Yijuan Jiao
Zhicang Huang
Hongrong Du2
Mou Leong Tan- 1Institute of International and Regional Studies, School of International Studies, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai, China
- 2GeoInformatic Unit, Geography Section, School of Humanities, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
- 3School of Civil Engineering, Sun Yat-Sen University, Zhuhai, China
- 4Environmental and Atmospheric Sciences Research Group, Scientific Research Center, Al-Ayen University, Nasiriyah, Iraq
Introduction: As global climate action accelerates, there is a growing need for systematic evidence on the roles of Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (ENGOs) in climate governance and the factors shaping their participation. Although ENGOs are widely recognized as key non-state actors, the existing literature remains fragmented, with limited integrative analysis of how their roles are evolving across different governance levels and policy contexts.
Methods: This study conducts a systematic literature review following the PRISMA framework, examining 36 peer-reviewed articles published between 2015 and 2025 and retrieved from the Web of Science and Scopus databases. Bibliometric analysis using Bibliometrix and VOSviewer is combined with inductive content analysis to identify dominant research trends, key influencing factors, and evolving governance roles of ENGOs.
Results: The review identifies five primary factors shaping ENGO participation in global climate governance: institutional and policy environments, resource and financial support, scientific and technical capacity, social networks and alliances, and public participation and legitimacy. Influenced by these factors, ENGOs are transitioning from traditional roles focused on service delivery and advocacy toward strategic policy coordination, the provision of technical and digital governance support, the construction of decentralized governance networks, engagement with economic mechanisms, and an increased emphasis on climate justice. The literature further highlights a growing reliance on digital tools and transnational partnerships, alongside persistent regional imbalances, with research and governance influence concentrated in Europe and North America.
Discussion: These findings indicate that ENGOs are increasingly functioning as system integrators within polycentric climate governance structures. However, enduring challenges remain, including North–South disparities, tensions between global coordination and local accountability, and uncertainties regarding appropriate governance scales. Future research should prioritize comparative, multi-level, and cross-regional analyses, and strengthen capacity-building and collaboration in the Global South to enhance the effectiveness and equity of ENGO contributions to global climate governance.
1 Introduction
Global climate change is among the most complex and urgent challenges of the twenty-first century. As climate impacts intensify, states have adopted diverse measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions and advance the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Climate change is not a new issue, but its multidimensional nature makes it exceptionally difficult to govern (Prokopy et al., 2015). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) highlights the importance of public participation and explicitly recognizes contributions from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including in education, training, and public awareness (Protocol, 1997; Haris et al., 2020). Given that the UNFCCC institutional framework explicitly encourages the participation of non-state actors, ENGOs, due to their professionalism and network advantages, have become a key hub connecting the public, the market and the policy process.
Environmental NGOs (ENGOs) are non-profit, non-state entities that undertake environmental protection activities guided by organizational charters; they typically mobilize volunteers and rely on donations and support from governments and aid agencies (Werker and Ahmed, 2008). They are governed by their organizational charter when carrying out environmental activities. Their activities are based on volunteer services and their funding mainly comes from public donations and other institutions such as national governments and international aid agencies (Werker and Ahmed, 2008). In climate politics, ENGOs inform public debate by generating knowledge and awareness (McGregor et al., 2018), promote public participation (Szarka, 2014), and enhance public support for climate change policies (Bernauer et al., 2016). Some scholars have conducted a systematic literature review on the climate change governance activities of ENGOs in Southeast Asia (Haris et al., 2020). This review points out that Southeast Asian ENGOs are directly or indirectly involved in climate change governance and are important participants in the implementation of climate change policies. Some reviews explored the role of NGOs in climate change governance, aiming to understand the contribution of NGOs to climate change governance at the national level (Haris et al., 2021). For instance, in China, ENGOs like the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs (IPE) have leveraged digital platforms to monitor corporate carbon emissions, illustrating how ENGOs are transitioning from watchdogs to governance partners.
Historically, international ENGOs expanded their resources and visibility alongside the rise of environmentalism since the 1970s (Green and Hadden, 2021). The Paris Agreement further institutionalized the participation of non-state actors through voluntary collaborations. Many international ENGOs have been especially active in these “Paris Partnerships,” working with multinational firms on emissions reduction and decarbonization (Green, 2024). With the agreement’s implementation and the growing wave of national mitigation commitments, global attention to climate governance has surged (Meckling and Allan, 2020). Within this evolving architecture, ENGOs owing to their flexibility, expertise, and transnational networks have assumed increasingly prominent roles. Yet, systematic understanding of their participation mechanisms, the determinants of their roles, and likely future trajectories remains limited, particularly in rapidly changing policy environments and economy-wide decarbonization agendas (Zhang and Bai, 2023; Wang et al., 2024).
A growing body of research frames ENGOs as vital complements to state-led action through transnational networks, while emphasizing that their agency varies across contexts and governance venues (Betsill and Corell, 2008; Bulkeley, 2014; Nasiritousi et al., 2016). Recent work suggests that ENGOs are evolving from peripheral advocates into influential system integrators within polycentric governance, coordinating across levels and sectors (Betsill and Corell, 2008; King et al., 2020; Giese, 2017; Sénit, 2020). In addition, several emerging frontiers are reshaping ENGO roles, including climate litigation, digital activism, subnational/decentralized climate governance, decentralized climate finance, and climate migration. Meanwhile, advances in social media, remote sensing, and open data have strengthened evidence production and cross-scale coordination, accelerating ENGOs’ transition from advocates to system integrators. Building on these insights, this study conducts a systematic literature review (SLR), complemented by bibliometric analysis, to synthesize the evolving roles of ENGOs and the factors shaping them under contemporary decarbonization pathways.
This study pursues three research questions:
1. What are the key factors influencing ENGO participation in global climate governance?
2. How are the roles of ENGOs evolving in response to these factors?
3. What strategies can enhance ENGO effectiveness and equity in global climate governance?
It is important to note that the primary aim of this research is to synthesize existing knowledge and identify overarching patterns and relationships within literature, rather than to test pre-defined hypotheses. This inductive, review-based approach is particularly well-suited for mapping an emerging and complex field of study, allowing for the exploration of key themes such as the evolving roles of ENGOs and the factors influencing them as they are presented and discussed across the body of academic work.
In addition, several emerging frontiers are reshaping ENGO roles, including climate litigation, digital activism, subnational/decentralized climate governance, decentralized climate finance, and climate migration. Meanwhile, advances in social media, remote sensing, and open data have strengthened evidence production and cross-scale coordination, accelerating ENGOs’ transition from advocates to system integrators. We incorporate these themes into our role framework and discussion sections.
Finally, this review foregrounds the global south, where research coverage and capacity remain comparatively limited. Addressing persistent north–south disparities is essential for fair and effective climate action. By clarifying role mechanisms and influencing factors, and by situating ENGOs within current decarbonization agendas, this review provides a theoretically grounded and practically oriented synthesis for scholars and policymakers alike. While the role of ENGOs in climate governance has attracted increasing attention, research remains relatively limited regarding their specific mechanisms of influence and impact pathways. This study seeks to fill that gap by providing both theoretical insights into the evolving role of ENGOs and practical guidance for policy formulation, thereby contributing meaningfully to both academic discourse and real-world climate governance practices.
2 Materials and methods
This study employs the SLR methodology, following PRISMA guidelines, to identify relevant publications from the Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus databases. A total of 36 core documents were selected and analyzed using R Studio and VOSviewer to elucidate the central role of ENGOs in global climate governance. The analysis identifies key factors influencing ENGO participation and projects their potential future roles in the field. In addition to quantitatively synthesizing existing research, the study uses bibliometric mapping to highlight research hotspots and evolving thematic patterns. This mixed-methods approach not only ensures the methodological rigor of the review but also enables a deeper qualitative exploration of the literature’s content.
2.1 Literature screening procedures
Planning is a critical step in the systematic evaluation process; it ensures that evaluations are well-organized and that all procedures are clearly documented before the study begins. This promotes consistency among the evaluation team, enhances accountability, preserves the integrity of the study, and ensures transparency in the final results (Moher et al., 2015). Following this principle, the present study was designed with explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria, focusing specifically on literature published between 2015 and 2025, to ensure the relevance and timeliness of the analysis. It also clarifies the rationale for the evaluation techniques used, including the definition of study boundaries. These boundaries were established to support a systematic analysis of the role of ENGOs in global climate governance. The SLR conducted in this study followed the five-stage assessment process outlined by Pawson et al. (2005), as shown in Figure 1. The specific steps include:
1. Clarifying the research question by identifying the key factors influencing ENGOs and their emerging roles in global climate governance;
2. Screening the literature to include only publications directly related to ENGO engagement;
3. Assessing the quality of the selected literature to ensure academic rigor and practical relevance;
4. Synthesizing and analyzing the findings to extract the key influencing factors and roles of ENGOs;
5. Establishing a structured analytical framework, thereby ensuring a scientific and systematic approach to the study.
Figure 1. The process of systematic literature review (Pawson et al., 2005).
To enhance transparency and reporting quality, the findings of this SLR are presented using a flowchart in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. These guidelines outline a minimum set of reporting standards to ensure the completeness and verifiability of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Page et al., 2021). In this study, the PRISMA process was applied to identify, screen, and assess the quality of literature related to ENGOs’ engagement in climate governance. Based on this process, the study systematically analyzes the roles, strategies, and contributions of ENGOs in global climate governance.
The analytical framework for identifying ENGO roles and influencing factors was developed iteratively during the content analysis phase. Initially, we extracted all relevant descriptions of ENGO activities and contextual factors from the 36 articles. Through multiple rounds of coding and thematic synthesis, we identified recurring patterns and themes, which were then categorized into the five key factors and five evolving roles presented in the results. This inductive approach ensured that the framework was grounded in the literature rather than based on a priori assumptions.
2.2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria
The inclusion and exclusion criteria were formulated to be directly aligned with the research objectives of this study. Our goal was to identify literature that explicitly or implicitly addresses the factors influencing ENGO effectiveness and/or the specific roles ENGOs play in global climate governance. Therefore, this study focuses on analyzing the key factors and roles of ENGOs in global climate governance by including literature that specifically examines their roles, strategies, and impacts in this context. To ensure academic rigor and thematic relevance, non-peer-reviewed articles and studies unrelated to NGOs’ involvement in climate governance were excluded. An initial screening was conducted by reviewing the abstracts of journal articles to filter out irrelevant literature, thereby enhancing research efficiency and saving time (Karunarathna et al., 2024). This method facilitated the exclusion of materials that did not align with the study’s objectives. The detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Criteria for inclusion and exclusion.
2.3 Search strategy
This study focuses on “NGO participation in global climate governance” as its core theme and conducts a SLR using two authoritative databases: WOS and Scopus (Moral-Muñoz et al., 2020). To ensure both the comprehensiveness and relevance of the search results, the study adopts a scientifically constructed keyword framework and a multi-level screening strategy to gradually filter and identify high-quality core literature. This provides a solid foundation for analyzing the key factors and roles of NGOs in global climate governance.
In constructing the keyword strategy, the study considers the diversity of terminology used in the fields of NGOs and climate governance. Three groups of core keywords are identified, supplemented by a set of restrictive terms. The first group highlights the diverse organizational forms and functions of NGOs in global governance, including terms such as “non-governmental organization,” “NGO,” and “international organization.” These aim to capture the various dimensions of NGO participation. The second group focuses on the core theme of climate governance, using keywords such as “climate governance,” “global climate governance,” and “climate policy,” to reflect different aspects of NGO involvement in climate-related activities. The third group includes terms such as “determinant,” “factor,” and “barrier,” to emphasize the study’s focus on identifying key drivers, constraints, and roles associated with NGO engagement.
These keyword groups were combined using Boolean logic operators to construct a precise and comprehensive search strategy, maximizing the retrieval of relevant literature for analysis. During the search process, this study adopted the “interactive query formulation” strategy proposed by Morales et al. (2021), which involves gradually refining the keyword set through iterative searches and dynamically integrating keyword frequency data to enhance relevance. Specifically, the search equation utilized Boolean operators (“OR” and “AND”) for targeted selection of documents, truncation symbols (*) to include both singular and plural word forms, and quotation marks (“ ”) to preserve the integrity of specific phrases. The final search equation is defined as follows:
(“International organi?ation*” OR “Intergovernmental organi?ation*” OR “IGO” OR “Non-governmental organi?ation*” OR “NGO” OR “Transnational organi?ation*”OR “Multilateral organization*”) AND (“Climate cooperation” OR “Climate governance” OR “Climate policy” OR “Environmental cooperation” OR “Global climate governance”OR “Climate action” OR “Carbon governance” OR “Sustainability governance”) AND (“Determinant*” OR “Factor*” OR “role*”OR “Driver*” OR “Barrier*” OR “Enabler*” OR “Mechanism*”)
The design of the above search equation ensured a scientific and systematic approach to the literature search. It not only captured the diverse roles and practices of NGOs in global climate governance but also highlighted key analytical dimensions, such as influencing factors and potential roles. This strategy enabled the study to effectively filter highly relevant core literature from a large volume of sources, providing a solid foundation for the subsequent systematic analysis.
2.4 Tools and software
Previous studies have explored climate change and sustainable development using bibliometric and systematic evaluation methods. For example, Hassan et al. (2014) assessed the research activities of various countries and institutions in the field of sustainable development between 2000 and 2010 using a bibliometric approach based on the Scopus database. Sharifi et al. (2021) analyzed interactions between climate change and adverse peace events from 1990 to 2020 using WOS data. Haunschild et al. (2016) conducted an econometric analysis of climate change literature from 1980 to 2014, combining WOS and VOSviewer. Fu and Waltman, (2022) studied the environmental impacts of climate change between 2001 and 2014 using WOS and VOSviewer, and examined the use of terminology in climate change research from 2001 to 2018. Vatananan-Thesenvitz et al. (2019) eviewed the literature on sustainable development and innovation from 1985 to 2019 using Scopus and VOSviewer. Meanwhile, Meschede (2020) analyzed publications directly addressing the SDGs from 2015 to 2019 using the WOS Core Collection and VOSviewer. These studies provide valuable methodological references for the present study, confirming the applicability of bibliometric tools in analyzing climate-related topics.
A variety of software tools are available to support bibliometric analysis in contemporary academic research, including VOSviewer (Eck and Waltman, 2009), CiteSpace (Cui et al., 2018), Gephi (Boyack and Klavans, 2010), HistCite (Garfield, 2009), Pajek (Mrvar and Batagelj, 2016), Sci2 Tool (Lewis and and Alpi, 2017), Publish or Perish (Jacsó, 2009), and UCINet (Huang et al., 2020). However, a common limitation of these tools is their lack of comprehensive and systematic workflows that fully support scholars’ research needs. To address this gap, the Bibliometrix toolkit in R has emerged as a valuable resource (Oyewola and Dada, 2022). It combines powerful statistical algorithms, high-quality numerical routines, and integrated data visualization in an open-source environment, offering customized support for quantitative research in bibliometrics and scientometrics (Aria and Cuccurullo, 2017).
This study employed a combination of software tools to ensure systematic and rigorous data collection, processing, analysis, and visualization, ultimately providing insights into the key factors and roles of ENGOs in global climate governance. First, Zotero was used to efficiently manage and screen literature, supporting collection, organization, and citation to ensure standardization and traceability of data sources. Second, the Bibliometrix package was used to perform bibliometric analyses, including author collaboration networks, keyword co-occurrence, and the dynamic evolution of research hotspots, thereby revealing the academic landscape of NGO-related climate governance research. This collaborative, multi-tool workflow enhances both the rigor and clarity of the study’s results. The analyses were conducted using the RStudio Bibliometrix function, VOSviewer, and Microsoft Excel.
Additionally, VOSviewer was utilized to generate knowledge maps and to identify the research roles, core themes, and key influencing factors of NGOs’ participation in global climate governance through co-occurrence, co-citation, and institutional collaboration network analyses. To ensure data accuracy and enhance the visual presentation of results, Excel was used for data cleaning, classification, and basic statistical analysis. Through the integrated use of Zotero, Bibliometrix, VOSviewer, and Excel, this study systematically identified research hotspots, development roles, and key influencing factors related to ENGOs in climate governance, laying a solid empirical foundation for further analysis. This multi-tool, collaborative workflow enhances both the scientific quality and the visual comprehensiveness of the study’s results.
2.5 Analytical framework and variable operationalization
To ensure a systematic and transparent analysis addressing the research questions, This study takes institutional theory, resource dependence and network governance as theoretical perspectives. we developed an analytical framework that operationalizes the core constructs under investigation. The framework defines the evolving roles of ENGOs as the dependent variable, conceptualized through five strategic roles identified in the literature:
1. Shifting from service provision to policy coordination
2. Providing technical support and digital governance
3. Constructing networked and decentralized governance models
4. Strengthening integration with economic activities
5. Deepening the intersection of climate justice and social issues
Concurrently, we identified five key influencing factors as independent variables:
1. Institutional and policy environment
2. Resources and financial support
3. Scientific and technical capacity
4. Social networks and alliances
5. Public participation and legitimacy
They are operationalized and measured through a systematic coding process based on specific indicators derived from the literature itself. For example, the institutional environment is measured by explicit mentions of policies, regulations, and political openness within the articles. To reduce researcher bias, we conducted two rounds of iteration after forming the initial codebook: two authors independently coded 36 articles and calculated the consistency; if the disagreement was greater than level 1, they discussed with the third author to reach a consensus; then, borderline cases were reviewed for ambiguous items such as ‘policy coordination/digital governance’. For a comprehensive overview of the operationalization and measurement of these factors, as well as the evolving roles of ENGOs, please refer to the detailed coding scheme provided in Supplementary Table A1. These categories are used to trace how influencing factors relate to five evolving ENGO roles and to summarize cross-cutting patterns and mechanisms. This review identifies five key factors and five evolving roles that characterize ENGO engagement in climate governance, highlighting a shift from service provision to policy coordination. A detailed coding scheme was developed based on these operational definitions (Supplementary Table A1). We independently coded all 36 articles for the presence (Yes/Partial/No) of each variable, with discrepancies resolved through discussion to ensure consistency. The results of this coding are synthesized in Supplementary Tables A2 and A3.
2.6 Literature search
To systematically analyze the key factors and roles of ENGOs in global climate governance, this study relied on two authoritative databases: WOS and Scopus (Farooq, 2022). Based on the constructed search strategy, the literature search was conducted on 13 February 2025, across both databases. The time frame was limited to publications from 2015 to 2025 to ensure the timeliness and relevance of the research. The initial search retrieved 71 relevant documents from WOS and 93 from Scopus. To enhance the quality and topical relevance of the selected literature, a multi-stage screening process was implemented, considering factors such as publication date, language, and document type. First, the search results were restricted to publications from 2015 onward, focusing on research progress over the past decade. This step reduced the WOS results to 60 articles and Scopus results to 74. Second, the language was limited to English to ensure consistency in analysis, further narrowing the WOS results to 59 articles, while the Scopus count remained unchanged. Lastly, the document types were confined to peer-reviewed journal articles and review papers, excluding non-core publications such as conference proceedings. After this final filter, 58 articles remained in WOS and 64 in Scopus. This screening process ensured that the selected literature was both high in quality and directly relevant to the research objectives, establishing a solid foundation for subsequent analysis.
Based on the preliminary screening, the results from the two databases were combined, yielding a total of 122 articles. To prevent duplication from affecting the analysis, a de-duplication strategy was applied, removing 45 duplicate entries based on title, author, and DOI, resulting in 77 unique articles. A second round of screening was then conducted, during which 41 articles were excluded after closely reading the abstracts and assessing the research fields, as they were not directly related to NGOs’ participation in global climate governance. This process led to the identification of 36 core articles. These selected papers specifically examine the roles and impacts of NGOs in climate governance, covering areas such as policy advocacy, transnational cooperation, social mobilization, and governance mechanisms. The entire search and selection process adhered to the principles of a systematic literature review, from keyword construction to multi-dimensional screening, ensuring both the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the final results.
Figure 2 shows the 36 core documents identified according to the PRISMA guidelines provide important support for the subsequent analysis. These papers systematically reflect the progress of ENGOs research in global climate governance, including key aspects such as promoting climate policy, identifying governance barriers, and facilitating international cooperation, and reveal the possibility of future roles. The next step is to read and categorize the literature, extract the core findings, deeply analyze the drivers, barriers and mechanisms of ENGOs, and construct a theoretical framework based on key influencing factors and governance performance. Through scientific search and rigorous screening, this study provides a solid foundation for understanding the role of ENGOs in global climate governance, and an important reference for relevant policy making and academic research.
Figure 2. The methodology of this research followed the PRISMA guidelines.
3 Results
This section presents a comprehensive analysis of the evolving roles, collaboration patterns, and thematic developments of ENGOs’ engagement in global climate governance from 2015 to 2025. By examining annual role trends, author contributions, cluster analyses, international collaboration networks, citation patterns, keyword co-occurrences, and key influencing factors, the study provides a detailed overview of the current landscape and emerging directions in this dynamic field. The subsequent analysis further refines these dimensions, highlights key findings and their implications for future research, and offers systematic insights to deepen the understanding of ENGOs’ roles in global climate governance.
3.1 Development overview
Figure 3 illustrates research on the participation of NGOs in global climate governance has exhibited a rapid growth trend from 2015 to 2024, with an average annual growth rate of 25.99%. This reflects a significant increase in academic attention to the topic. Although the total number of publications remains relatively modest at 36, the research demonstrates strong academic impact, with an average of 15.22 citations per paper, underscoring its importance in policy studies and international climate cooperation. This citation rate is notably higher than the average observed in broader climate change governance literature. For instance, a comprehensive bibliometric study of climate change research between 1980 and 2014 reported an average of approximately 10.5 citations per article (Haunschild et al., 2016). The relatively higher impact of the literature focused specifically on ENGOs underscores the academic significance and growing interest in this niche within the wider field of climate governance.
Figure 3. Overview of key information on NGO participation in global climate governance, generated using the Bibliometrix function in RStudio.
Collaboration is a prominent feature of this field, with an average of 3.22 authors per paper. Single-authored studies account for only seven publications, highlighting the complexity and interdisciplinary nature of the subject matter. Furthermore, the international co-authorship rate stands at 33.33%. While this indicates some degree of globalization in NGO-related research, it also suggests room for improvement compared to other areas of global governance scholarship.
In terms of research content, a total of 157 unique author keywords were identified, illustrating the broad scope of topics addressed, including policy instruments, NGO impact assessments, international cooperation mechanisms, and carbon markets. However, this diversity may also indicate a lack of concentrated focus on core themes. The average age of the literature is 4.42 years, pointing to a relatively rapid pace of knowledge renewal and a close alignment with evolving policies and practices in global climate governance. Nevertheless, this analysis does not delve into the specifics of the cited literature, limiting deeper insights into research impact networks.
Overall, the field is in a phase of rapid development, with considerable academic and policy relevance. Future research should aim to strengthen international collaboration, deepen regional case studies, and systematically integrate highly cited works with key thematic keywords to elucidate the primary influence mechanisms and long-term roles of NGOs in global climate governance.
3.2 Annual development roles
Figure 4 shows that research on ENGOs’ participation in global climate governance from 2015 to 2024 has undergone three key developmental stages. The early exploration phase (2015–2016) was marked by limited academic attention and fragmented discussions. In 2017, there was a brief surge in publications, possibly driven by policy milestones such as the entry into force of the Paris Agreement; however, subsequent fluctuations indicate that the field had not yet stabilized. From 2018 to 2022, research showed steady growth, signaling a gradual transition into a more systematic development stage, characterized by theoretical accumulation and the expansion of case studies. Between 2022 and 2024, the number of studies increased rapidly, reaching an all-time high in 2024. This surge reflects the influence of multiple factors, the deepening of international climate policy, and the rising prominence of ENGOs. Collectively, these trends suggest that systematic research on this topic has entered an explosive growth phase, driven by the convergence of these dynamic forces.
Figure 4. Annual development roles of ENGOs participation in global climate governance.
Figure 5 illustrates the temporal evolution of popular research topics reveals a clear shift in focus regarding NGO participation in global climate governance from broad governance and policy discussions to more refined and institutionalized themes. Early studies (2015–2017) primarily emphasized macro-level concepts such as “comprehensive” governance and “governments,” reflecting an initial interest in the general roles of NGOs. Between 2018 and 2020, research deepened, with emerging keywords such as “policies,” “adaptation,” and “accountability,” indicating an increasing academic focus on NGOs’ involvement in specific policy implementation, adaptive governance, and accountability mechanisms.
Figure 5. Thematic evolution of ENGOs research from 2015 to 2025, generated using the Bibliometrix function in RStudio.
In more recent years, terms like “mitigation,” “carbon,” and “energy” have become more prominent, underscoring NGOs’ critical roles in promoting carbon neutrality and facilitating energy transitions aligned. Concurrently, the frequent appearance of keywords such as “international,” “governance,” and “action” reflects a growing academic interest in global environmental governance and a shift from policy-level analysis to broader investigations of international cooperation and practical implementation efforts.
Overall, the research focus in this field is moving from macro-level frameworks toward more detailed examinations of micro-level governance mechanisms, gradually forming a systematic and practice-oriented body of work influenced by the international climate agenda and objectives. Future studies could further investigate NGOs’ operational strategies, innovation in policy instruments, and their synergistic roles within the global multi-level governance system.
3.3 Cluster analysis of global climate governance
Based on the coupled clustering analysis, as shown in Figure 6, the keyword co-occurrence network reveals the research hotspots and the complex knowledge structure within the field of climate governance. Overall, the research primarily centers on themes such as “governance,” “politics,” “policy,” “impact,” and “organizations,” indicating that scholars are particularly concerned with power structures, policy implementation, the roles of non-state actors, and the socio-economic impacts of global climate governance.
Figure 6. Key research hotspots network visualization from VOSviewer.
The strong connection between “governance” and “politics” highlights the critical roles of policymaking, transparency, and power dynamics within the climate agenda. Meanwhile, the association between “organizations” and “legitimacy” underscores the influence of non-state actors, such as international organizations and ENGOs in shaping socio-economic outcomes. Furthermore, the linkage of “impact” with terms like “climate change,” “adaptation,” and “health” suggests that the scope of research has extended beyond environmental issues to include socio-economic adaptation and policy impact assessments. The highly interconnected nature of the network and the diversity of interdisciplinary topics reflect the comprehensive and multifaceted nature of climate governance research. They also point to an urgent need for enhanced international policy coordination, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and the strengthening of societal adaptive capacities. Therefore, future research should further explore the effectiveness of policy instruments, the feasibility of innovative governance mechanisms, and the interactions between local and global climate actions, in order to foster a more inclusive and sustainable climate governance system.
3.4 The bibliographic coupling relationships among countries
Figure 7 illustrates the bibliographic coupling relationships among countries in academic research, illustrating the extent to which they draw on similar bodies of literature. Countries such as the United Kingdom, United States, the Netherlands, Germany, Australia, and Canada stand at the core of this network, reflecting their strong academic influence and extensive sharing of literature in climate change, energy policy, and related fields. Their centrality highlights both the leading role of developed nations and the importance of international collaboration in advancing scholarly progress. At the same time, the concentration of research influence within a relatively small group of countries indicates that current understandings of ENGOs and climate governance may be disproportionately shaped by perspectives and institutional contexts of the Global North. This imbalance may limit the conceptual diversity of the field.
Figure 7. Bibliographic coupling of countries in ENGOs research from VOSviewer.
Encouragingly, developing countries such as Nigeria, Malaysia, and Ghana are gradually establishing collaborative networks, signaling a growing diversification in global academic participation. The differently colored connecting lines in Figure 7 likely represent various forms of academic partnerships, regional, intercontinental, or interdisciplinary. This bibliographic coupling analysis provides valuable insights into the structure of global academic networks and offers guidance for fostering deeper and more inclusive international collaboration.
3.5 Keyword co-occurrence analysis
Figure 8 illustrates the keyword co-occurrence network and clarifies the thematic structure of global climate governance research. The visualization shows that governance, climate change, policy, impacts, and international organizations form a central cluster, indicating that academic attention is largely directed toward institutional arrangements, policy processes, and global coordination mechanisms. Within this governance-centric structure, NGOs appear as an embedded component rather than a distinct thematic focus. Their position in the network reflects how existing research views NGOs, as actors operating within broader governance processes, particularly in relation to participation, legitimacy, and transnational cooperation. This structural pattern reinforces the idea that NGOs are integrated into, rather than separate from, the institutional and policy-oriented discussions that dominate global climate governance. Beyond the governance core, the network reveals several coherent thematic clusters that align with contemporary climate governance debates. One cluster highlights the growing intersection between climate governance and technological pathways, linking terms such as bioenergy production, carbon emissions science, and electricity. Another cluster emphasizes regional governance arrangements, where ASEAN–China, ASEAN–Japan, and ASEAN–Korea emerge as key nodes, reflecting Asia’s increasing focus on transregional coordination and institutional experimentation. Additional clusters related to sustainability, health, life cycle assessment, and resource management further illustrate the multi-sectoral nature of climate governance research. Together, these clusters demonstrate that discussions involving NGOs are situated within a broader analytical landscape that connects governance, technological transformation, and regional cooperation. As such, NGO involvement should be understood as part of a multi-layered, multifaceted governance process rather than in isolation.
Figure 8. Keyword co-occurrence network in climate governance research from VOSviewer.
Figure 9 presents the rectangular dendrogram of keywords. The number next to each keyword indicates its frequency in the dataset, while the percentage shows its proportion relative to all keyword occurrences. As shown in Figure 9, highlighting that the core research themes are “climate change” (17%) and “climate governance” (9%), indicating that the role of NGOs within the context of global climate governance is a central focus of this field. The high frequency of the standalone keyword “NGOs” (7%) further underscores its significance in global environmental governance. Additionally, keywords such as “transparency,” “accountability,” and “governance” reflect scholarly attention to the functions, responsibilities, and governance models of NGOs in the climate context.
Figure 9. Rectangular tree diagram of keyword distribution, generated using the Bibliometrix function in RStudio.
Nevertheless, the literature remains predominantly focused on macro-level governance systems. Future research could benefit from a deeper exploration of the roles played by different regions and NGO types in specific climate actions, as well as their influence on policy development.
3.6 Multidimensional integration analysis of NGO engagement in global climate governance
Figure 10 illustrates the network of relationships among research keywords (DE), authors (AU), and countries (AU_CO), revealing the thematic structure, scholarly distribution, and international collaboration patterns within the field of global climate governance. Core issues such as transparency, NGOs, and climate policy are prominently represented, highlighting the academic community’s sustained focus on the roles and policy interactions of multiple actors in climate governance.
Figure 10. Ternary Sankey diagram of NGO participation in global climate governance, generated using the Bibliometrix function in RStudio.
In terms of author distribution, scholars such as Tosun J., Capros P., and Biesbroek R. are identified as highly influential, occupying central positions within the research network. Their contributions span a broad range of topics, including policy formulation, adaptation strategies, and governance frameworks.
The country-level distribution underscores the continued dominance of Western nations, such as the United States, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, in shaping climate governance scholarship. At the same time, increasing participation from developing countries such as Ghana, Ecuador, and Argentina reflects growing global engagement with climate governance across diverse developmental contexts.
Overall, Figure 10 illustrates a trend toward transnational and interdisciplinary collaboration, with scholars and research themes increasingly interconnected across geographical and thematic boundaries. This underscores the complexity and multi-layered nature of climate governance research. Future studies should further explore mechanisms for strengthening North–South cooperation to enhance both the equity and effectiveness of global climate policy outcomes.
4 Content analysis and synthesis
Our bibliometric analysis revealed the evolving landscape of research on ENGOs in climate governance. Building on these quantitative findings, the subsequent qualitative content analysis of the 36 core articles provides deeper insights into the how and why behind these trends. This section synthesizes these insights to address our research questions, critically engaging with the literature to interpret the key influencing factors and evolving roles of ENGOs, and to discuss their implications for both theory and practice.
4.1 The main findings of the current study
A central finding of this review is the marked transition of ENGOs from traditional service providers towards actors engaged in strategic policy coordination (Meckling and Allan, 2020). Our coding shows that this role was explicitly discussed in 22 of the 36 articles (see Supplementary Table A3), indicating its prominence in the current literature. This shift appears to be driven by two interrelated factors. First, the institutionalization of climate governance through agreements like the Paris Agreement has created new formal and informal avenues for non-state actor participation (Betsill and Corell, 2008). Second, ENGOs themselves have developed greater technical capacity, allowing them to produce credible knowledge and engage with complex policy mechanisms on equal footing with state and corporate actors. This finding challenges the traditional conception of NGOs as merely operating in the “shadow of the state.” Instead, it supports the concept of “orchestration” (Abbott, 2015), where international institutions enlist ENGOs as intermediaries to enhance their governance reach and effectiveness. However, this evolution is not without risk. A heavy focus on policy coordination may come at the expense of grassroots accountability, potentially creating an “NGO elite” that is disconnected from the communities they purport to represent a tension noted by Scobie (2018) in the context of Caribbean SIDS. Therefore, while this strategic evolution enhances ENGO influence at the global level, it also necessitates a conscious effort to maintain legitimacy through downward accountability mechanisms.
ENGOs from traditional service delivery roles toward influential policy coordination within the polycentric system of climate governance. While historically focused on local-level implementation such as conservation projects, community-based adaptation, public awareness campaigns, and compliance monitoring. ENGOs are increasingly adopting roles that seek to shape the overarching frameworks and rules guiding climate action. These include facilitating multi-stakeholder dialogues, advocating in policy formulation, brokering knowledge, orchestrating transnational networks, and leveraging digital tools for accountability and transparency. Rather than abandoning operational functions, ENGOs are evolving into system integrators, aligning the objectives and actions of diverse actors across scales and thereby refocusing their center of gravity from implementation to systemic coordination.
The analysis confirms that the institutional and policy environment is the most fundamental factor shaping ENGO efficacy, being a significant factor in 30 out of 36 studies (Supplementary Table A2). This predominance underscores the fundamentally political nature of climate action. However, our review nuances this finding: a supportive environment is not merely about the absence of restrictions but the presence of proactive ‘invitations’ to participate, such as mandated stakeholder consultations or funding for NGO involvement in policy processes (Van Driel et al., 2022). Conversely, in contexts with restrictive environments, we observed that ENGOs often leverage their social networks (the second most prevalent factor) to bypass national constraints by seeking alliances and support at the transnational level, as evidenced in Musah-Surugu et al.’s (2019) study of Ghana. This demonstrates how factors are not isolated but interact in complex ways. This interplay between structure (institutional environment) and agency (network-building) aligns perfectly with the theoretical framework of structuration (Giddens, 1984), suggesting that while ENGOs are constrained by their political context, they also possess the agency to reshape and navigate these constraints through strategic action.
This study reveals several key findings regarding ENGOs’ participation in global climate governance, based on a systematic literature review. It finds that ENGOs are undergoing a role transformation from marginal players to central actors, particularly evolving from service providers to policy coordinators (Meckling and Allan, 2020). This transformation is shaped by five key interrelated factors. The institutional policy environment emerges as the foundational determinant, with constitutional arrangements and regulatory systems either enabling or constraining ENGO participation (Van Driel et al., 2022). This finding not only supports established environmental governance literature but also highlights that, in the context of climate governance, the “tripartite mechanism”, advocacy, service, and empowerment, requires specific institutional embedding to function effectively. Notably, while progressive climate policies have created new opportunities for ENGOs, the rise of anti-climate movements in certain regions is shrinking the operational space for these organizations (Schaub et al., 2024). Funding factors show contradictory influences. While the multi-cycle funding model (especially in the EU) demonstrates how sustained resources can enhance Environmental NGO impact (Graddy-Lovelace et al., 2024), research also confirms the distorting effect of funding dependency on organizational autonomy (Nesadurai, 2019). Technological capabilities have become a new differentiator for ENGOs. Organizations that invest in scientific expertise and digital tools, such as blockchain technology for transparency, gain disproportionate influence in governance processes (Hull et al., 2021). However, research has found that many ENGOs still struggle with science communication, particularly in attributing extreme weather events to climate change (Ettinger et al., 2023). Network analysis suggests that successful ENGOs are building ‘multi-scale’ coalitions - linking local grassroots with transnational movements (Tosun et al., 2024). These finding challenges traditional perceptions of North-South compartmentalization in climate governance by demonstrating how ENGOs in Southern countries are leveraging global networks while maintaining local relevance (Musah-Surugu et al., 2019).
4.2 Key influencing roles and factors analysis
Figure 11 illustrates the interconnected relationships among influencing factors, evolving roles, and governance outcomes related to ENGOs in global climate governance. Five key factors including the institutional and policy environment, resource availability, technical and academic capacity, social networks, and public legitimacy collectively shape the capacity and effectiveness of ENGOs. Driven by these factors, ENGOs have evolved from traditional service providers into multifaceted governance actors. They now assume strategic roles such as providers of digital and technical support, coordinators of decentralized networks, agents of economic integration, and advocates for climate justice.
Figure 11. ENGOs evolving roles and Influencing Factors in global climate governance.
This study provides a systematic analysis of the key factors influencing ENGOs and their evolving roles in global climate governance. The findings indicate that ENGO governance effectiveness is primarily shaped by five major factors (Supplementary Table A2):
1. The institutional and policy environment is a fundamental factor shaping ENGO participation in climate governance, as it directly influences their operational space and overall impact. Institutional and policy frameworks, including national constitutional arrangements and international regulatory regimes to determine the extent of ENGO involvement (Van Driel et al., 2022);
2. Resources and financial support are critical for ENGOs to sustain their operations and expand their influence. These elements serve as core constraints, particularly for grassroots ENGOs, which often face significant inequalities in resource distribution (Graddy-Lovelace et al., 2024);
3. Scientific and technical capacity enhances the credibility and authority of ENGOs in climate governance. While strong technical capabilities can boost their influence, the effective communication and dissemination of scientific evidence remain areas of weakness (Hull et al., 2021);
4. Social networks and alliances play a crucial role in amplifying the voices of ENGOs. Robust coalition-building and network formation significantly improve the effectiveness of policy coordination (Tosun et al., 2024);
5. Public participation and legitimacy strengthen the societal foundation of ENGOs in climate governance. Engaging communities through participatory mechanisms fosters legitimacy and enhances governance outcomes (Baker et al., 2021).
The study also identifies five transformative roles that ENGOs are increasingly assuming in global climate governance from the selected articles (Supplementary Table A3):
1. Shifting from service provision to policy coordination: ENGOs are evolving from traditional roles focused on direct service delivery toward more strategic engagement in policy coordination (Meckling and Allan, 2020). This transformation is supported by the growing adoption of digital governance tools, which enhance their capacity to influence decision-making processes (Sillanpää et al., 2024);
2. Providing technical support and digital governance: With the integration of digital technologies, ENGOs are offering specialized technical assistance and contributing to the development of digital governance frameworks. These tools are reshaping operational practices and enabling more efficient climate action (Cattivelli, 2023);
3. Constructing a networked and decentralized governance model: ENGOs play a key role in constructing decentralized and network-based governance structures. This model, which emphasizes inclusivity, flexibility, and multi-actor collaboration, is gaining prominence in global climate governance discourse.
4. Strengthening integration with economic activities: ENGOs are increasingly aligning environmental objectives with economic strategies, acting as intermediaries that promote sustainable development through market-based mechanisms and financial incentives (Nesadurai, 2019);
5. Deepening the intersection of climate justice and social issues: ENGOs are intensifying their focus on the nexus between climate change and social equity. Climate justice has become a core theme in their advocacy, highlighting the disproportionate impacts of climate change on vulnerable communities.
These findings suggest that ENGOs in developing countries face financial and capacity limitations, placing them at a structural disadvantage compared to their counterparts in developed countries (Scobie, 2018). As climate governance progresses, greater attention must be paid to addressing this gap (Vij et al., 2018). NGOs are undergoing a strategic transition, from fringe advocates to system integrators. However, in their pursuit of carbon peaking, ENGOs may risk overlooking the broader systemic imperative of achieving carbon neutrality, highlighting the need for more forward-looking and integrated strategies (Schaub et al., 2024). Moreover, the tension between global climate goals and local implementation practices underscores the need for ENGOs to navigate multiple governance scales effectively. Persistent challenges including the North–South divide, balancing short-term targets with long-term visions, and harmonizing global ambitions with local realities, remain critical barriers to be addressed (Vij et al., 2018; Schaub et al., 2024; Tosun et al., 2024). In addition to macro-level institutions, resources, and networks, internal organizational governance (board structure, leadership vision, staff turnover, and the risk of mission drift) also significantly influences ENGOs’ performance in policy coordination and digital governance. The coupling of internal and external governance determines their ability to act as integrators within a polycentric system.
5 Future directions and limitations
This study offers valuable insights and directions for future research on ENGOs in global climate governance. To further systematize these future research directions, Table 2 synthesizes key emerging themes, associated research gaps, core research questions, and suggested methodological approaches related to ENGO engagement in global climate governance. Future studies should place greater emphasis on interdisciplinary approaches by integrating theories and methods from political science, sociology, environmental science, and economics to explore the mechanisms through which ENGOs influence climate governance. Complementing these thematic directions, Table 3 outlines recommended methodological designs for future research, linking specific research purposes with appropriate analytical approaches, units of analysis, and data sources to enhance rigor, transparency, and comparability. Three primary future directions are outlined below:
1. Investigate the Role and Impact of ENGOs in Carbon Trading Markets. As global carbon markets expand, ENGOs are playing an increasingly active role in carbon trading initiatives. Future research should examine how ENGOs contribute to emission reduction goals through such projects, the specific roles they assume, and the challenges they encounter in carbon market governance.
2. Evaluate the Long-Term Effects of Digital Governance on Climate Justice. The rise of digital tools in climate governance raises important equity concerns. Empirical studies are needed to assess whether technologies such as big data and artificial intelligence, while enhancing governance efficiency, may also exacerbate resource and capacity inequalities, especially in developing regions.
3. Explore Coordination Mechanisms for ENGOs in Multi-Level Governance. Given the complexity of climate governance across local, national, and international levels, effective coordination is essential. Future research should investigate how ENGOs align policy agendas, integrate resources, and navigate multi-level governance frameworks to maximize their impact.
Table 2. Emerging trends and research routes.
Table 3. Methodological suggestions.
Additionally, six key thematic areas are recommended for future research.
1. Move beyond Euro-American centrism by investigating localized practices of Global South ENGOs, including models of South–South cooperation (Nesadurai, 2019; Tosun et al., 2024).
2. Assess the institutional impact of digital technologies such as blockchain on ENGO governance, with attention to balancing gains in efficiency against risks posed by digital divides (Hull et al., 2021; Ettinger et al., 2023)
3. Design polycentric governance frameworks that facilitate synergy among governments, NGOs, and the private sector, particularly in carbon market oversight and evidence-based advocacy (Meckling and Allan, 2020; Tosun et al., 2024).
4. Develop comprehensive evaluation systems that integrate environmental benefits, social equity, and climate justice to assess ENGO interventions (Baker et al., 2021; Schaub et al., 2024).
5. Study intergenerational equity and youth participation in achieving carbon neutrality, emphasizing the role of younger generations in long-term climate strategies.
6. Examine ENGO resilience mechanisms during climate crises, highlighting the integration of traditional and modern knowledge systems to enhance adaptive capacity.
This study relies on English literature from WOS and Scopus, which may have overlooked grey literature (policy briefs, non-governmental reports, case materials) and non-English studies, thus insufficiently integrating evidence for policy practice. Based on this, grey literature is systematically incorporated into SLR/mixed method assessments (including case databases, NGO annual reports and project evaluations).
6 Conclusion
This systematic literature review highlights the evolving and increasingly pivotal role of ENGOs in global climate governance. Once peripheral actors, ENGOs have emerged as critical system integrators, with their engagement shaped by five key factors: institutional and policy environments, financial resources, technological capacity, social networks, and public legitimacy. Their roles have expanded beyond traditional advocacy to encompass strategic policy coordination, digital governance, decentralized network management, and climate justice advocacy, underscoring their growing influence in shaping inclusive, multilevel responses to global climate challenges. The role of ENGOs is shifting from “service provision/advocacy” to a systematic integration of “cross-scale policy coordination, digital governance, and justice orientation.” This is driven by the interaction of “institutional environment, resources, technology, networks, and credibility.” Policies should prioritize capacity building in the South and North-South collaboration. It should be emphasized that this study is mainly based on English journal literature from 2015 to 2025, which may overestimate the European and American experience and underestimate the Southern context and gray literature evidence. Therefore, the research conclusions are more appropriately understood as common cross-regional trends and transferable mechanisms, rather than strong extrapolations to all regions.
The study highlights three key strategies:
1. Synergizing technology, resources, and grassroots networks. The effectiveness of ENGOs in climate governance depends on the integrated application of technological innovation, resource mobilization, and transnational advocacy networks. Empirical evidence shows that ENGOs enhance their impact by combining digital tools with grassroots alliance-building. However, fragmented approaches such as adopting technology in isolation from community engagement can significantly weaken policy outcomes. A holistic strategy is essential, one that merges data-driven decision-making with participatory frameworks to address context-specific vulnerabilities. For instance, African ENGOs such as the Pan-African Climate Justice Alliance have bridged policy gaps by aligning climate adaptation initiatives with indigenous knowledge systems, illustrating how multidimensional strategies can enhance both resilience and legitimacy in climate action.
2. Navigating the transition from advocacy to coordination with equity considerations. ENGOs are undergoing a strategic shift from traditional advocacy roles to policy coordination, necessitating a careful balance between innovation and equity. While advanced technologies—such as AI-driven climate models—can improve predictive capabilities, overreliance on such tools risks excluding communities without digital access, thereby reinforcing the North–South divide. Ensuring equitable access to these innovations is critical to preventing further marginalization.
3. Addressing North–South disparities through structural empowerment: Persistent asymmetries in funding, technical expertise, and political influence between Northern and Southern ENGOs continue to pose systemic challenges. Northern ENGOs often dominate global climate discourse, sidelining Southern concerns such as loss-and-damage compensation. In response, South–South cooperation networks such as the Climate Action Network South Asia have emerged as vital platforms for knowledge exchange and joint advocacy, enabling Southern NGOs to reduce dependence on traditional donor structures. Capacity-building efforts, including decentralized funding mechanisms and technology transfer programs, should prioritize local leadership and context-sensitive solutions. For example, Ghana’s Green Africa Youth Organization has partnered internationally to establish community-led renewable energy cooperatives, demonstrating how resource-sharing models can empower grassroots actors and promote sustainable, locally driven climate action.This study advances the polycentric governance framework by proposing a comprehensive analytical model for ENGO participation, thereby enriching the discourse on non-state actors in environmental governance. Practically, it emphasizes the need for stable institutional support, autonomous and sustainable funding models, and enhanced technological capacity to improve ENGO effectiveness. Policymakers are encouraged to foster equitable North–South cooperation to bridge systemic disparities, while ENGOs should strategically leverage digital technologies and transnational coalitions to amplify their impact in global climate governance.Future research should focus on localized practices in the Global South, the implications of digital transformation, and the development of resilient governance models to ensure inclusive and sustainable climate action. By addressing these critical areas, ENGOs can play a transformative role in advancing the goals of the Paris Agreement and promoting global climate justice.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.
Author contributions
YJ: Data curation, Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Writing – original draft, Funding acquisition, Software, Visualization. ZH: Resources, Methodology, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Funding acquisition. HD: Writing – review and editing, Software, Visualization. KD: Resources, Funding acquisition, Writing – review and editing. MT: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number: 51909285; Sun Yat-sen University Basic Research Business Fund Young Teacher Training Project, grant number:2025qntd59.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1667551/full#supplementary-material
References
Adetunji, O., and Daly, C. (2024). Climate risk management in cultural Heritage for inclusive adaptation actions in Nigeria. Heritage 7, 1237–1264. doi:10.3390/heritage7030060
Aria, M., and Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Inf. 11, 959–975. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
Baker, S., Ayala-Orozco, B., and Garca-Frapolli, E. (2021). The role of civil society organisations in climate change governance: lessons from Quintana Roo, Mexico. JBA 9s10, 99–126. doi:10.5871/jba/009s10.099
Baumann, J. (2024). From global to human factors: shipping emissions policy process in the IMO. Mar. Policy 167, 106291. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106291
Bernauer, T., Gampfer, R., Meng, T., and Su, Y.-S. (2016). Could more civil society involvement increase public support for climate policy-making? Evidence from a survey experiment in China. Glob. Environ. Change 40, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.001
Betsill, M. M., and Corell, E. (2008). “Introduction to NGO diplomacy,” NGO diplomacy influence nongovernmental organizations international environmental negotiations, 1–19.
Boyack, K. W., and Klavans, R. (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61, 2389–2404. doi:10.1002/asi.21419
Bulkeley, H. (2014). Transnational climate change governance. Cambridge University Press. Available online at: https://www.google.com/books?hl=zh-CN&lr=&id=eTIDBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Transnational+climate+change+governance&ots=RuQG6Ra3Iy&sig=TBfeJpD_dXoIttTSrOpGQaujiB4 (Accessed May 20, 2025).
Cattivelli, V. (2023). Macro-Regional strategies, climate policies and regional climatic governance in the alps. Climate 11, 37. doi:10.3390/cli11020037
Cui, Y., Mou, J., and Liu, Y. (2018). Knowledge mapping of social commerce research: a visual analysis using CiteSpace. Electron Commer. Res. 18, 837–868. doi:10.1007/s10660-018-9288-9
Dannenberg, A., Lumkowsky, M., Carlton, E. K., and Victor, D. G. (2023). Naming and shaming as a strategy for enforcing the Paris Agreement: the role of political institutions and public concern. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 120, e2305075120. doi:10.1073/pnas.2305075120
Debnath, R., Ebanks, D., Mohaddes, K., Roulet, T., and Alvarez, R. M. (2023). Do fossil fuel firms reframe online climate and sustainability communication? A data-driven analysis. Npj Clim. Action 2, 47. doi:10.1038/s44168-023-00086-x
Do, T. N., Burke, P. J., Baldwin, K. G. H., and Nguyen, C. T. (2020). Underlying drivers and barriers for solar photovoltaics diffusion: the case of Vietnam. Energy Policy 144, 111561. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111561
Dressler, W. H. (2017). Contesting moral capital in the economy of expectations of an extractive frontier. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 107, 647–665. doi:10.1080/24694452.2016.1261684
Eck, N. van, and Waltman, L. (2009). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84, 523–538. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
Ettinger, J., Sanford, M., Walton, P., Holmes, D., and Painter, J. (2023). Social media messaging by climate action NGOs: a case study of the 2019–2020 Australian Black Summer bushfires. Oxf. Open Clim. Change 3, kgad011. doi:10.1093/oxfclm/kgad011
Farooq, R. (2022). Knowledge management and performance: a bibliometric analysis based on Scopus and WOS data (1988–2021). J. Knowl. Manag. 27, 1948–1991. doi:10.1108/JKM-06-2022-0443
Fu, H.-Z., and Waltman, L. (2022). A large-scale bibliometric analysis of global climate change research between 2001 and 2018. Clim. Change 170, 36. doi:10.1007/s10584-022-03324-z
Garfield, E. (2009). From the science of science to Scientometrics visualizing the history of science with HistCite software. J. Inf. 3, 173–179. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2009.03.009
Giese, L. J. (2017). The role of NGOs in international climate governance: a case Study of Indian NGOs. Available online at: https://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/honors_thesis/36/(Accessed May 20, 2025).
Graddy-Lovelace, G., Brock, S., and Jain, B. (2024). Agrarianizing climate accords and discord: food, agriculture and agrarian movements at UNFCCC conference of the parties. Clim. Dev. 16, 891–905. doi:10.1080/17565529.2024.2347372
Green, J. F. (2024). The climate establishment and the Paris partnerships. Clim. Change 177, 84. doi:10.1007/s10584-024-03730-5
Green, J. F., and Hadden, J. (2021). How did environmental governance become complex? Understanding mutualism between environmental NGOs and international organizations. Int. Stud. Rev. 23, 1792–1812. doi:10.1093/isr/viab046
Haris, S. M., Mustafa, F. B., and Raja Ariffin, R. N. (2020). Systematic literature review of climate change governance activities of environmental nongovernmental organizations in Southeast Asia. Environ. Management 66, 816–825. doi:10.1007/s00267-020-01355-9
Haris, S. M., Mustafa, F. B., and Raja Ariffin, R. N. (2021). Roles of non-governmental organisations in the national climate change governance: a systematic literature review. J. Adm. Sci. 18, 222–248.
Hassan, S.-U., Haddawy, P., and Zhu, J. (2014). A bibliometric study of the world’s research activity in sustainable development and its sub-areas using scientific literature. Scientometrics 99, 549–579. doi:10.1007/s11192-013-1193-3
Haunschild, R., Bornmann, L., and Marx, W. (2016). Climate change research in view of bibliometrics. PLOS ONE 11, e0160393. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0160393
Huang, X., Liu, X., Shang, Y., Qiao, F., and Chen, G. (2020). Current roles in research on bone regeneration: a bibliometric analysis. BioMed Res. Int. 2020, 8787394. doi:10.1155/2020/8787394
Hull, J., Gupta, A., and Kloppenburg, S. (2021). Interrogating the promises and perils of climate cryptogovernance: blockchain discourses in international climate politics. Earth Syst. Gov. 9, 100117. doi:10.1016/j.esg.2021.100117
Jacsó, P. (2009). Calculating the h-index and other bibliometric and scientometric indicators from google scholar with the Publish or perish software. Online Inf. Rev. 33, 1189–1200. doi:10.1108/14684520911011070
Jha, V. (2021). ‘Soft law in a hard shell’: india, international rulemaking and the international solar alliance. TEL 10, 517–541. doi:10.1017/S2047102520000400
Karunarathna, I., Gunasena, P., De Alvis, K., and Jayawardana, A. (2024). Structured reviews: organizing, synthesizing, and analyzing scientific literature. Retrieved from ResearchGate. Available online at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Indunil-Karunarathna/publication/383145911_Structured_Reviews_Organizing_Synthesizing_and_Analyzing_Scientific_Literature/links/66be50e58d0073559255e81b/Structured-Reviews-Organizing-Synthesizing-and-Analyzing-Scientific-Literature.pdf (Accessed January 17, 2025).
Kim, H., and Grafakos, S. (2019). Which are the factors influencing the integration of mitigation and adaptation in climate change plans in Latin American cities? Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 105008. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab2f4c
King, A. D., Lane, T. P., Henley, B. J., and Brown, J. R. (2020). Global and regional impacts differ between transient and equilibrium warmer worlds. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 42–47. doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0658-7
Kreutz, C. K., and Schenkel, R. (2022). Scientific paper recommendation systems: a literature review of recent publications. Int. J. Digit. Libr. 23, 335–369. doi:10.1007/s00799-022-00339-w
Lee, T., and Painter, M. (2015). Comprehensive local climate policy: the role of urban governance. Urban Clim. 14, 566–577. doi:10.1016/j.uclim.2015.09.003
Lewis, D. M., and Alpi, K. M. (2017). Bibliometric network analysis and visualization for serials librarians: an introduction to Sci2. Ser. Rev. 43, 239–245. doi:10.1080/00987913.2017.1368057
Mastrángelo, M. E., Torres, I., Borbor-Cordova, M. J., Hurlbert, M. A., Silva, J., and Stewart Ibarra, A. M. (2024). Global environmental change policy priorities from the Americas and opportunities to bridge the science-policy gap. Ecosyst. People 20, 2354309. doi:10.1080/26395916.2024.2354309
McGregor, I., Yerbury, H., and Shahid, A. (2018). The voices of local NGOs in climate change issues: examples from climate vulnerable nations. Cosmopolitan Civ. Soc. Interdiscip. J. 10, 63–80. doi:10.5130/ccs.v10.i3.6019
Meckling, J., and Allan, B. B. (2020). The evolution of ideas in global climate policy. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 434–438. doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0739-7
Meschede, C. (2020). The sustainable development goals in scientific literature: a bibliometric overview at the meta-level. Sustainability 12, 4461. doi:10.3390/su12114461
Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., et al. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst. Rev. 4, 1. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
Monyai, P. B., Chivanga, S. Y., Monyai, T., and Ndlovu, S. (2022). The role of communities in innovative water management: sustainability governance in the emerging country. JGR 11, 123–135. doi:10.22495/jgrv11i4art12
Moral-Muñoz, J. A., Herrera-Viedma, E., Santisteban-Espejo, A., and Cobo, M. J. (2020). Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: an up-to-date review. Prof. Inf. 29. doi:10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03
Morales, M. E., Batlles-delaFuente, A., Cortés-García, F. J., and Belmonte-Ureña, L. J. (2021). Theoretical research on circular economy and sustainability trade-offs and synergies. Sustainability 13, 11636. doi:10.3390/su132111636
Mrvar, A., and Batagelj, V. (2016). Analysis and visualization of large networks with program package Pajek. Complex Adapt Syst. Model 4, 6. doi:10.1186/s40294-016-0017-8
Musah-Surugu, I. J., Bawole, J. N., and Ahenkan, A. (2019). The “Third Sector” and climate change adaptation governance in Sub-Saharan Africa: experience from Ghana. Voluntas 30, 312–326. doi:10.1007/s11266-018-9962-5
Nasiritousi, N., and Grimm, J. (2022). Governing toward decarbonization: the legitimacy of national orchestration. Env. Pol. Gov. 32, 411–425. doi:10.1002/eet.1979
Nasiritousi, N., Hjerpe, M., and Linnér, B.-O. (2016). The roles of non-state actors in climate change governance: understanding agency through governance profiles. Int. Environ. Agreements 16, 109–126. doi:10.1007/s10784-014-9243-8
Nesadurai, H. E. S. (2019). Transnational private governance as a developmental driver in southeast Asia: the case of sustainable palm oil standards in Indonesia and Malaysia. J. Dev. Stud. 55, 1892–1908. doi:10.1080/00220388.2018.1536262
Nosko, A., and Ušiak, J. (2023). Effects of COVID-19 on civil society voices in European energy and climate policy. Energy Policy 174, 113421. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113421
Oladipo, J. A. (2016). Seeing through the opaque glass, darkly: farmers’ perception of climate change. Clim. Dev. 8, 122–132. doi:10.1080/17565529.2015.1034227
Oyewola, D. O., and Dada, E. G. (2022). Exploring machine learning: a scientometrics approach using bibliometrix and VOSviewer. SN Appl. Sci. 4, 143. doi:10.1007/s42452-022-05027-7
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372, n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
Pan, Y., Opgenhaffen, M., and Van Gorp, B. (2020). Toward an interwoven community of practice: how do NGOs work with Chinese journalists on reporting climate change? Int. J. Commun. 14, 21.
Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., and Walshe, K. (2005). Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 10, 21–34. doi:10.1258/1355819054308530
Peterson St-Laurent, G., Hagerman, S., and Hoberg, G. (2017). Barriers to the development of forest carbon offsetting: insights from British Columbia, Canada. J. Environ. Manag. 203, 208–217. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.07.051
Prokopy, L. S., Arbuckle, J. G., Barnes, A. P., Haden, V. R., Hogan, A., Niles, M. T., et al. (2015). Farmers and climate change: a cross-national comparison of beliefs and risk perceptions in high-income countries. Environ. Management 56, 492–504. doi:10.1007/s00267-015-0504-2
Protocol, K. (1997). United Nations framework convention on climate change, 19. Kyoto: Kyoto Protocol, 1–21.
Renckens, S., Skogstad, G., and Mondou, M. (2017). When normative and market power interact: the European Union and global biofuels governance. J Common Mark. Stud. 55, 1432–1448. doi:10.1111/jcms.12584
Schaub, S., Tosun, J., and Jordan, A. J. (2024). Climate action through policy expansion and/or dismantling: Country-comparative insights: an introduction to the special issue. J. Comp. Policy Analysis Res. Pract. 26, 215–232. doi:10.1080/13876988.2024.2369640
Scobie, M. (2018). Accountability in climate change governance and Caribbean SIDS. Environ. Dev. Sustain 20, 769–787. doi:10.1007/s10668-017-9909-9
Sénit, C.-A. (2020). Leaving no one behind? The influence of civil society participation on the Sustainable development goals. Environ. Plan. C Polit. Space 38, 693–712. doi:10.1177/2399654419884330
Sharifi, A., Simangan, D., and Kaneko, S. (2021). Three decades of research on climate change and peace: a bibliometrics analysis. Sustain Sci. 16, 1079–1095. doi:10.1007/s11625-020-00853-3
Sillanpää, M., Eichhorn, J., and Juhola, S. (2024). Decreasing psychological distance to climate adaptation through serious gaming: minions of disruptions. Clim. Serv. 33, 100429. doi:10.1016/j.cliser.2023.100429
Spencer, T., Pierfederici, R., Sartor, O., Berghmans, N., Samadi, S., Fischedick, M., et al. (2017). Tracking sectoral progress in the deep decarbonisation of energy systems in Europe. Energy Policy 110, 509–517. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2017.08.053
Szarka, J. (2014). Non-governmental organisations and citizen action on climate change: strategies, rationales and practices. Open Political Sci. J. 7, 1–8. doi:10.2174/1874949601407010001
Theys, S., and Rietig, K. (2020). The influence of small states: how Bhutan succeeds in influencing global sustainability governance. Int. Aff. 96, 1603–1622. doi:10.1093/ia/iiaa157
Tosun, J., and Schoenefeld, J. J. (2017). Collective climate action and networked climate governance. WIREs Clim. Change 8, e440. doi:10.1002/wcc.440
Tosun, J., Levario Saad, E., and Gutiérrez, D. (2024). Participating in polycentric climate governance: the partnership choices of Latin American NGOs. Glob. Environ. Polit. 24, 144–167. doi:10.1162/glep_a_00752
Van Driel, M., Biermann, F., Kim, R. E., and Vijge, M. J. (2022). International organisations as ‘custodians’ of the sustainable development goals? Fragmentation and coordination in sustainability governance. Glob. Policy 13, 669–682. doi:10.1111/1758-5899.13114
Vatananan-Thesenvitz, R., Schaller, A.-A., and Shannon, R. (2019). A bibliometric review of the knowledge base for innovation in sustainable development. Sustainability 11, 5783. doi:10.3390/su11205783
Vij, S., Biesbroek, R., Groot, A., and Termeer, K. (2018). Changing climate policy paradigms in Bangladesh and Nepal. Environ. Sci. and Policy 81, 77–85. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.12.010
Wang, J., and Zhang, Y. (2024). The effectiveness of legal framework of arctic vessel-source black carbon governance. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 31, 40472–40494. doi:10.1007/s11356-024-32205-4
Wang, Y., Zhao, Z., Shi, M., Liu, J., and Tan, Z. (2024). Public environmental concern, government environmental regulation and urban carbon emission reduction—Analyzing the regulating role of green finance and industrial agglomeration. Sci. Total Environ. 924, 171549. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171549
Werker, E., and Ahmed, F. Z. (2008). What do nongovernmental organizations do? J. Economic Perspectives 22, 73–92. doi:10.1257/jep.22.2.73
Yoo, I. T., and Kim, I. (2016). Free trade agreements for the environment? Regional economic integration and environmental cooperation in East Asia. Int. Environ. Agreements 16, 721–738. doi:10.1007/s10784-015-9291-8
Keywords: bibliometric analysis, ENGO, global climate governance, global warming, governance roles, influencing factors, NGO
Citation: Jiao Y, Huang Z, Du H, Duan K and Tan ML (2026) ENGOs and climate change: a systematic review of their evolving roles and influencing factors. Front. Environ. Sci. 13:1667551. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2025.1667551
Received: 16 July 2025; Accepted: 01 December 2025;
Published: 05 January 2026.
Edited by:
Inkyoung Kim, Bridgewater State University, United StatesReviewed by:
Vikas Sharma, Chandigarh University, IndiaBurcu Ucaray Mangitli, University of Göttingen, Germany
Copyright © 2026 Jiao, Huang, Du, Duan and Tan. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Mou Leong Tan, bW91bGVvbmdAdXNtLm15; Zhicang Huang, aHVhbmd6aGMyNUBtYWlsLnN5c3UuZWR1LmNu