The Application of a Process Approach to the National Governance System for Sustainable Development: A Case Study in Romania

Abstract

This paper aims to present a new manner of describing and managing the national governance framework for “sustainable development (SD)”, focused on a process-based approach. This principle was applied in previous work by the authors related to the key processes of the United Nations governance for SD. The present paper continues the process approach of multi-level governance, aiming to contribute to the conceptualization of governance systems for SD at the national level, particularly in the context of the 2030 Agenda, taking into account the harmonization with higher levels of governance. The workpaper presents in distinct sections: a review of publications related to the national framework of governance for SD; the overall picture of the national SD governance system, with the generic definition of key processes; a case study performed in Romania; and a conclusion. The novelty of this paper consists of the new model tool proposed by the authors and its application in a study case that illustrates the benefits of such an approach. The proposed model is useful to SD experts and governing bodies, as well as academics and researchers, creating the framework for developing and improving SD governance at the country level in a systematic manner.

1. Introduction

Governance for “sustainable development (SD)” has gained increasing consideration in recent decades and is currently a central issue of governance worldwide. In essence, the concept of governance for SD defines the governance focused on SD, but the publications on this topic also present more complex definitions, e.g., “Processes of sociopolitical governance oriented towards the attainment of SD” [1] (p. 299); “Governance for SD encompasses the steering requirements and mechanisms that enable the formulation of concerted and adaptive policies that foster the cooperation of diverse actors in delivering SD” [2] (p. 22), etc.

The publications also note the challenges facing governance for SD: it represents a new conceptual framework for the development of society that requires a multi-sector, multi-level, and multi-actor demarche, and continuous reflection and adaptive learning cycles. These features are related to the key principles of governance for SD, namely integration, participation, reflexivity, and the long-term principle [2] (p. 24).

First of all, the governance for SD presumes a long-term horizon view: the present actions should not affect future generations, as the first official definition of SD states: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [3] (p. 41). Secondly, it is an integrative approach that takes into account economic, social, and environmental aspects. Thus, SD is a way of developing that modifies the purposes of traditional development by adding environmental and social goals to the economic ones. At the same time, the vertical integration of SD actions is necessary, which implies the harmonization of SD actions in multi-level governance [4]. Central to this concept is the recognition that the provision of SD requires the division of responsibility between more levels of governance: the “United Nations (UN)” is the main actor in SD global coordination, followed by regional governance, national governance, and at the lower levels, local communities and organizations. This complex multi-level governance reflects the global nature of sustainability issues; the common goal of governance bodies at all levels is to deliver results for citizens. According to Allain-Dupré [5] (pp. 803–804), multi-level governance has become an imperative to perform the complex interactions among stakeholders in the design and implementation of public policies. This statement is related to the third principle, the principle of participation, which refers to the large engagement of all stakeholders in SD governance, namely administrative bodies, organizations, and citizens. Finally, the principle of reflexivity defines the regular evaluation of SD governance performance and its continuous improvement.

The present paper refers to the national framework of governance for SD and proposes a new approach to the governance system focused on processes. Addressing processes is a basic principle of modern management that leads to improvements in the overall performance of a system through a better correlation of its activities. In the authors’ view, the process approach to governance for SD allows a better understanding and functioning of the governance system at each level and also a better harmonization between the different levels of governance. A previous authors’ work on this topic describes the key processes for UN governance for SD and makes reference to the main processes’ regulations that are currently used [6]. The present paper is a continuation of the prior work; it aims to contribute to the conceptualization and effectiveness of governance for SD at the national level, particularly in the context of the 2030 Agenda [7], taking into account harmonization with the other levels of the governance system.

The workpaper is structured on three sections with the following specific objectives: (1) reviewing the literature on the national framework of governance for SD; (2) establishing a generic process-based model for the “national governance system for SD (NGS-SD)”; and (3) applying the proposed model in a case study carried out in Romania. The final conclusions summarize the benefits of implementing the process-based model for national SD governance and outline the main directions of future research that can support such an approach.

• Methodology used

The paper applies the methodology of a process-based approach to define a generic model for the NGS-SD and analyzes how the processes of SD governance are currently carried out in Romania. Also, extensive literature-based documentation is provided, both in the critical analysis of publications on the national SD governance framework and in the assessment of NGS-SD in Romania.

• Novelty of thepaper

The originality of the paper consists of applying the process-based approach to the description of NGS-SD. The model for the NGS-SD proposed by authors is a novelty. Also, the case study based on this model carried out by the authors is an original contribution.

2. A Literature Review on the National Framework of Governance for Sustainable Development

The governance framework is a complex concept that refers to the totality of instruments, procedures, processes, actors, and resources designed to tackle a societal problem [8] (p. 13). The national SD governance framework has gained considerable attention in research and public debate, particularly since the drafting of the 2030 Agenda, given the global and universal nature of the “SD goals (SDGs)”, whose achievement involves all countries.

The review developed in this section is not exhaustive, analyzing only the recent publications on national governance for SD related to the 2030 Agenda’s implementation. This limitation takes into account the fact that, over the past decade, considerable progress has been made in the national SD governance framework. Additionally, studies on the national SDG objectives and results and those related to one particular element of the governance system will not be taken into account. For example, the publications on SD governance principles or structures, respectively, a single governance process, or a tool. All of these are components of NGS-SD and their individual analyses do not correspond to the purpose of this work, which focuses on the global picture of national governance for SD.

• The publication of the “Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)”, entitled “Governance as an SDG Accelerator“ [9] illustrates the main ingredients of a whole-of-government approach to strategic visioning, priority setting, and implementation of the SDGs. In the authors’ view, SD governance involves the design, implementation, and effective delivery of public policies, and in this sense, three processes are carried out: (1) elaboration of strategies; (2) planning operational actions; and (3) monitoring and evaluation. The key role of robust coordination mechanisms is emphasized in ensuring policy coherence and successfully addressing the multi-dimensional policy challenges that characterize the SDGs. The authors also stress the need to develop an appropriate structure with a strong coordination body at a high level and refer distinctly to some governance processes, namely strategic planning and priority-setting; public procurement; and human resources, skills, and digital tools to support the SDGs implementation.
• The study of Niestroy et al. [10], carried out under the auspices of the European Parliament, examines the governance frameworks used to implement the SDGs in the “European Union (EU)” member states. The analysis model includes seven elements of SD governance, namely, (1) commitment and strategy; (2) leadership and horizontal coordination; (3) stakeholder participation; (4) monitoring and review; (5) knowledge and tools; (6) institutions for the long-term; and (7) activities of Parliaments for Agenda 2030.
• The book by Monkelbaan [11] is a complex study that includes theoretical considerations on essential elements for a global analysis of SD governance and several case studies. A distinct chapter refers to the key competences of governance for SDGs, which are structured in three pillars: (1) power (leadership; networking and stakeholder management; empowerment); (2) knowledge (knowledge cooperation; adaptiveness and resilience; reflexivity); and (3) norms and values (equity; creating horizontal and vertical trust; inclusiveness and pluralism).
• Comments on the national governance framework for SD are also made by Morita, Okitasari, and Masuda [12], which focus on the evaluation of national and local governance systems for achieving SDGs. Starting from the existing publications, the authors remark that there are not effective tools for analyzing governance systems that aim to implement SDGs. The solution adopted by the authors is the matrix tool of the “Governance System Analysis” proposed by Dale, Vella, and Potts [13], which includes five key structural components: (1) vision and objective settings; (2) research and assessment; (3) strategy development; (4) strategy implementation; and (5) monitoring, evaluation, and review. Furthermore, each component includes three key functions, namely, decision-making capacity, connectivity, and knowledge use. Following the comparative analysis of the governance systems for SDGs in Japan and Indonesia based on this model, the authors conclude the need to improve it in terms of the tools and indicators used to evaluate the real effects of governance.
• Villeneuve and Lanmafankpotin [14] propose a guiding model for the national SD governance evaluation, which was included in the UN Sustainability Acceleration Toolkit [15]. The main components of this model are as follows: (1) national institutional framework; (2) strategic coordination; (3) interaction with sub- and supra-national levels; (4) accommodating stakeholders; (5) monitoring and ongoing evaluation; (6) capacity-building for authorities and stakeholders. Each of these components includes several elements/criteria. As an example, the “National institutional framework” component is analyzed based on ten criteria: vision; principles; legal document; policy, strategy, or equivalent plans; horizontal integration; budgeting; national resources; greenhouse gas reduction target; development and implementation tools; government departments and agencies that help to implement the SD strategy.

It is to note the concern for the creation of tools to support the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. At present, there are a great number of specific SD governance tools, most of them elaborated at the UN level and accessible online (e.g., the UN Sustainability Acceleration Toolkit [15]). These instruments are related to SD principles, sectoral issues, or specific processes of the governance system and do not provide an overview of the NGS-SD.

A series of publications focus on the governance transformations needed to achieve the SDGs, and in this context, components of the national governance framework are presented.

• One such study was elaborated by Nestroy [16], which focused on the tools for SD integration. The author remarks that there are universal tools adopted by the UN that support the process of integrating SDGs into national governance, but they must be adapted to the context of each country, taking into account specific national realities and capacities. The expression “meta-governance approach” is used in connection with this contingent transformation. The paper focuses on the steps of governance transformations that need to be made at national level and refers to three major components of the SD governance system: (1) strategies; (2) institutional (organizational) arrangements; and (3) processes, including supporting tools. Particular attention is paid to national culture, and some interpretations are presented regarding the relationship between SD integration approaches/tools and the cultural context and the governance environment.
• A similar approach was taken by Meuleman and Niestroy [17] in their work, which focused on meta-governance combined with key governance principles as a mechanism to support the analysis, design, and management of SDG governance framework. The authors stress that the implementation of SDGs requires systemic thinking, comprehensive approaches (taking into account all relevant aspects), and, in addition, a holistic view.
• O-Connor et al. [18] examine the transformations in several OECD-developed countries aimed at implementing the 2030 Agenda. The case studies refer to some components of the governance for SD, namely (1) governmental structures and coordination; (2) SD strategy and objectives statement; (3) policy elaboration and coherence; (4) vertical communication with the sub-national levels; and (5) evaluation process and review of progress.
• In their paper, Fyson, Lindberg, and Morales [19] underline that implementing the 2030 Agenda represents a complex governance challenge and needs “to boost the capacity of governments to plan, to coordinate, to act, and to serve as a catalyst in support of SDGs implementation”. The authors refer to some enablers for accelerating progress on the SDGs, namely (1) vision and leadership (expressed at the highest levels and backed by strategies, policies, legislation, action plans, instructions and incentive, which are essential to pursue SDGs in a coherent manner); (2) coordinated actions (dedicated coordination mechanisms and tools, and collaborative partnership with all stakeholders and sub-national levels of governance); (3) impact (evaluation processes for assessing the progress toward the SDGs and the impact of the SD policies); (4) human resource (the capacity and leadership skills of civil servants to understand the complex relationships between the SDGs, and their ability to turn governance principles into actions).
• Finally, it must be said that two of the SDGs (numbers 16 and 17) from the 2030 Agenda [7] focus on governance systems, but the aspects they refer to do not provide a complete picture of NGS-SD. The SDG16 specific targets are associated with improving the decision-making process, efficient, responsible, and transparent institutions, and the professionalization of institutions. And SDG17 refers to policy coherence in SD, developing an action plan, and updating specific national indicators. Several official documents—guidelines and tools developed at the UN level and by other global and regional bodies—support the implementation of these SDGs. There are also studies that try to identify the influencing factors associated with the SDG17 achievement in relation with the UN’s seven categories of implementation means: resource mobilization, technology, capacity building, trade, policy and institutional coherence, multi-stakeholder partnerships, data, monitoring, and accountability [20,21]. These studies, as well as the official documents related to SDG 16 and 17, are undoubtedly useful, but they focus on analytical frameworks for the development of specific governance mechanisms and do not cover the entire governance system.

As a conclusion of the publication-based review, it can be said that achieving sustainability requires new governance frameworks, institutions, and tools to address the complex societal challenges posed by the 2030 Agenda. Research in governance for SD often focuses on SDGs’ planning, achievement, and progress, or only on one particular aspect of the governance system (e.g., principles, structure, strategy, etc.). There is a general consensus on the need for a holistic approach to SD governance at the national level, aiming to develop a global picture of effective governance for sustainability.

As the previous review shows, there are few publications that address the national governance framework for SD from a broader perspective as a system. The analysis of these models illustrates that there is not a clear picture of the NGS-SD; there are different visions of the governance system for SD, which makes it difficult to understand what needs to be accomplished, which are the components of the governance system, and, respectively, which of them is most conducive to achieving the SDGs. Also, there are not effective tools for the systematic evaluation of national SD governance framework as a whole. According to Glass and Newig [22] (p. 2), “There is no comprehensive analysis systemically examining the relationship of governance and SD in its social, economic and environmental dimension as defined by the UN in the 2030 Agenda”.

In the context of the worldwide implementation of the 2030 Agenda, it is imperative to define a generic model for NGS-SD as a common methodological framework for all countries. The present work aims to contribute toward solving this requirement.

3. Process Architecture of the National Governance System for Sustainable Development

The principle of the process-based approach and the benefits of its application to SD governance have been presented in a previous paper by the authors [6]. The first piece of work on this topic focused on the “process architecture” of the highest level of the governance system for SD (the UN level), identifying and briefly describing the key processes on which the overall SD results depend. The present paper aims to further the process-based description of multi-level governance for SD by focusing on the national framework of SD governance in the context of the 2030 Agenda.

In essence, the process-based principle involves defining and managing the interrelated processes on which the overall results depend. As pointed out in prior work by the authors, the process-focused vision emerged in the last few decades of the last century in various management models and methods, but since 2000, it has spread widely by its definition as a basic principle of quality management in the ISO 9000 standards [23]. Currently, process-based approaches are used in many organizations, being one of the key ingredients for effective management in terms of quality, environment, business process, etc. [6].

The processes of the governance system represent the interdependent sequences of activities undertaken to achieve the overall goals. Figure 1 schematically presents the key processes of the NGS-SD, considering their classification into the following three categories: management processes, core/basic processes, and support processes. This classification is generic and originates in standards for management systems, e.g., the ISO 9000 (2015) series of standards for quality management systems.

The process architecture of the NGS-SD is similar to those proposed for the UN governance system for SD [6], but there are some differences in the global picture, especially in the processes’ content, which will be described below. Using the same scheme to represent the two systems is not accidental;: it makes it easier to understand the connections between the two levels of multi-level governance for SD, which are based on common principles and rules. The connections materialize through inputs and outputs at both the system and process levels. From a relational point of view, performing governance processes also implies broad partnerships and stakeholder engagement. Each process is defined through specific inputs, activities, tools and resources, outputs, and performance indicators. These elements must be described in process regulations (norms, procedures, methodologies, etc.), which are important tools for effective management. The responsibility for the results and how the processes are carried out is assigned to the process owners.

Next, the NGS-SD processes are briefly described, namely (1) leadership; (2) planning/control/improvement processes; (3) basic processes; and (4) support processes.

(1)

The “Leadership” process plays a key role in the creation of the overall action framework for SD governance, performing several functions:, including defining principles and policies on SD; developing national strategy, objectives, and axes of action; establishing responsibilities/structures; communication and developing the SD culture; NGS-SD management; and SD regulation management. Establishing responsibilities refers to the creation of specific SD bodies and functions at the national level of governance. Developing coherent policies and national strategies represents activities/sub-processes that aim to ensure the establishment of the long-term SD direction and objectives, as well as the behavioral changes necessary for the SD to be integrated into daily life at the national level. In this regard, communication on SD values and strategy is a very important process, contributing to the development of SD culture.

A distinct sequence of the “Leadership” process is “NGS-SD management”, which relates to the responsibility of national SD leadership to continuously control and improve the governance system. As previously mentioned, improvements in governance systems for SD are included in SDG16 and SDG17. Defining “NGS-SD management” as a distinct process leads to a more systematic and comprehensive approach to SD governance that needs to be regularly evaluated and improved. The leadership’s responsibility in this sense is embodied in the approval of the annual report of NGS-SD and the establishment of improvement plans.

The management of SD regulations is another sequence of the “Leadership” process. SD regulations include laws and other types of regulations related to technical aspects (e.g., environmental norms and standards), economic (e.g., pollution taxes, fiscal facilities for disadvantaged categories), and administrative (e.g., environmental control structures). These regulations play an essential role in achieving the SDGs. The definition of a distinct NGS-SD process related to SD regulations (norms, laws, and methodologies) has the systematic control and continuous improvement of these tools in mind, considering the strategies promoted and also the assimilation of legislative initiatives from higher levels of governance. The methodological aspects of the development and approval of SD regulations determine the capacity of government to deliver legislation, being associated with good governancerespectively “quality of governance (QoG)”; however, this is a different topic and will not be addressed in this work.

(2)

The planning/control/improvement processes define the cycle of management actions aimed at developing national SD plans, controlling activities and results, and improving performance. The major issues in SD planning are the establishment of national SD indicators and the prioritization of actions, taking into account their impact and existing resources. The control aims to measure and evaluate the results and progress in the field of SD from the perspective of the SDGs and the evaluation of the governance system. The assessment is performed at the government level, but the regular reporting of SD actions resulting in higher levels of multi-level governance is also included in this process. According to Niestroy et al. [10] (p. 28), a robust monitoring and review framework is crucial for an effective and operational strategy. The improvement is based on the results provided by the control and implies the elimination of deficiencies in terms of the SDGs and the way of governance, as well as the transition to new levels of performance through innovation. According to Meuleman [8] (p. 7), “SD is a laboratory for governance innovation (how will the goals be achieved?) but also for policy innovation (which concrete goals need to be set in a specific situation?)”.

The global responsibility for coordinating management processes must rest on the Prime Minister, but the power is usually delegated to a specialized SD body. The SD structural framework must be adapted to the national context.

(3)

The basic processes (“operation”) define the actions with direct effects on the overall results. In the case of NGS-SD, the operation process takes the form of development programs and projects with specific SD objectives, coordinated by the line ministries or inter-ministries. The key areas of action are defined by the national policies, strategies, and plans for SD, which are based on horizontal integration, but they are also harmonized with those adopted at higher levels of SD governance. Currently, the reference points are the 2030 Agenda and the 17 SDGs, with which thematic areas are associated.

The thematic areas represent horizontal factors for achieving sustainability and correspond to one or more fields of activity, usually associated with different ministries/coordination structures. For each thematic area, specific objectives are established (derived from the SDGs), and programs and projects are developed to achieve them. For instance, achieving the strategic objective of the SDG4—“Quality education”—supposes specific programs in different areas related to early education, entrepreneurial education, education infrastructure, etc. The relationship between the national SDGs, thematic areas, and different numbers of SD programs and projects (P1, P2, … Px; …; P1, P2, … Pz) assigned to these areasis illustrated in Figure 2. As the scheme shows, the SD programs and projects are generally multi-ministerial. The complexity is amplified by the fact that the SDGs are set at the national level, and the projects are usually based on local initiatives. The harmonization between SD objectives and the actions carried out to achieve them requires adequate planning and financing mechanisms. Some examples of this are presented in the case study carried out in Romania.

(4)

The support processes refer to providing the necessary resources for SD. The processes in this category are the same as those of the UN governance system for SD, namely “Human Resource”, “Financing”, and “Information Management”. The process of “Infrastructure” could be added to better control the way that the infrastructure for national SD governance is developed. Particular aspects regarding the accomplishment of these processes are presented in the case study performed in Romania.

The major difference from the model for UN governance for SD is the lack of “policy coherence”, “stakeholder engagement”, and “partnership management” processes, which were defined as support processes in the prior work [6]. These are transversal functions that apply to all processes of the governance system. In our opinion, they must be defined as leadership sub-processes, their purpose being to control and continuously improve the way that the principles they refer to are applied at the national level. As the previous work by the authors shows, the processes of “policy coherence”, “stakeholder engagement”, and “partnership management” are regulated at the UN level by framework documents with specific requirements and assessment tools. These instruments constitute guidelines for developing and unitarily evaluating the three processes in a systematic manner at the country level.

As a conclusion of this section, applying the process-based principle to define the NGS-SD results in a generic model harmonized with those presented in the prior work by the authors and focused on the first level of multi-level governance for SD. The existence of a unique model for the NGS-SD does not mean enrollment in templates. The model shows what needs to be accomplished, but not how it is accomplished. Each process must be tailored, taking into account the country context and particularities and the existence of common rules ensuring the convergence of SD actions on a regional and global scale. The 2030 Agenda and SDGs are currently common benchmarks in this regard.

The proposed model creates the framework for the unitary evaluation of a governance system for SD in all countries, being useful in comparative analyses and also for identifying the challenges they face in improving their performance. This assessment is one of the NGS-SD control sub-processes, and it must be performed systematically, which means that it is performed repeatedly, with a certain frequency; the process is defined by methodologies or procedures that specify what is accomplished, who does it, and the necessary tools and resources; reports are regularly elaborated, providing a basis for the analyzes performed by the country’s government, and by coordination and evaluation bodies at higher levels of governance.

In the next section, an application of the proposed model is presented. The case study is carried out in Romania, a European country that is actively developing the governance system for the SDGs.

4. Case Study in Romania

Romania, as a member of the UN and the EU, has expressed its adhesion to achieving the 17 SDGs of the 2030 Agenda in the framework of the UN Summit for SD in 2015 [7] and by the adoption of the document “A sustainable future for Europe: the EU’s response to the 2030 Agenda for SD” in 2017 [24].

The purpose of this section is to analyze the SD governance system in Romania in the context of implementing the 2030 Agenda. The analysis is structured on the elements of the NGS-SD model described above, namely (1) leadership (establishing responsibilities; strategy elaboration, objectives, and principles; communication and SD culture; management of the NGS-SD; management of the SD regulations; policy coherence, stakeholder engagement and partnership management); (2) management cycle (planning; control; and improvement); (3) operation (execution of the portfolio of programs and projects); (4) support processes (human resources; financing; information; and infrastructure). For each process, information about actions, actors, and tools is presented, highlighting their current state and progress.

(1)

Leadership

• The development of an adequate national structure for implementing SD in Romania in the context of the 2030 Agenda was one of the priority actions of the government. Currently, the central SD structure includes several ministerial entities (Figure 3) and other independent organizations.

Figure 3. National structure of the governance for SD. (source: adapted from [25] (p. 15)).

Figure 3. National structure of the governance for SD. (source: adapted from [25] (p. 15)).

The responsibility for SD at the national level is assigned to the Prime Minister, but the coordination of activities is delegated to the SD Department, created in 2017 [26]. In 2019, the “Interdepartmental Committee for SD” was created, an inter-institutional body chaired by the Prime Minister, which comprises the Vice Prime Ministers and Ministers [27]. The Committee monitors the process of implementing, monitoring, evaluating and revising Romania’s strategy for SD, its mission being to elaborate annual reports and approve the action plans. The permanent secretariat of the Committee is provided by the SD Department, which coordinates the elaboration and implementation of SD strategies, and also prepares annual reports on the strategy implementation. The reports are submitted to the government and presented in Parliament. Within the SD Department, there is the “Network of nuclei for SD”, which organizes working groups for the implementation of sectoral strategies. There is also the “Consultative Council for SD” [28], with independent specialists. The Council is a member of the “Network of European Advisory Councils on Environment and SD”, which works with European institutions and other major organizations.

It is worth noting that the SD department has a recognized national presence and visibility. Externally, it made Romania an actor, recognized at regional, European, and international levels, awarded for the innovation brought to public policies [29] (p. 7). The achievements of the SD Department can be found in the annual activity reports published on the department’s website [30].

In the spirit of the 2030 Agenda, independent structures were also created to stakeholders’ participation in the SDGs implementation. The most important is the “Coalition Sustainable Romania”, created in 2021 by the SD Department in partnership with the Embassy of Sustainability in Romania Association [31], which brings together organizations representing civil society and the private environment. Joining the Coalition is performed online, on the organization’s website, thus ensuring a bridge of dialogue with the government on sustainability issues.

• Elaborating strategies for SD is a key process in the effective governance of SD at all levels. The “National strategy for SD of Romania (NSSDR)” 2030 was adopted by the Romanian Government in 2018 [32]. The NSSDR has three parts, which refer to the following: SD-related vision and engagement; the evaluation of the first decade of implementation of the SD strategy approved by the Romanian government in 2008 and the new strategic objectives and targets for the 17 SDGs, in line with the 2030 Agenda and relevant EU provisions; the strategy implementation and monitoring.

The foundation of the SD strategy was based on data and documents from ministries and other central institutions, as well as from European institutions and the UN, but also on suggestions and recommendations recorded following public consultations with the business environment, universities, research and development institutes, non-governmental organizations, and representative exponents of civil society, as well as the contributions of individual experts.

Regarding the SD strategic framework, the coordination instruments from the EU, of which Romania is a part, should be mentioned.

Nowadays, there are two different strategic guides in the EU: the 2030 Agenda with 17 SDGs and the “European Green Deal (EGD)”. The EGD [33] is the EU strategy on adaptation to climate- and environment-related challenges. This strategy has its own structure, with overarching goals in four horizontal priorities and appropriate policies in nine areas. Following the adoption of the EDG, the EU strategic development plan incorporated the “Annual Sustainable Growth Strategy (ASGS)”. The EU development plans also include a set of SDG indicators aligned with the list of UN global indicators for SD [34] (pp. 74–76). For the integration of the two strategic guides, a methodology was developed, aiming to assist the EU and national policy-makers in identifying appropriate SD policies [35]. This methodology also ensures the harmonization of the mechanisms used in the EU for the implementation of development strategies in the member countries, namely the European Semester and the EU Recovery Plan. The European Semester is a mechanism in the EU governance framework that helps member states better coordinate their economic and social policies [36]. Every year during the European Semester, the European Commission performs a detailed analysis of budgetary plans for each country and provides recommendations. Thereby, the member states align their budgetary and economic policies with the rules agreed at the EU level. Since 2020, the EDG strategy has been integrated into the European strategy and underpins the “National Plan for Recovery and Resilience (NPRR)” elaborated by each member state. The NPRR represents an innovative EU tool introduced after the COVID-19 crisis and comprises reforms and investments aiming to assure an inclusive and sustainable recovery. Comments regarding the use of these tools in Romania within the NGS-SD processes are presented below.

• The “Communication” process refers to government actions to promote SD values, policies, and strategies and other SD issues at the country level.

Many actions to inform and promote SD in Romania were carried out by the SD Department after 2018, the most important of them being presented in the annual SD Department reports [30] in the government report on the implementation of the SD objectives 2017–2021 [37] (pp. 13–16). The reports include lists of meetings, debates, workshops, and publications to promote NSSDR and inform the general public on SD issues.

The communication is also found in the “National plan of action for the implementation of NSSDR” [38], in priority direction 3. The plan provides the premises for several actions to promote the concept of SD, namely the implementation of the annual communication program, conducting sociological studies to measure perception and impact at the institutional level and among the population, and creating elements of visual identity regarding SD in Romania. Also, actions for communication are foreseen in support of the SD strategy implementation, namely organization of conferences, forums, and debates on SD, etc.

Communication is one of the factors through which governance directly contributes to the development of SD culture at the national level. The development of the national culture of sustainability or the cultural shift toward SD refers to the fact that SD guiding values and principles must become an integral part of the thinking and behavior patterns of all, from political and governance bodies to organizations and citizens. Several studies focus on SD culture in different sectors (e.g., tourism and education), but there is no global analysis that reflects Romania’s progress from this perspective.

• The process of “NGS-SD Management” must be coordinated by the Prime Minister and the SD Department. Aspects related to the SD governance system are integrated into SDG16 and SDG17 of NSSDR, but they are also distinctly approached in the plan of action for NSSDR implementation [38]. A picture of the NGS-SD global architecture does not exist, but there are management tools related to different components of the governance for SD, which are discussed in the analysis of processes to which they refer.
• Regarding the process of managing SD regulations, it is worth noting that the SD Department made the first analysis on SD legislation in Romania from the perspective of NSSDR implementation within the project “Sustainable Romania” [39] (pp. 57–79). The project pursued the creation of databases with the relevant SD normative acts and their mapping on the 17 SDGs of NSSDR. Some deficiencies were highlighted, e.g., redundant regulations, uneven coverage of the SDGs, etc. What is important are the proposals formulated by the authors, namely the creation of a unique database with normative acts relevant to the NSSDR; the development of a distinct module for the management of documents of strategic importance; inclusion in all legislative documents of an explicit section describing the link and relevance to the NSSDR. To these aspects related to SD regulations, there are added the general requirements regarding the quality of the legislative process, which are associated with QoG.
• Processes on “policy coherence”, “stakeholders engagement”, and “partnership management”.

“Policy coherence” was a major objective of the SD Department, which focused on the creation/consolidation of mechanisms to ensure policy coherence for SD and, in particular, the alignment between the planning and budgeting of policies that support the implementation of SDGs. In this regard, in 2020, one OECD assessment was performed in Romania [25], taking into account the guiding principles from the OECD “Recommendation on Policy Coherence for SD” [40]. As the authors state, the report “offers a preliminary analysis of the current strengths and bottlenecks to policy coherence around the policy cycle and provides options that would spur a shift towards public policies that systematically apply a SDGs’ perspective” [25] (p. 3). These options were important to the formulation of the national plan for the NSSDR implementation [38], and they also responded to some of the country-specific recommendations from the 2019 EU semester report around strengthening decision-making predictability. A similar assessment was performed in 2022 [41], which concluded that important progress has been made in enhancing policy coherence for SD in Romania and outlined its recommendations. Another project focused on policy coherence was also developed in the same period, with technical assistance from OECD experts, namely “Strengthening Institutional Mechanisms to deliver on the SDGs in Romania including linking policy planning and budgeting to support their implementation” (2019–2020). The project ended with two reports [42,43] that present the country’s strengths, gaps, and possible ways for improving policy coherence for SD and budgeting the 2030 NSSDR objectives. There are also several projects coordinated by the GSG that aim to develop a reference framework for policy coherence as a component of good governance and implicitly to support the implementation of SDGs [37] (pp. 11–12).

Building critical mass for public support through stakeholder engagement is another key issue for achieving the 2030 Agenda. As stated in official publications, many actions were developed in this regard in Romania. The first actions concentrate on the legislative: the Romanian Parliament was the first member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union to declare its support for the 2030 Agenda in 2016. The lower house of the Parliament of Romania (the Chamber of Deputies) has a sub-committee on SD. But the effective implementation of the 2030 Agenda does not involve a single person or organization. All ministries and institutions, all civil servants from central and local governments, decision-makers, and members of Parliament should be part of the implementation process. As the SD reports state, starting in 2017, the SD Department organized a series of events aimed at raising awareness of the SDGs, including national conferences with the participation of key stakeholders ranging from decision-makers and representatives of public institutions to leading academics, representatives of research institutes, business leaders, and NGOs [37] (pp. 13–16) [44] (p. 8).

The tendency to connect all stakeholders at the SD Hub must be noted. The SD Department has the responsibility of becoming a hub of knowledge in the field of SD, in the context of the digitization of PA in Romania through the holistic integration of data regarding policies, processes, activities, and best practices. In this way, the SD Department directly contributes to the increase in open governance in Romania, through transparency and access to information of public interest, public consultation, and the increase in the operational capacity of non-governmental organizations. The SGS is responsible for developing open governance in Romania, and the actions in this sense are defined as a process of the QoG system.

Partnership management is another transversal process that refers to the actions aimed at enforcing partnerships for SD by developing appropriate mechanisms. Guidelines in this regard are established by the UN SDG Partnership Guidebook [45] and also at the EU level by cooperation policies and specific mechanisms. The SD Department made continuous efforts to increase the external visibility of the implementation actions of the 2030 Agenda, to actively participate in processes at the global and regional level, and to strengthen Romania’s role as a regional hub in the field of SD. In this regard, there are many collaboration actions and a lot of participation in the events organized by the UN “High Level Political Forum (HLPF)” on SD; the OECD in the field of policy coherence for SD; the EU Council Working Group for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, etc. [46] (pp. 6–9).

In the context of new technologies, partnership management can be extended throughout society, targeting training at the citizen level. In this sense, the SD Department must continue the process of developing new specific tools regarding training, consultation, crowdsourcing, open collaboration, open source, etc.

(2)

Management cycle of the planning/control/improvement processes.

This cycle materializes the management process for the 2030 NSSDR implementation. Aspects related to the NSSDR implementation were the subject of the project “Sustainable Romania” (2019–2021) [47], aiming to develop an action plan, a communication plan, a monitoring mechanism, a coherent statistical database, etc.

• Planning refers to the actions required to achieve the 17 SDGs, and it consists of establishing the portfolio of SD programs and projects, taking into account the alignment of the national budget with SD objectives and national SD indicators. Planning, as well as the monitoring of results and the assessment of progress in SD areas, is based on a set of national indicators of SD. In 2022, in Romania, a new set of SD indicators was launched, including 291 indicators (99 main and 192 additional indicators), harmonized with those established at the UN and EU levels. The new national SD indicator set was integrated into the online open data platform “Aggregator Sustainable Romania” [48], which was launched in November 2022. The platform automatically collects the national and European official statistical data from the databases of the National Institute of Statistics and the “Statistical Office of the EU (Eurostat)”.

Although two of the 17 SDGs refer to the national framework of governance for SD, the system of governance is distinctly planned, as previously mentioned. The national plan for NSSDR implementation [38] proposes actions to strengthen and extend the governance framework for SD in order to promote the SD principles and values and to implement the NSSDR. The plan presents a package of twenty-two actions registered in four priority directions of action: three directions with a transversal character facilitate the implementation of NSSDR, and one covers specific actions for monitoring the progress in achieving the targets based on the national indicators of SD. The deadline for the plan’s implementation is 2030.

The programs and projects related to SD are numerous, differing according to several criteria: the thematic area, level of coordination, source of financing, etc. The Directorate for Policy Coordination and Priorities within the GSG has developed informatic tools for strategic planning and monitoring the activities of each ministry and provides information on the programs, objectives, targets, and allocated budget [43,49]. The system could be further developed to include a requirement to be established at the activity level if it is linked to the SDGs. This aspect is related to SDG funding, which is discussed in the “Funding process” section.

• The “Control” process has multiple materializations, including the monitoring and evaluation actions related to the following: achieving the SDGs; measurement of the national SD indicators and evaluation of progress; assessment of the governance system for SD, etc. The Prime Minister and SD Department are responsible for this process.

The process of monitoring and evaluating the implementation of NSSDR is the object of priority direction 4 of the action plan [38], which refers to the following: data collection mechanisms on national SD indicators; the creation and publication of the scoreboard regarding the progress made by Romania in reaching the targets for 2030; and the elaboration and presentation to the Romanian Parliament of the annual reports on the state of NSSDR implementation.

These planned objectives were met. As previously stated, the mechanism for collecting and publishing data on national SD indicators [48] was launched in 2022. According to its statute, starting in 2017, the SD Department is required to prepare annual reports on the implementation of the 2030 NSSDR, which are presented to the Romanian Parliament. An interim assessment report of sectoral policies, plans, and action strategies in relation to the NSSDR 2030 objectives was developed for the period May 2017–2021 [37].

An important category of reports is the “Voluntary National Review (VNR)”, based on the information on mechanisms for national coordination and the implementation of Agenda 2030 and the SDGs, collected through the UN HLPF on SD. Until now, two VNRs have been developed in Romania, in 2018 [44] and 2023 [50]. Romania’s progress in the implementation of the SDGs is highlighted in UN reports, considering the SDGs Index and Dashboards. The SDG Index is an assessment of each country’s overall performance on the 17 SDGs, giving equal weight to each goal. The score signifies the country’s position between the worst possible outcome (score 0) and the target (score 100). According to the UN review [51] (p. 2), in 2019, Romania was 42nd out of 162 countries considering the SDGs Index. It is worth noting that in 2018, Romania issued its VNR for the implementation of the SDGs, focusing on SDGs 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, and 17.

Other important SD reports are performed in the EU. As already said, starting in 2020, the progress made by the member states toward achieving the SDGs will be integrated into the European Semester. Romania is reporting on SDG global indicators to the Eurostat, which regularly monitors progress toward the SDGs in the EU context. The latest EU report (2023) [52] provides an overview on the progress made toward the achievement of the SDGs in the EU, and it also includes a “country overview” chapter on the status and progress of EU member states toward SDGs. For each country, the status of the 17 SDGs is depicted in a graph, taking into account the following two criteria: the relative position of each SDG to the EU average and the trend of movement (whether it has made progress or moved away from the SDGs) based on the statistical data over the past five years. As the overall picture of Romania shows [52] (p. 330), the country is progressing in 7 out of 17 SDGs, but only 3 of the SDGs have a better status than the EU average.

Basic information on Romania’s SD profile and review is also presented on the “European Sustainable Development Network (ESDN)” website [53].

The central problem in the efficient exercise of control in SD is the development of appropriate measurement and control mechanisms. A key aspect in this regard is digitalization. This issue is addressed distinctly, considering that the digital transformation is not limited to the process of control but to the entire governance system, ensuring the development of a more efficient, in real time, transparent, and participatory governance for SD.

• The “Improvement” process refers to the systematic actions aiming to improve the results concerning the SDGs as well as the SD governance processes and tools. The EU mechanisms, namely the European Semester and Country Recommendations, are important in this regard. The tool that is currently used in the EU member states is the NPRR, introduced after the COVID-19 crisis, which comprises reforms and investments aiming to assure an inclusive and sustainable recovery. The NPRR represents a good opportunity for Romania’s SD. The general objective of the NPRR [54] of Romania is the development of Romania by carrying out essential programs and projects that support resilience, preparedness for crisis situations, adaptability, and growth potential through major reforms and key investments supported by European Funds. Romania’s NPRR is structured on fifteen components covering the next six pillars: green transition; digital transformation; smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth; social and territorial cohesion; health; as well as economic, social, and institutional resilience; and policies for the new generation. The implementation of the proposed projects will generate improvements in most SD objectives, given the specificity of the European recovery and resilience mechanism through which they are funded and which has a strong component of greening, climate change, and digitalization.

In addition to the projects that are specific to ministries and other central public institutions, the SD Department’s role in bringing about changes at the global level is reflected in the NPRR through three projects that it coordinates, aiming to train experts in SD, achieve a center of excellence for PA in the field of SD, which will provide digital support for the fulfillment of all the center’s functions, and achieve a one-stop shop in SDG localization.

(3)

Operation processes

This process materializes in SD programs and projects. At the central level, the global coordination of the programs and projects rests with the Prime Minister and GSG, but the responsibility for SD-related programs is delegated to the “Ministry of Investments and European Projects (MIEP)” and the SD Department. Also, each ministry has a responsibility for the sectoral SD programs and projects.

The development of SD programs and projects is based on NSSDR and NPRR, which include targets for the SDGs and the axes of change related to sectoral issues and the SD governance system. The initiatives can be made by central or local administrative structures, but also, other economic or non-governmental organizations can initiate the development of SD projects. Most of the projects are carried out with public funds allocated on the basis of specific methodologies established by program categories.

For the NPRR projects, the coordinator is the MIEP, which publishes the launch of the call for project applications and the requirements that project proposals must meet in order to obtain funding [55]. Another important regulation refers to the management of the SD Program for the period 2021–2027 [56]. It is worth noting that the recent improvements in this process, ensuring transparent, non-discriminatory, and simplified access to external funds that are non-refundable for the SD national program, are in compliance with the provisions of the Regulation (EU) 2021/1.060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 [57]. The fulfillment of all aspects related to SD stipulated in the financing request is constantly monitored by the management authorities throughout the development of the projects so as to ensure compliance with national and community legislation. On the government’s website, five sets of data on the European funds are presented, including the list of SD contracted projects and the state of absorption of European funds [58].

Other projects related to SD are carried out from the personal funds of the regional, municipal, or communal administrative structures and the funds of the organizations, but a centralized situation does not exist.

(4)

Support processes

• The “Human Resource (HR)” process refers to the specific actions of HR management with effects on performance in SD [6]. The most important component of this process is the educational one.

The 2030 Agenda includes one SDG dedicated to education, but the connections with the other SDGs are major; education, training, and lifelong learning are key factors in developing human competences and a culture of sustainability. The global guidelines in this regard are established by UNESCO through publications related to education for SD [59,60]. In the EU, there are also reference documents on learning for SD [61]. At the country level, the Ministry of National Education plays a major role in implementing these guidelines through the requirements regarding curriculum design, SD-related teaching and learning tools, and other legal provisions. Responsibilities in developing HR competences and attitudes for SD also lie with each organization, central and local government structures, national, international, and regional agencies and associations, etc. At each level, ensuring the necessary skills and stimulating the participation of HR in SD is carried out in specific ways, with the levers of action being diverse and not limited to education.

The coordinators of the HR process, as an NGS-SD component, are the Prime Minister and the SD Department. Their role consists of establishing national guidelines for HR education for SD as well as organizing training programs for people involved in SD governance.

The action plan [38] includes (in the priority direction 2) specific objectives and actions for sustaining the implementation of NSSDR through formation programs for SD in all education cycles and the training of SD experts.

As a result of the SD Department’s efforts, the position of expert in SD was included in the nomenclature of jobs, Romania being the first country in the EU to have an occupational standard of expert in SD (approved by the National Authority for Qualifications) [62]. Post-university courses are organized for the training of SD experts. There are currently 150 experts employed by the government; the target established in the NPRR is to train 2000 SD experts by 2026.

Other actions of the SD Department to support the development of SD competences and attitudes consist of organizing events and elaborating publications on SD, serving as both educational and communication tools [30].

Regarding SD education, there are currently no national mechanisms for assessing progress on the inclusion of SD issues in the curriculum and extracurricular activities, the competencies in SD of graduates, and the sustainability of educational institutions.

• Funding process

This process concerns the financing of SD actions. Assuring financial resources is a necessary condition for achieving the SDGs. It is estimated that around EUR 4.5 trillion to EUR 6 trillion is needed worldwide to achieve the SDGs. To reach the EU’s 2030 targets, additional investments worth around EUR 180 billion are needed [63] (p. 24). Estimated official data regarding the financial effort for the NSSDR implementation do not exist.

Funding for NSSDR implementation comes from several sources: annual budgetary allocations for SD Department; European funds allocated for NPRR, Multiannual Financial Framework 2021–2027, and direct funding from the European Commission; other mechanisms (e.g., SEE-Norway Funds, Swiss Funds, etc.) [38] (p. 18). There is information on the total allocation for the NPRR-29.2 EUR 1 billion on the total indicative allocation for the Operational Program SD 2021–2027-4.04 EUR 1 billion, plus EUR 1.2 billion of national co-financing [64].

The financing process is not limited to ensuring access to funds; it involves systematic actions to allocate resources to the SDGs and track the results. The European Commission has set out a roadmap to promote the role of finance in achieving a performing economy that achieves its environmental and social objectives [65]. The EU is bringing about extensive changes to the financial system in order to put it on a sustainable path. Suggestions for Romania on how an effective framework for SDG budgeting can be established are presented in the OECD study “SDG Budgeting in Romania” [43] (p. 15). The budgeting mechanism that is accessible currently in Romania includes the following: application of an SDG perspective to economic recovery (NPRR); application of an SDG perspective to priority setting (through introducing a requirement for sectoral ministries to explain how their budget supports the achievement of the SDGs in their policy declarations provided as part of the draft budget); introduction of an SDG budget Statement that summarizes information from the policy declarations in a standalone document presented to Parliament alongside the draft budget. It should be emphasized that the current program budgeting methodology [46,50] does not refer to the SDGs.

The control of the use of funds is performed within each project. The attracted funds are also reported by the project category. However, annual global reports on the situation of SD-related funds in Romania do not exist.

• SD information/knowledge process

This process defines the actions related to knowledge and information on SD at the national level: data production, processing, and publication. The Prime Minister or the SD Department are responsible for this process.

As it was shown during the control process, in 2022, the platform “Sustainable Romania” [48] was launched, aiming to provide information on the progress made in the implementation of NSSDR based on national SD indicators and on the opinion barometer regarding SD. The National Institute of Statistics is responsible for coordinating activities for managing official statistical data at the national level, including those that monitor progress toward achieving the SDGs. Currently, the public data are at the level of the year 2020.

Information about the progress of the SDGs in Romania also exists on the websites of European and UN institutions.

The relevant information can be found on the governance system for SD. The following are published on the SD Department website [66]: Agenda 2030 (relevant own documents, but also external documents, e.g., UNESCO manual, OECD reports), etc.; news (agreements and events); transparency (announcements, procedures, etc.); e-resources (strategic documents, reports, other publications). Information related to different aspects of the governance of SD also appears on the websites of GSG, MIEF, and other ministries. As a summary analysis shows, the information about NGS-SD is incomplete and redundant and does not provide a clear picture of the governance system.

• Infrastructure/computerization process

This process refers to the technologic base of actions on SD governance. The key issue in this domain is the digitalization aspect, which was mentioned in the previous comments on the NGS-SD processes. The distinct approach to computerization is justified considering EU policies regarding the digital transformation of society as a key enabler for reaching the EGD objectives [33,67] (p. 5). The UN also supports digital government development, taking into account the role that the digital government plays in building effective, inclusive, and accountable institutions to support policy-making and service delivery for the SDGs [68]. In Romania, digitalization was included in the strategies related to public administration and governance, but currently, the computerization of governance is still at a low level, as illustrated by official reports [69]. At present, the “Romanian Digitalization Authority (RDA)” [70], subordinated to the Prime Minister, is responsible for this.

The digital transformation of Romania, coordinated by the RDA, opens new horizons in the development of much more efficient, real-time, transparent, and participatory SD governance. Harnessing the potential of digital transformations to achieve the SDGs is clearly a priority. The question is whether or not the computerization of governance for SD should be treated as a separate process. In both cases, the SD Department plays an important role in planning actions and attracting the necessary resources to carry out infrastructure development projects for SD.

Concluding the case study, it can be said that, although the analysis is incomplete, it provides an overall picture of the state of the governance system for SD in Romania. Focusing on the processes of the governance system allows us to highlight the relevant aspects on which the results depend and the tools used.

Table 1. Analysis of NGS-SD: strengths and weaknesses.

Process	Strengths	Weaknesses
Leadership	Modern and efficient SD structure; Long- and medium-term strategic planning, materialized in NSSDR; Communication on SD based on plans and various mechanisms; Planned actions for NGS-SD development; Systematic actions to strengthen the principles related to policy coherence, stakeholder engagement and partnership management.	Lack of a clear vision/model of NGS-SD; Deficient management system of SD regulations (laws, norms, and procedures); Lack of information on SD culture in Romania.
Planning, Control, and Improvement	National system of SD indicators; Modern system for monitoring and reporting SDG progress; Effective improvement mechanisms harmonized with those of the EU.	Information not updated on the “Sustainable Romania” Platform; Deficient SD reporting mechanisms from lower levels of governance.
Operation	Regulations and modern mechanisms for the approval and coordination of SD projects.	Deficient, summary information regarding the management and global results of the SD projects.
Support	HR: Actions for defining and the training of SD experts; Funding: Financing from various sources, attracting European funds; Information/knowledge: Online access to information on the website of the ministry and other organizations; Infrastructure: Concern for the computerization of databases and reporting systems.	Lack of information regarding SD education in the national education system, actions and results; Deficiencies in project planning/budgeting mechanisms; Deficient information system and redundant and insufficient information, unsystematically presented on various websites; Lack of a systematic approach of computerization for SD.

summarizes the major achievements and main shortcomings associated with NGS-SD processes.

The analysis shows that in Romania, many transformations have been made in the last decade on the basis of the regulations launched at the higher levels of SD governance. The result of the transition to SD is synthetically reflected in the dynamics of the country’s SDGs, whose trend in reaching the target is presented in national, European, and UN reports. The transformation process to achieve success in terms of implementing new governance practices is not an objective but a “journey” that includes continuous improvements in the expected performance and tools used. The weak points presented in Table 1 regarding the NGS-SD processes define the major axes of the improvement actions, namely the leadership regulation system, communication and development of the sustainability culture, SD reporting mechanisms, management of SD projects, human resources, budgeting mechanisms, knowledge management, and digitalization for SD. Also, the implementation of the process approach in SD governance must be a priority objective for the Romanian government, creating the premises for improvement actions to become more systematic, considering the performance of each process and the impact on global results. The introduction of specific process metrics is essential in this regard, given that what is not measured cannot be improved.

The improvement in performance in SD is positively influenced by Romania’s membership in the EU, which initiates and actively supports necessary changes through specific planning and control mechanisms as well as through financing from European funds. But there are also risk factors that have a negative influence on the achievement of the SDGs and the performance of SD governance. There are external factors, such as possible natural disasters or armed conflicts, and internal factors that can determine non-conformities in achieving the established objectives, with a low QoG being the most important in this category. In our opinion, although the achievement of good governance is partially found in the SDGs, this topic must be addressed separately in order to examine the relationship between the quality approach to governance and the NGS-SD and the correlation between the QoG and the progress toward SDGs in Romania.

It is worth noting that the case study is presented synthetically, and the main purpose of this analysis is to illustrate the advantages of the process approach in SD governance and the need to develop a unitary model for NGS-SD to be applied worldwide.

5. Conclusions

Achieving the SDGs is a complex and universal endeavor that involves actions all over the world and in every country. National governance for SD must adapt to each country, but coordination at higher levels of governance is necessary to ensure the convergence of actions and results. There are many common guidelines and tools on national SD governance elaborated by governance bodies at both global and regional levels. Most of these documents regulate the processes of the SD governance systems, although we cannot speak of the formalized application of the process-based approach principle. However, as the review of the publications developed in the first part of the paper shows, there is no clear vision of the national SD governance framework. The authors of this paper come up with a proposal in this regard, namely a unitary model for NGS-SD based on the process approach. As said before, the process approach is a principle with wide application at the organizational level, but it is less common in governance systems.

The novelty of this paper consists of the proposal of applying the process-based approach to the NGS-SD, which results in a model tool that reflects its overall image and links to other levels of government. Starting from this general framework, each process must be defined by establishing its inputs, outputs, activities, working methods, and control. Performance indicators must also be defined for each process and for the governance system as a whole in order to systematically measure performance, improve it, and track progress. These elements must be described in process regulations (norms, procedures, methodologies, etc.), which are important analytical tools for effective governance. The case study carried out in Romania is also original, consisting of an analysis of the NGS-SD based on the model proposed.

The benefits of approaching governance systems in terms of processes are highlighted in the authors’ previous work regarding the SD governance system at the UN level, from which we quote: “unitary conceptualization and better understanding of governance for SD at all levels; reinforcement of leadership in SD governance, which involves a strategic approach with long-term goals, and the development of a culture based on SD values at all levels; keeping under control the processes on which the performances depend, by appointing the process managers, who are responsible for the systematic realization of the process planning/control/improvement cycle; better controlling the framework documents and working and control tools, and their continuous changes; improving the management of data/knowledge about SD governance, and access to the knowledge system” [6]. In the authors’ opinion, the effective application of the process-based approach principle in a systematic manner would give greater rigor to the planning, control, and improvement actions carried out at the process level, as well as to the management of SD governance as a whole.

It is worth noting the similarity of the two models associated with different levels of multi-level governance at the SD, UN, and national levels, which incorporate common principles and rules.

The model for NGS-SD proposed by the authors can be a starting point for teams of specialists and representatives of governance structures in SD at all levels in the development of a standard model to be agreed upon, officially adopted, and applied. The major problems with such an approach are as follows: defining the general process architecture (process categories and list of processes for each category); a generic description of processes (objectives, main actions, results, and performance criteria); the framework methods and tools for realizing the processes should also be included in the model.

Some problems to be clarified are indicated in the paper (e.g., support processes related to policy coherence, stakeholder engagement, partnership management, computerization of SD governance, etc.), but there are certainly other question marks. Another issue that the process approach brings to light is the connection between SD governance and the QoG approach. Numerous publications state that QoG is imperative for sustainable governance. The description of the two systems through processes better highlights the common elements and what distinguishes them.

As previously emphasized, a unique generic model for NGS-SD does not mean registration in patterns. Each country will develop its own governance system for SD, taking into account the national specifics. The organizational framework and the specific way of working regulated by laws, methodologies, norms, etc., must be established at the national level, starting from the generic requirements and taking into account the country’s particularities. At the same time, when developing governance instruments, harmonization with SD regulations developed at a higher level (UN, OECD, EU, or other regional structures) must be taken into account.

This paper addresses governance bodies and experts in SD governance that directly contribute to the SD and implementation of a generic model for NGS-SD. This paper is also useful for academics and researchers, creating the framework for future studies on the processes and means of improving governance systems for SD. The topics to be studied include the following: defining the global configuration (process architecture); analyzes at the process level, taking into account the elements of the process, with an emphasis on regulations, specific tools, and performance indicators; evaluating the maturity of processes and which of them is most conducive to achieving the SDGs, etc. Last but not least, it is necessary to define the models for SD governance and management at the sub-national-level community and at the organization level and to analyze their connection with the NGS-SD.