IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/polsoc/v44y2025i3p318-334..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The divide in the EU green taxonomy: how conflict impacts the quality of policy advisory systems

Author

Listed:
  • Edoardo Esposto
  • Tiziana Nupieri

Abstract

The second wave of research on Policy Advisory Systems (PAS) dynamics has induced scholars to rethink the received knowledge about the insider–outsider and technical–political divides in policy advice, leading to more nuanced descriptions of PAS configurations. The long-term structural change of PAS has been the focus of this research agenda. In contrast, a research gap exists in analyzing the role of disagreement and conflict in shaping the configuration of advisory systems and their interactions with policymakers. We analyze a case of conflict in the policy advisory system supporting the European Commission in defining the EU Green Taxonomy, i.e., the classification of economic activities that underpins the new EU regulation of public and private sustainable investments. The dynamic effect of conflict is particularly evident in the case of the EU Green Taxonomy, where opposing values and interests have shaped the advisory process, raising questions about how policymakers navigate and utilize contested advice. Our findings contribute to understanding the relationship between pluralistic and conflictual advisory systems and government management of PAS.

Suggested Citation

  • Edoardo Esposto & Tiziana Nupieri, 2025. "The divide in the EU green taxonomy: how conflict impacts the quality of policy advisory systems," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 44(3), pages 318-334.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:polsoc:v:44:y:2025:i:3:p:318-334.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/polsoc/puaf007
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:polsoc:v:44:y:2025:i:3:p:318-334.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/policyandsociety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.