This helps to explain why even with the best effort at scientific objectivity, the IPCC report still demonstrates a bias towards powerful political interests and epistemologies (Ford et al. Hence, in facilitating a process where a diverse range of knowledge claims and views are effectively represented and considered, explicit attention to procedural fairness could mitigate or counter-balance the inevitable influences of political interests and epistemologies.
In doing so, procedural fairness can help to bring about the outcome of good science, understood in terms of credible, relevant, comprehensive, and balanced assessment—all of which are objectives explicitly embraced by the IPCC. ) has demonstrated that procedural fairness promotes trust and cooperation which enhances efficiency and effectiveness in group work—all these are outcomes that many would readily embrace as desirable for the IPCC.
Access to society journal content varies across our titles.
If you have access to a journal via a society or association membership, please browse to your society journal, select an article to view, and follow the instructions in this box.
In the final selection section, I provide a brief discussion of the framework before drawing some concluding remarks.
One reason for the near total silence on procedural justice by IPCC literature may lie in the implicit notion that it is inappropriate to apply the concept of justice to the IPCC since there are no direct distributional consequences of IPCC reports.
) suggests that IPCC reports affect national policy, constructions of climate equity and donor-driven research in India.
Occupying its commanding position as the world’s most authoritative voice on climate science, the IPCC has important “symbolic power” (Hughes ) and far-reaching influence in shaping the tenor, urgency and political decisions of climate change.
It is curious, therefore, that there is hardly any literature that has analysed the IPCC explicitly and distinctly through the lens of procedural justice, defined as the fairness, or at least perceived fairness, of the structures and procedures used in decision-making (Rawls ).
Furthermore, it is well-known that developing countries have, since the creation of the IPCC in 1989, raised justice-related concerns expressed mostly in their complaint about lack of opportunity and capacity to facilitate their effective representation and contribution (cf. For its part, the IPCC has long recognized and sought to address issues of unfairness in their process even though these are often cast in the language of legitimacy and transparency rather than procedural justice.