only the need for diversity and innovation, but also requires communication across networks to enhance evolutionary processes. Three features of the sector, elaborated below, are key to its role in innovation – it operates outside of government constraints, is buffered from market demands, and facilitates the exchange of ideas. Although these are general features of the sector, the nature of the climate crisis may amplify the role for nonprofit actors in creating novel policies, structures, and solutions, relative to arenas that can be more centrally controlled within national borders such as national health care or education. As discussed at the outset, in the climate domain the problem and interest diversity running from local to global levels makes top-down, highly centralized solutions implausible.

First, relative to government, the nonprofit sector is unconstrained by election cycles, majoritarian demands, and the accountability pressures of using taxpayer funds. Government projects are often pressed towards proven and incremental investments given the large-scale requirements and public accountability processes. Second, nonprofits operate outside the market constraints of businesses, allowing them to tackle problems that are not (and may never be) profitable. Although investment in research on clean energy technology and related fields is increasing, this is long-term, high-risk, and high-regulation work that is not appealing to many firms. And other aspects of climate mitigation and adaptation, such as mitigating harm to poor communities from extreme weather events, may never be profitable. The public and nonprofit sectors have a central role in supporting the creation of new technologies and solutions for adaptation and mitigation that respond to new adaptive challenges (National Science Foundation 2024).

Finally, by facilitating dialogue and the exchange of ideas and by introducing fresh perspectives, nonprofits can enrich the scope of possibilities available in policymaking processes, thereby improving the adaptability of the system. This is particularly so because nonprofits are less restricted than government agencies in their ability to advocate and influence the public and elected officials (Fyall 2016). For example, coal miner’s advocacy groups bring awareness to the importance of a just energy transition that does not disproportionately impact certain industries.

Nonprofit contributions to climate policy run the spectrum from the invention of technical and scientific products in the hard sciences to social innovation around new programs linked to environmental justice. For example, direct innovations range from finding new ways to use advanced nuclear power to meet global energy needs as in the case of TerraPraxis, to the Rainforest Alliance’s work helping small farmers develop “climate smart agriculture” practices (Rainforest Alliance 2021). Nonprofits also design and advocate for innovative policies. In 2023, the State of California enacted laws that require public disclosure of direct, indirect, and supply change greenhouse gas emissions for large firms. Several environmental advocacy groups, including EnviroVoters, Ceres, and Carbon Accountable were key to promoting the legislation, and the reporting mechanism will take place through a nonprofit organization contracted by the state. Or, in recent research, Allan and Hadden (2017) outline the importance of NGO influence in shaping the creation of a “Loss and Damage Fund” as part of the Paris Agreement. The central point, from an evolutionary perspective, is that we don’t yet know which of these innovations – if any – can move the needle on climate change, but solutions are more likely to be found with higher levels of innovation.

While none of the articles in this special issue fall directly under an evolutionary view, we envision numerous promising lines of research, including research examining drivers and obstacles associated with nonprofit innovation, along with the circumstances that support government adoption of nonprofit innovation.^[4]

In sum, as a stylized model the evolutionary view has the following features:

1. Main explanation of change: assumes the global system will evolve in ways that ensure human survival if the set of alternatives is large.

2. Main mechanisms of change: adaptation and selection, especially via random variation and learning; path dependence and feedback loops also create self-organizing features of the system.

3. Role of nonprofits in public policy: create new programs and policies that increase the set of alternatives; communicate options to government and other actors.

4. Key policy focus: increasing and sharing alternatives.

5. Key tools: innovation, entrepreneurship, communication, networking, learning, creativity, diversity.

2.3 Social Constructionist

Unlike the prior two discussions of social change, constructionist approaches are agnostic about whether the system is ultimately technically functional or not. Instead, perceptions and beliefs can fundamentally shape how global systems operate. In the mid-twentieth century, the social sciences experienced a broad interpretive turn, in part in reaction to the rational assumptions of functional thinking. In constructionist views, taken-for-granted assumptions and interpretation are central, focusing on the elements of systems that are created as constructs of observers rather than entities with an objective existence (Berger and Luckmann 1966). It is not enough that a phenomenon, such as climate change, objectively exists in the world. Social actors also need to agree or believe that the phenomenon is a problem that warrants action.^[5] Often, awareness of a problem and perceptions of solutions need to be created. Further, the mechanisms that generate awareness and action are often based on social processes rather than objective reality. For instance, mimicry of peers or high-status actors, following dominant professional norms and moral pressures, or adherence to various regulative pressures often lead to policy diffusion, regardless of objective “need” in a setting (DiMaggio and Powell 1983; Dobbin et al. 2007; Walker 1969). These social processes are expected to be particularly strong under conditions of uncertainty; when functional solutions are not self-evident, actors search externally for guidance on proper action (Meyer and Rowan 1977). Related, policies are often adopted because they are perceived to be legitimate. The legitimacy rationale for policy adoption helps explain commonplace observations of “decoupling”, when actors are unable or unwilling to implement adopted policies (Bromley and Powell 2012; Meyer and Rowan 1977).

The twentieth century saw a sweeping global emergence of environmentalism (Frank et al. 2000; Meyer et al. 1997). The perception of environmental problems has been actively constructed, led by experts like scientists, the media, and the professionals working in nonprofits (Cooley 2023; Hironaka 2014). Changed perceptions of environmental issues as problems to be actively solved provide an ontological foundation for climate policy. Many nonprofits play a key role in this work by seeking to raise awareness and educate the public about climate change and related issues such as deforestation and social justice. For example, one notable group, Action for the Climate Emergency, has educated over 25 million U.S. high school students through its teaching resource “Our Climate Our Future” (Action for the Climate Emergency 2023). Related, Bies et al. (2013) documented a complex relationship between nonprofit organizations and individual level concern for the climate. Citizens are shaped less by their membership in organizations, and more by their trust in environmental groups. Overall, when climate risk is not immediately apparent, communities may not yet be considering or prioritizing it (Pouliotte et al. 2009).

It is not only problems that are constructed, but also solutions, and the connection between the two. Organizational and public administration scholars have widely noted the weak connection between problems and solutions. Behavioral theories of organization describe how decision-making is akin to a “garbage can” where problems and solutions are tossed into a shared space and brought together by virtue of their joint availability at that moment more than due to purely functional assessments (Cohen et al. 1972). Kingdon’s (1995) “multiple streams” theory in public policy also partly shares the bounded rationality assumptions of the garbage can model and adds the assumption that policy entrepreneurs intentionally draw attention to problems and work to couple problems with policy solutions.

In the environmental realm, constructing the definition of the problem and solution is no small matter. That is, environmental issues are sometimes not immediately recognized by local communities as self-evident crises or are (often understandably) considered less important than other fundamental needs. Research on framing practices (Dodge 2015) and climate politics (Mullin 2022) thus become critical. Nonprofits indirectly – but fundamentally – shape policy by helping to construct attitudes, beliefs, values, and norms about legitimate problems and solutions.

Two articles in this special issue address these points. Zuhlke and Katz link the presence of nonprofit land trust organizations with local agenda setting. They find that land trusts may use temperature anomalies to persuade local governments to consider conservation measures, shaping awareness of the issue. As such, not only do they examine an understudied organization type, but they also illuminate a concrete example of nonprofits working to construct solutions by linking climate phenomena with policy changes. Next, Sun demonstrates that the presence of advocacy-oriented ENPOs within a county is positively correlated, to a point, with public concern about climate change. However, there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between the two, pointing to the fact that public concern does not automatically translate into organized environmental activism.

In sum, the social constructionist approach has the following features:

1. Main explanation of change: actors’ norms, values, and taken-for-granted assumptions about appropriate roles and actions; agnostic on whether system is functional, although in modern era actors often hold beliefs about its technical rationality.

2. Main mechanism of change: peer and status influences; bandwagoning as more or high status actors adopt or abandon policies; exogenous shocks can create initial change.

3. Key policy focus: process, pluralism.

4. Key tools: understanding meanings and multiple perspectives, self-awareness and reflection, active listening and observation of others, deliberation, raising awareness, empathy, framing, consensus building.

2.4 (Critical) Realist: Social Change as Battle

Like social constructionist approaches, critical realist approaches also do not harbor assumptions about the technical rationality of systems. Realist views represent a policy- and actor-centric approach, viewing the system as a compilation of the policies and actors within it organized by power, resources, and interests. But it is the outcome of struggles over power and resources that determine the nature of the system, rather than whether a particular policy or action is ultimately beneficial for the overall system or not. From the view of its proponents, critical realism responds to the more extreme views of functionalism and constructivism, asserting that while knowledge (epistemology) is subject to interpretation, there is an underlying reality (ontology) that makes some interpretations better than others (Bhaskar 1975; Owens 2011). The thrust of critical realism is its emphasis on causal processes and “aim to discover the structures, powers, propensities, and liabilities of the unobservable and currently unobserved forces” (Ongaro and Yang 2024, 6).

Across the spectrum of their work, nonprofits both reinforce and counteract the dominant power and resource structures. An important critique of nonprofits in the climate policy space is that they reinforce existing systems by representing and amplifying wealthy White voices. Indeed, these were the concerns that helped give rise to the environmental justice movement, which began, by most counts, in 1982 in North Carolina and continues today (Cole and Foster 2001; McGurty 2000). Grassroots groups organized not only to combat oppressive government policies, but also to draw attention to the racist and unjust structures that exist within the mainstream environmental and conservation movements (Bullard et al. 2008; Cole and Foster 2001). But counter-activism aimed at undercutting climate science is also increasingly common; foundations and other nonprofit actors are important actors in a growing anti-environmental movement (Brulle 2014, 2023; Brulle et al. 2021).

There are several ways in which nonprofit organizations might challenge dominant systems and influence climate policy. First, a common distinction drawn in policy, political science, and nonprofit literatures is between inside and outside tactics (Gais and Walker 1991; see also Mosley et al. 2023), where outside tactics, such as protests and rallies, leverage the public to pressure decision makers, rather than work within the rules of agencies or legislatures. Related nonprofit activities also include training citizen advocates and serving as “schools of democracy” (Clemens 2006; Dodge and Ospina 2016), or working to change institutions and government compositions through political advocacy, such as by 501(c) (4) organizations.

Nonprofit organizations also commonly challenge dominant systems through judicial advocacy. Either through the Administrative Procedure Act or through the many citizen suit provisions that exist in environmental laws such as the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, nonprofits often bring lawsuits to enforce environmental laws where governments have failed to do so (Smith 2004). Sometimes viewed as an outside tactic for its ability to force the hands of legislators and regulators, judicial advocacy occurs when nonprofits sue government agencies to force them to take action or challenge actions they have taken. Much as courts have been pivotal in shaping civil rights, courts have made similar impacts in environmental cases. For example, in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Even where nonprofits have not been successful, their efforts may bring attention to and raise awareness around critical issues.

As Ovalle, Bixler, and Ma show in this special issue, power matters. Elitism continues to play a role in financing environmental nonprofits in Texas, where ENPOs with higher assets are more likely to receive foundation funding. Perhaps also supporting a functional engineering view, though, foundation funding is more likely to flow to nonprofits in areas with higher environmental risks.

In sum, the realist and critical realist views have the following features:

1. Main explanation of change: actors’ power, resources, and self-interest dictate the direction of the system; only some actors define their interests as aligning with climate protection.

2. Main mechanism of change: coercion and group conflict and competition, e.g. often along lines of wealth, class, race, ethnicity, gender, sex, citizenship status, religion.

3. Nature of nonprofit influence on policy: nonprofits are a vehicle for pressuring government to align with group interests (e.g. to protect the environment, or to protect anti-environment interests).

4. Key policy focus: interests and incentives.

5. Key tools: strategy, alliances, social movements and tactics, policy advocacy, protests.