Impact Diplomacy, in the continuation of Scientific Diplomacy and Cultural Diplomacy

Statements

Thomas EGLI, published on Wednesday, July 16, 2025.

I. Introduction

1. Context and Issues

Over the past decades, the international community has faced an unprecedented rise in global challenges: biodiversity collapse, climate disruption, growing socio-economic inequalities, and cross-border geopolitical tensions (Gupta et al., 2020). These issues, embedded in the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda, call for more agile and inclusive mechanisms of global cooperation than those offered by traditional diplomatic approaches. Yet, despite the progress of Scientific Diplomacy — which mobilizes research and scientific expertise to enhance dialogue between states — and Cultural Diplomacy — which relies on cultural exchanges to strengthen dialogue and mutual trust — the results often remain insufficient given the urgency and complexity of current crises (Nye, 2004; Stone, 2019).

2. Definition of “Impact Diplomacy”

“Impact Diplomacy” aims to go beyond these limitations by placing the pursuit of measurable socio-ecological benefits at the core of international negotiations. It is structured around four fundamental pillars:

  1. Transparency, through common, public, and harmonized evaluation criteria, allowing for clear monitoring and accountability of stakeholders (Turekian, 2014).
  2. Inclusion, via the participatory integration of governments, civil society, the private sector, and local communities, to ensure the legitimacy and sustainability of commitments (Gagnon, 2021).
  3. Measurability, through precise, verifiable indicators aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals, ensuring rigorous assessment of actual impacts (SDG Impact Standards, 2022).
  4. Shared and Joint Intention, aiming to go beyond mere corporate social responsibility (CSR) — or worse, compensation — to establish natively regenerative and resilient systems, based on long-term co-responsibility among stakeholders (Ostrom, 1990; Steffen et al., 2018).

Through this focus on structural rather than circumstantial positive impact, Impact Diplomacy complements and extends Scientific Diplomacy, which centers on knowledge sharing, and Cultural Diplomacy, which is based on symbolic influence, by introducing a new operational and normative dimension (Stone, 2019).

3. Objectives of the Article

This article has three main objectives:

  1. To map the concept of Impact Diplomacy by situating it within the historical evolution of “soft” diplomacies and its grounding in public international law;
  2. To establish a rigorous theoretical and methodological framework, based on a systemic approach and positive ecology, to guide the operational implementation of this diplomacy;
  3. To illustrate, through concrete case studies (multilateral initiatives, financing platforms, cross-border negotiations), the added value of this approach in addressing contemporary global challenges.

By laying the foundation for interdisciplinary research, the article seeks to promote an innovative diplomacy, capable of transforming capital and competencies into levers for planetary regeneration rather than mere tools of competition.

II. Historical and Legal Framework

1. Origins and Evolution of Forms of “Soft Diplomacy”

The concept of Scientific Diplomacy (“Science Diplomacy”) has its roots in the informal scholarly exchanges of the 17th and 18th centuries: salons, royal academies (the Royal Society in London from 1660, the Académie des sciences in Paris in 1666), and epistolary correspondence among European scholars (Pardo & Prakash, 2017). As the nation-state took shape, these “non-governmental” networks were gradually co-opted by governments, notably with the creation of the International Council for Science (ICSU) in 1931, and later UNESCO in 1945, to serve as transnational channels of dialogue during times of tension (Pardo & Prakash, 2017).

In parallel, Cultural Diplomacy took form after World War II: initially a tool for moral reconstruction and influence in response to the USSR, it was institutionalized through the Council of Europe’s Council of Cultural Cooperation (1954) and various exchange programs (Fulbright, Goethe-Institut, British Council) (Cummings, 2003). These initiatives demonstrated the effectiveness of an approach based on the promotion of heritage, language, and the arts to build trust, promote national image, and foster mutual understanding (Bound et al., 2007).

These two forms of “soft power” have significantly contributed to shaping the field of non-coercive diplomacy. However, their objectives remain focused either on the dissemination of knowledge or symbolic influence: they prove insufficient for orchestrating systemic transformations in ecological, social, and economic matters, where the stakes demand measurable outcomes and long-term operational commitment.

2. International Legal Foundations

The United Nations Charter lays the foundation for multilateralism and cooperation: Article 1 proclaims the objective “to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character,” while Article 55 commits states to “promote higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development” (UN Charter, 1945).

On the environmental front, multilateral treaties constitute an essential foundation:

  • Montreal Protocol (1987) on substances that deplete the ozone layer;
  • Kyoto Protocol (1997), with its Clean Development Mechanism, introducing tradable emissions quotas;
  • Paris Agreement (2015), articulating national contributions (NDCs) and an iterative review process to keep temperature rise well below 2°C (UNFCCC, 2015).
  • More recently, the 3rd UN Ocean Conference, held in Nice in June 2025, inaugurated a novel collaborative approach: it was preceded by a full week of global scientific congress bringing together over 2,000 researchers. These experts co-developed, ahead of the diplomatic roundtable, a set of operational recommendations that then structured the official negotiations and the UN action plan for ocean protection and regeneration.

These instruments reveal the emergence of an environmental “soft law,” where voluntary commitments, performance indicators, and transparency mechanisms are layered over traditional treaty practices. Sustainable development, formalized as early as 1987 in the Brundtland Report, expanded the scope of collective action to include social and economic dimensions, establishing the principle of shared responsibility (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987).

In public international law, Impact Diplomacy naturally fits into this dynamic: it draws on the principles of peaceful cooperation (UN Charter, Art. 2) and the duty not to cause transboundary harm (the “no harm” principle, ICJ, Pulp Mills case, 2010). It thus aligns with models of global governance based on the creation of flexible norms, transparency, and accountability (Rischard, 2002).

3. Positioning of Impact Diplomacy

Impact Diplomacy establishes itself as a new modality of operationalized “soft power,” centered on four pillars (transparency, inclusion, measurability, and shared intention) that go beyond the logic of mere corporate social responsibility (CSR) or compensation (Greenwashing).

  • Structured soft law: it relies on the development of common standards (impact standards, green taxonomies) and independent verification protocols, while maintaining the flexibility needed for innovation and adaptation to local contexts (SDG Impact Standards, 2022).
  • Public-private-community convergence: through participatory inclusion, it redefines the roles of NGOs, investors, and local communities, breaking with the “State vs. Market” antagonism to establish co-constructed partnerships (Ostrom, 1990).
  • Regenerative and resilient objective: the shared intention frames cooperation in a forward-looking register, aiming not only at preservation but also active ecosystem restoration and the strengthening of social fabric, in contrast to a compensatory vision limited to neutralizing pollution or degradation (Steffen et al., 2018).

In this way, Impact Diplomacy emerges as an unexplored continuum between scientific diplomacy, cultural diplomacy, and economic diplomacy, offering a legal and institutional framework capable of uniting actors around measurable objectives and a shared vision of planetary regeneration.

III. Theoretical and Conceptual Foundations

1. From Soft Power to Impact Power

The concept of soft power, popularized by Joseph Nye, refers to a state’s ability to achieve its international objectives through attraction and persuasion rather than coercion or direct economic incentives (Nye, 2004). Science diplomacy is one of its manifestations: it leverages scientific collaboration to strengthen cooperation between states and build bridges even during crises (Pardo & Prakash, 2017). Cultural diplomacy, for its part, uses cultural and artistic exchanges to promote shared values and build trust (Cummings, 2003). Impact Power, as proposed here, follows in the footsteps of these soft approaches but introduces a new requirement: the production of tangible and measurable socio-ecological results, validated through shared criteria.

2. Systemic Approach and Positive Ecology

Impact Diplomacy is based on a systemic vision, in which environmental, social, and economic challenges are viewed as interdependent components of a single planetary ecosystem. Rather than succumbing to eco-anxiety, it promotes a positive ecology, a concept that emphasizes creativity, innovation, and pragmatic optimism to turn crises into opportunities for regeneration (Clayton & Manning, 2018). This approach draws in particular on the work of Steffen et al. (2018) on Earth system trajectories, which highlight the need to move from mere risk management to the active construction of resilient and abundant systems.

3. Key Principles of Impact Diplomacy

The added value of Impact Diplomacy lies in the combination of four complementary pillars:

  1. Transparency, through the development and publication of common standards (impact standards, taxonomies) and independent verification processes, to prevent greenwashing and ensure mutual trust (SDG Impact Standards, 2022).
  2. Inclusion, by ensuring the participation of all stakeholders: states, international organizations, local authorities, private actors, and local communities. This multi-stakeholder governance is inspired by Ostrom’s principles of collective action (1990) to prevent conflicts and strengthen decision-making legitimacy.
  3. Measurability, through precise, quantifiable indicators aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), allowing for rigorous monitoring and transparent accountability (UN, 2015).
  4. Shared and joint intention, which goes beyond mere social responsibility (CSR) or compensatory logic, aiming to implement regenerative and resilient systems at the source. Stakeholders commit together, contractually and culturally, to creating durable and positive impacts, rather than compensating after the fact for their negative externalities (Steffen et al., 2018).

These principles form a novel conceptual and operational foundation, positioning Impact Diplomacy as a lever for structural transformation in international relations, where effectiveness is no longer measured solely in terms of influence or reputation, but in terms of concrete and documented benefit for the planet and its inhabitants.

IV. Thematic Axes of Impact Diplomacy

1. Biodiversity

The biodiversity crisis threatens essential ecosystem services (pollination, water purification, climate regulation) and directly affects more than one-third of the global population (IPBES, 2019). Impact Diplomacy mobilizes international negotiations around joint financing mechanisms and shared governance:

  • Transboundary ecological corridors: the Europe-Africa Green Connectivity Alliance brought together in 2024 the environment ministers of seven countries to create migratory corridors for large mammals, under the auspices of the Bonn Convention (CMS, 2024).
  • Fair financing mechanism: at the 3rd UN Ocean Conference in Nice (June 2025), states adopted a Blue Fund for marine biodiversity worth USD 2 billion, co-financed by the EU, Japan, and several philanthropic foundations, with strict ESG criteria and a scientific committee drawn from the global congress of 2,000 researchers (UN Ocean Conference, 2025).
  • Public-private-community partnerships: Ghana’s “Forest Bonds” initiative brings together:
  1. the Ghanaian government (Ministry of Natural Resources),
  2. the World Bank (IFC),
  3. impact investors (Blue Orchard),
  4. local communities for the restoration of 150,000 ha of tropical forests, with satellite monitoring and transparent audits (World Bank, 2023).

2. Society and Social Cohesion

Rising inequalities and social fragmentation erode political stability and reduce trust in institutions (UN, 2020). Impact Diplomacy aims to build co-constructed responses centered on social cohesion:

  • Citizen diplomacy for water access: the “Euro-Mediterranean” project brings together Italian local governments, Tunisian NGOs, and European donors to install 200 purification stations in the Sahel, co-financed by the EIB and the Gates Foundation, with a mixed local council governed on an equal basis (EU Water Diplomacy Report, 2024).
  • “Schools for Peace” initiative in the Middle East: launched in 2023 by UNESCO and the Aga Khan Foundation, it brings together Jordanian and Palestinian governments, educational NGOs, and private donors to create 50 bilingual schools (Arabic/English) integrating cultural mediation and youth leadership modules (UNESCO, 2023).
  • Inclusive micro-financing: Grameen-USA and the Malian government negotiated in 2022 a multilateral partnership to extend microcredit to rural women through a blockchain platform, ensuring fund traceability and community participation in lending decisions (GIIN, 2021).

3. Peace and Security

Conflict prevention and the consolidation of lasting peace rely on a diplomacy that is non-militarized but operational:

  • Multilateral preventive diplomacy: the Geneva Centre for Conflict Prevention has organized since 2021 crisis simulation exercises (Cybersecurity, water access) involving armed forces, humanitarian NGOs, and climate experts, resulting in rapid response protocols validated by the UN Security Council (Bellamy, 2015).
  • Abuja Protocol III (2017): following inclusive negotiations led by ECOWAS and the African Union, a framework agreement was signed for the joint management of mining resources in the Sahel, with a multi-stakeholder arbitration mechanism and a post-conflict reconstruction fund (ECOWAS, 2018).
  • Blue-White-Red Peace Coalition: a Franco-Canadian initiative launched in 2024 to train 5,000 civil mediators from conflict zones (Lake Chad, Balkans) in intercultural dialogue and restorative justice techniques, funded by the French Development Agency and Global Affairs Canada (AFD, 2024).

4. Sustainable Development and Positive Financialization

Traditional finance, focused on short-term profit, must be redefined to fund projects with high societal and ecological impact:

  • Impact investment: the GIIN reports a +30% increase in capital flows to impact funds between 2021 and 2024, with hybrid instruments (blended finance) co-designed by the World Bank and local NGOs for the energy transition in Southeast Asia (GIIN, 2021).
  • AGILE negotiation platforms: the Geneva Foundation for the Future deployed the AGILE tool in 2025, enabling 50 states, 20 development banks, and 100 foundations to co-negotiate green bonds in real time based on shared impact criteria, accelerating the raising of USD 5 billion for coastal resilience (Geneva Foundation, 2025).
  • Strategic philanthropy: the Rockefeller Foundation and the Merieux Foundation signed a protocol in 2023 to fund mobile community health clinics in Latin America, with KPIs defined for reducing maternal mortality and ensuring equitable access to healthcare (Rockefeller, 2023).

5. The Question of Borders

Transboundary challenges (climate change, migration flows, pollution) require rethinking the concept of borders:

  • Green borders: the 2022 Franco-Spanish agreement on joint management of Alpine regions established an “ecological passport” to facilitate mobility of forest rangers and data sharing on wildfires and snowfall (Ministries of the Environment, 2022).
  • Arctic governance: under the aegis of the Arctic Council, Impact Diplomacy enabled the 2024 conclusion of a protocol on research vessels, harmonizing discharge standards and operational procedures to protect fragile ecosystems (Arctic Council, 2024).
  • Digital borders: the UN’s “Data for Good” initiative (2023) brings together states, tech giants, and start-ups to create a decentralized blockchain registry of cross-border climate data, ensuring its interoperability and free access for research and civic action (UN Global Pulse, 2023).

Case Study: Plan Bleu Mediterranean (UNEP/MAP)

The Plan Bleu Mediterranean, a regional institute of UNEP/MAP created in 1977 under the Barcelona Convention, perfectly illustrates the emergence of Science Diplomacy applied to the preservation of a maritime basin divided among twenty-two states and territories. Initially, its work focused on collecting scientific data and developing foresight scenarios to measure and compensate for the impact of human activities (water quality, coastal erosion, overfishing), feeding strategies for corporate social responsibility (CSR) and compensation mechanisms through national action plans (UNEP/MAP – Plan Bleu, 2020). For example, the report State of the Environment and Development in the Mediterranean (2019) served as a reference for launching seagrass restoration projects funded through public-private partnerships (UNEP/MAP, 2019).

However, faced with the urgency of accelerating degradation and the inadequacy of mere compensatory measures, the Plan Bleu is now well-positioned to evolve toward true Impact Diplomacy:

  • by integrating performance indicators aligned with the SDGs (SDG 14 – Life Below Water, SDG 13 – Climate Action),
  • by mobilizing the same scientific committees to co-design regenerative projects (active restoration of seagrass beds, marine biological corridors),
  • and by bringing together around shared objectives an expanded partnership including Mediterranean NGOs (WWF Mediterranean Initiative), donors, and port authorities, within a transparent and contractual framework.

This transition would allow the Plan Bleu to shift from a logic of “doing less harm” to that of “doing better”, by placing the rigorous measurement of ecological and social impact at the core of its diplomatic negotiations, and serving as a model for other regional bodies facing similar transboundary challenges (Moon, 2007; SDG Impact Standards, 2022).

Each of these axes illustrates the capacity of Impact Diplomacy to unite public and private actors, scientific experts, and local communities around concrete, measurable, and sustainable objectives. The approach not only ensures the resolution of immediate problems but also anchors actions in a dynamic of planetary regeneration and resilience.

V. Tools, Mechanisms, and Actors

1. Instruments and Common Standards

To ensure consistency and comparability of Impact Diplomacy commitments, it is essential to rely on internationally recognized standards and frameworks:

  • Impact standards aligned with the SDGs: the SDG Impact Standards define environmental and social performance indicators (SDGs 13, 14, 15, 16), accompanied by external verification protocols (SDG Impact Standards, 2022).
  • ESG Criteria (Environmental, Social, Governance): developed by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), these are increasingly integrated into public-private financing frameworks and green bonds (GRI, 2023; SASB, 2021).
  • EU Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities: implemented in 2020, it establishes a harmonized legal framework to classify a project as “environmentally sustainable” and facilitates convergence between Member States and investors (EU Taxonomy Regulation, 2020).
  • Impact Investing Label: several rating agencies, including Impak Finance and GIIN, offer labels certifying the quality of impact investment strategies, based on composite scores combining scientific rigor and field-based indicators (GIIN, 2021).

2. Public and Private Actors

Impact Diplomacy relies on a multi-stakeholder coalition, each playing a complementary role:

  • States and multilateral organizations:
    • United Nations (UNEP, UNDP, UNESCO): development of policy frameworks and facilitation of forums such as the UN Ocean Conference (Nice 2025), preceded by the global scientific congress.
    • European Union: funding (Connecting Europe Facility, Just Transition Fund) and regulatory support (Green Deal, Taxonomy) (European Commission, 2021).
    • Local governments: cross-border regions (Pyrenees-Mediterranean Euroregion), committed metropolitan areas (C40 Cities, 2022) piloting green mobility, water management, and ecological corridors.
  • Private sector and impact investors:
    • Development banks (EIB, ADB, IFC) offering credit lines conditional on environmental and social KPIs (World Bank, 2023).
    • Philanthropic foundations (Gates, Rockefeller, Bloomberg) funding innovative initiatives, from satellite forest monitoring to community telemedicine.
    • Civil society and local communities: NGOs (WWF, Oxfam), Indigenous movements (Indigenous Environmental Network), cooperatives, and village councils providing local legitimacy and co-construction of projects (Ostrom, 1990).

3. Impact Diplomacy Platforms and Hubs

Networking and coordination rely on diplomatic hubs and collaborative tools:

  • Geneva Foundation for the Future (AGILE): a physical and digital platform for collaboration and alignment between Impact Finance, Impact Philanthropy, and Impact Projects (green and blue bonds, NGO-oriented private equity...), bringing together states, development banks, foundations, and investors to co-define impact criteria, monitor commitments in real time, and organize regular multilateral negotiation sessions on concrete and pragmatic topics.
  • Plan Bleu Mediterranean (UNEP/MAP): an example of Science Diplomacy that has evolved into a laboratory of Impact Diplomacy, where researchers and regional policymakers co-develop marine restoration projects with SDG-aligned indicators (UNEP/MAP, 2019).
  • UN Global Pulse “Data for Good”: a decentralized blockchain registry of climate and social data, shared among states and research institutions to inform negotiations and ensure transparent data access (UN Global Pulse, 2023).
  • International Network of Conflict Prevention Centers: hubs in Geneva, Nairobi, and Shanghai organizing simulation exercises (cyber, water, migration) and formalizing rapid response protocols validated by the Security Council (Bellamy, 2015).

Through these diverse instruments, mechanisms, and actors, Impact Diplomacy equips itself with a robust architecture, capable of translating normative ambitions into concrete, measurable, and lasting projects, and of anchoring international cooperation in a dynamic of regeneration and collective resilience.

VI. Case Studies and Feedback

1. AGILE and the Geneva Foundation for the Future

The Geneva Foundation for the Future finalized in January 2025 the development of the AGILE platform-tool (Alignment – Governance – Intention – Leadership – Efficiency), designed as a physical and digital tool for multilateral or multi-stakeholder negotiation, enabling dialogue and collaboration among states, development banks, impact investors, and philanthropic foundations. AGILE makes it possible to co-construct green and blue bonds in real time, with harmonized impact criteria targeting specific SDGs (SDG 13, 14, 15), allocate funds according to predefined schedules, and monitor implementation via a public dashboard.

  • Collaborative process: Thanks to its simplicity and agility, the tool allows relatively large groups — such as 50 state delegations and 120 private organizations — to engage in participatory processes. The tool itself emerged from 3 years of representative and participatory collaboration, and the pilot phase targets the evaluation, monitoring, or mentoring of 300 projects over another 3 years, aiming for an initial issuance volume of USD 5 billion by the end of the exploratory phase (field feedback).
  • Measurability and transparency: each project may either incorporate indicators validated by an ad hoc scientific committee (e.g., researchers from the UN Ocean Congress, Nice 2025), use a peer-review assessment grid, or undergo semi-annual audits by a third-party agency (KPMG Sustainability or others). This opens the possibility for the emergence of independent impact finance rating agencies.

By uniting stakeholders around a common language and measurable objectives, AGILE illustrates the potential of Impact Diplomacy to transform multilateral finance into a lever for ecological and social regeneration.

2. Climate Impact Diplomacy: Glasgow Climate Pact

The Glasgow Climate Pact, adopted at COP26 in November 2021, represents a first foray of Impact Diplomacy into the climate domain. It introduced for the first time:

  • Conditional financial commitments (USD 100 billion/year by 2025 for developing countries),
  • Biennial review clauses and an enhanced transparency mechanism (Enhanced Transparency Framework),
  • and the obligation for each state to publish a detailed climate action plan (NDC) with performance indicators (emission reduction rates, reforested area, share of renewable energy).

Several projects have been co-financed:

  1. Tanzania Climate Resilience Bond (2023): USD 200 million for flood-resistant green infrastructure, evaluated using a local hydrological resilience index (World Bank, 2023).
  2. Philippines Renewable Energy Accelerator: a public-private guarantee mechanism for installing 500 MW of community solar energy, with real-time tracking of production and CO₂ reduction metrics (Asian Development Bank, 2022).

This case shows how a diplomatic agreement can evolve into operational diplomacy, where the actual implementation of commitments is guided by shared indicators and continuous monitoring, placing impact measurement at the heart of decision-making.

3. “Green Borders” France-Spain Initiative for Alpine Conservation

The France-Spain bilateral agreement signed in 2022 for the joint management of Alpine mountain ranges illustrates a territorial impact diplomacy approach:

  • Transboundary ecological passport: issued to forest rangers and environmental agents, allowing free movement for wildfire control and joint ecosystem assessment (Ministries of the Environment, 2022).
  • Shared Alpine Observatory: a platform of climatic and biological data (temperatures, snowpack, alpine grassland status) developed by Météo-France, AEMET (Spain), and the Écrins National Park, with quarterly publication of impact reports (OFEV, 2023).
  • Pilot restoration projects: floral corridors planted across 1,200 ha (40% endemic species), financed by a mandatory contribution mechanism from ski resorts, and evaluated using a jointly defined ecosystem connectivity index (EU Alpine Strategy, 2022).

This initiative demonstrates how Impact Diplomacy can redefine border management, no longer as a dividing line, but as a regenerative cooperation zone, with measurable benefits for biodiversity, natural risk prevention, and local development.

These three case studies highlight the diversity of Impact Diplomacy modalities: from collaborative green finance to climate resilience reinforcement and ecosystem-based transboundary governance. Each illustrates the ability of this new form of diplomacy to align shared objectives, normative instruments, and monitoring mechanisms to produce concrete and lasting impacts.

VII. Limits, Challenges, and Prospects

1. Risks of Fragmentation and Competing Objectives

Despite its holistic ambition, Impact Diplomacy remains vulnerable to the multiplication of normative frameworks and competing — sometimes contradictory — objectives:

  • Proliferation of initiatives: there are now over fifty ESG standards, “green” labels, and impact frameworks. This dispersion complicates harmonization and burdens negotiation processes, risking a dilution of commitments (Haas, 2004).
  • Competing interests: national priorities (economic growth, food sovereignty) can conflict with cross-cutting ecological goals (biodiversity, climate). For instance, the 2023 revival of Argentina’s cattle sector clashed with methane reduction targets under the Glasgow Pact (UNFCCC, 2021), illustrating the risk of a “diplomatic deadlock” due to opposing sectoral objectives.
  • Institutional fragmentation: sectoral bodies (FAO for agriculture, IMO for oceans) coexist globally without any real mechanism for cross-sector governance to arbitrate goal convergence or conflicts (Falkner, 2008).

2. Governance and Accountability

The effectiveness of Impact Diplomacy hinges on a delicate balance between adaptability and accountability:

  • Greenwashing, social-washing, and “impact-washing”: public or private actors may promote impact commitments without having independent verification mechanisms. According to a UNEP report (2023), nearly 40% of green bonds issued in 2022 had no third-party certification.
  • Capacity inequalities: Global South countries often struggle to provide reliable data to support SDG indicators due to lack of human and financial resources, potentially excluding them from the benefits of impact diplomacy (UN DESA, 2022).
  • Transparency and participation: ensuring legitimacy requires including local communities in decision-making and access to information. Yet, the technical complexity of ESG criteria and taxonomies (European Commission, 2023) poses a barrier to genuine inclusion.

3. Future Prospects

Several avenues are emerging to strengthen and expand Impact Diplomacy:

  1. Creation of a global one-stop hub (Global Impact Hub) bringing together the UN, OECD, EU, and private actors to aggregate standards, harmonize verification protocols, and pool training resources (proposal initiated at the 3rd UN Ocean Conference, Nice 2025).
  2. Strengthening local capacities through specialized diplomatic training programs (e.g., DIPIMP Master’s program at the University of Geneva), combining science, international law, and impact project management.
  3. Integration of emerging technologies:
    • Artificial intelligence to analyze environmental and social data in real time, anticipate risks, and adjust commitments (UN Global Pulse, 2023).
    • Digital twins of the Earth to simulate the effects of impact policies before full-scale implementation.
  4. Opening up new diplomatic frontiers:
    • Outer space: regulation of space activities and their impact on orbital and planetary environments (space debris, lunar mining) via “Space Impact Diplomacy.”
    • Virtual borders and cyberspace: development of digital impact protocols to limit energy pollution from data centers and ensure equitable access to green technologies.

By overcoming the challenges of fragmentation, accountability, and capacity inequalities, Impact Diplomacy has the potential to become a true architecture of global governance, capable of aligning scientific rigor, participatory inclusion, and regenerative ambition.

VIII. Conclusion

Impact Diplomacy emerges as a major evolution of “soft” diplomacy, combining the attraction of knowledge and symbolic power with a new operational requirement: producing measurable benefits for the planet and its inhabitants. Grounded in its four pillars — transparency, inclusion, measurability, and shared intention — it offers a flexible legal and institutional framework capable of uniting public and private actors and local communities around regenerative and resilient projects.

The case studies analyzed — from the AGILE platform of the Geneva Foundation to the Glasgow Pact and the Green Borders initiative — demonstrate that Impact Diplomacy is not merely a theoretical concept but a concrete lever for action in biodiversity, social cohesion, peace, and sustainable development. It transforms compensation and CSR mechanisms into a proactive dynamic, where commitments no longer aim to “do less harm” but to “do better” from the start.

Faced with the risks of normative fragmentation, greenwashing, and capacity inequalities, its future will depend on our collective ability to harmonize standards, strengthen accountability, and develop global governance hubs. By anchoring international cooperation in a logic of regeneration and just abundance, Impact Diplomacy paves the way for a renewed diplomacy in service of a sustainable, equitable, and resilient world.

References

Bellamy, A. J. (2015). Preventive Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution. Oxford University Press.

Bound, K., Briggs, R., Holden, J., & Jones, S. (2007). Cultural Diplomacy. Demos.

Clayton, S., & Manning, C. (2018). Ecological Emotions: Understanding and Addressing Eco‑Anxiety. Routledge.

Commission mondiale sur l’environnement et le développement. (1987). Notre avenir à tous (rapport Brundtland). Oxford University Press.

Cummings, M. (2003). Cultural Diplomacy and the United States Government: A Survey. Center for Arts and Culture.

ECOWAS. (2018). Protocol on Transboundary Resource Management and Post‑Conflict Reconstruction: Abuja III. Economic Community of West African States.

European Commission. (2021). The European Green Deal (COM/2019/640 final).

European Parliament & Conseil de l’UE. (2020). Règlement (UE) 2020/852 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 18 juin 2020 relatif à l’établissement d’un cadre pour favoriser les investissements durables (Taxonomie verte). Journal officiel de l’Union européenne, L198, 13–43.

Gagnon, F. (2021). Inclusive Global Governance: Transparency and Participation. Routledge.

Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN). (2021). Annual Impact Investor Survey. GIIN.

Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2023). GRI Standards. Global Reporting Initiative.

Gupta, J., Lebel, L., Huq, S., & Mirza, M. M. Q. (2020). Planetary Boundaries and the Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Sustainability, 3(10), 733–742.

High-Level Expert Group on the European Green Deal. (2022). Fit for 55 Package: Assessing the Impact and Ambition. Publications Office of the European Union.

International Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). (2019). Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat.

International Monetary Fund & World Bank. (2023). Forest Bonds Ghana: Blended Finance for Restoration. IFC Publications.

Ministère de la Transition écologique (France) & Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica (Espagne). (2022). Accord franco‑espagnol pour la gestion conjointe des massifs alpins.

Moon, B. (2007). Science Diplomacy: A Pragmatic Perspective from the Inside. Science & Diplomacy, 1(1).

Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. PublicAffairs.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.

Pardo, A., & Prakash, A. (2017). Science Diplomacy in the Twenty‑First Century. Science & Diplomacy, 6(1).

PNUD. (2020). Human Development Report 2020: The Next Frontier — Human Development and the Anthropocene. United Nations Development Programme.

Rischard, J.‑F. (2002). High Noon: Twenty Global Problems, Twenty Years to Solve Them. Basic Books.

Rockefeller Foundation. (2023). Strategic Philanthropy in Community Health: Impact Metrics and Case Studies.

Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB). (2021). SASB Standards. SASB Foundation.

Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S. R., ... & Sörlin, S. (2018). Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(33), 8252–8259.

Stone, R. (2019). Science Diplomacy: New Day or False Dawn? World Scientific.

Turekian, V. D. (2014). Enhancing Science Diplomacy. Science & Diplomacy, 3(3).

UN. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1). United Nations.

UNEP/MAP – Plan Bleu. (2019). State of the Environment and Development in the Mediterranean. Plan Bleu, UNEP/MAP.

UNFCCC. (2015). Adoption of the Paris Agreement (FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

UN Global Pulse. (2023). Data for Good: Blockchain for Climate and Social Data. United Nations.

World Bank. (2023). Tanzania Climate Resilience Bond: Impact Evaluation Report. World Bank Group.

1992-2025 — Thomas EGLI
Contact et Mentions légales | Présentation