Report prepared by Thaís Lemos Ribeiro and Dhanasree Jayaram
The webinar “How is the Global South Positioned within the Earth System Governance Network?” on 6 March 2026 brought together about 40 participants from many countries from the Global South and the Global North, including researchers, network members, and people interested in Global South and Earth System Governance research.
The session was part of activities linked to the South–South Initiative (SSI), the Brasilia Research Center, and the Special Issue of the ESG Journal addressing the Global South in ESG scholarship. The event stimulated debate about power dynamics, epistemological challenges, and structural inequalities in global research, particularly regarding the production of knowledge.
Participants were invited to critically examine the Global South’s position within both academic research and the ESG network, and to identify opportunities to promote greater inclusion, diversity, and collaboration. The discussion emphasized the need to strengthen South–South, North–South, and triangular partnerships, while also questioning existing hierarchies in academic knowledge production.
Overview of the Earth System Governance Project
The webinar began with a brief introduction to the Earth System Governance Project and its activities. The ESG network currently connects around 700 scholars across more than 60 countries, working on governance challenges related to global environmental change.
Participants were informed about several opportunities for engagement within the network, including:
- Publishing with the ESG publication outlets, including the ESG Journal;
- Opportunities and resources for Early Career Researchers (ECRs);
- Participation as ESG research fellow;
- The South–South Initiative (SSI), which promotes collaboration among scholars from the Global South;
- Annual conferences and the upcoming 2026 Bath Conference; and
- Ongoing discussions about the development of a new ESG Science and Implementation Plan.
These initiatives were presented as key mechanisms for strengthening the network’s inclusiveness and fostering more diverse research perspectives.
The ESG Journal Special Issue on the Global South
A central focus of the webinar was the presentation of a Special Issue of the ESG Journal dedicated to examining the Global South in the context of Earth System Governance.
The Special Issue seeks to explore several interrelated themes:
- Knowledge production in Global South research;
- Academic practices and structural inequalities;
- Decolonizing research methodologies and epistemologies;
- The role of Global South actors as norm entrepreneurs in global governance; and
- Institutional frameworks and governance practices beyond state-centered perspectives.
A key objective is to create a first step toward expanding Global South scholarship within both the ESG Journal and the wider ESG network.
The discussion also addressed a common challenge experienced by many scholars: a sense of “discomfort” or lack of belonging within dominant theoretical frameworks. This challenge manifests in multiple ways, including:
- Global South scholars working within institutions in the Global North;
- Global North researchers studying Global South issues; and
- The Global South being treated primarily as a research subject rather than a producer of knowledge.
Participants acknowledged that such tensions cannot be easily resolved but can instead be engaged productively within academic debates.
Key Findings from the Paper – Where is the “Global South” located in scientific research? – (Mazzega et al, 2025)
Prof. Mazzega and Prof. Rugmini presented the article, which analyzes 17,000 academic papers published between 1994 and 2024, indexed in Scopus and written in English, that refer to the Global South.
They also asked for some attention that ESG can be worked both as a governance system and as an initiative/project, and that participants should consider this difference when considering the Global South in Earth System Governance.
The Global South as a Political and Developmental Meta-Category
The analysis shows that the Global South is widely used as a meta-category in academic literature. It is not merely a geographical term but a historically rooted and politically charged concept, often associated with colonial legacies and global inequalities.
The concept frequently appears in relation to countries and issues:
Graph 1 – Keywords frequency
The authors highlighted the frequency of the term ‘gender’ in the frequency analysis of keywords.
The countries most frequently associated with the Global South in the literature include:
- India;
- South Africa;
- China; and
- Brazil
These are followed by Ghana, Indonesia, and Mexico. In regional terms, Africa appears most frequently in relation to the term, Latin America follows, and Asia appears comparatively less frequently among the most prominent key expressions
Although the Global South serves as a mobilizing analytical category, linking multiple debates across disciplines, the Global North and the Global South are treated more as oppositional. In a network analysis, pairs at the top have a more complex theme-oriented relationship.
Graph 2 – Network of most frequent key expressions (fq>=100)
Concentration of Research in Social Sciences
More than 75% of the analyzed publications are located within social and human sciences, including political science, sociology, and economics.
Governance and South–South Cooperation as Key Themes
The concept of governance appears prominently in the literature, with over 180 key expressions linked to governance-related topics, including:
- Multi-level governance;
- Climate governance;
- Participatory governance;
- Urban governance; and
- Digital and health governance.
Another central theme is South–South cooperation, which is often framed as an alternative development pathway and a challenge to Global North-dominated governance structures.
Global North Dominance in Knowledge Production
Despite the focus on the Global South, the study shows that most academic publications are authored by scholars based in Global North institutions, particularly in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany.
Among Global South countries, South Africa, India, and Brazil appear as significant contributors.
Funding patterns also reveal structural imbalances: eight of the ten main research funding agencies supporting this literature are based in the Global North, with only two located in the Global South (in Brazil and South Africa).
Co-authorship patterns reflect disparities in resources, research infrastructure, and access to academic networks.
Conceptual and Methodological Reflections
The presentation also raised questions about the usefulness and limitations of the “Global South” category itself. Alternative frameworks and concepts, such as core–periphery and global majority/minority, were mentioned as possible complementary perspectives.
While widely used, the concept has certain analytical constraints: it risks oversimplifying diverse contexts, it may reinforce binary oppositions between Global North and Global South, and it does not always capture the complex transnational dynamics of knowledge production.
The authors provoked the participants with the following questions:
- What potential does the Global South as a category hold for ESG initiative and ESG governance model?
- Is there a universal consensus about the ‘Global South’ among the same countries, or is it conflicting in nature?
- To what extent is the North-South divide useful in solving the grand challenges of the 21st century?
They consider that there is no converging approach among major nations like India, Brazil, and China. The authors also emphasized that geography, institutional location, and social context strongly influence research agendas and the framing of research questions.
Specifically related to ESG as a network and a project, the authors presented some implications, such as hierarchies in knowledge production and knowledge dissemination. Some possible consequences of this imbalance are on norms, formal rules, and global architecture development, and a limited scope for diverse approaches. There is also a South-South Initiative emphasis on epistemic diversity and on how to address structural barriers. Finally, they mentioned the weak representation of ESG research centers in Global South countries.
For ESG as a governance model, they pointed out that:
- Justice & Allocation, and Democracy & Power are related to Southern concerns;
- ESG’s emphasis on formal rules and global architectures overlooks the hierarchies in knowledge production and dissemination;
- The need to address the weak representation of Global South in Earth System Governance;
- The need to reflect Global South realities in the global rules-based order and global norm creation.
Mentimeter Interactive Session
An interactive session using Mentimeter allowed participants to contribute reflections on three questions.
Question 1: How is the Global South conceptualized within the ESG Network?
Participants identified multiple interpretations of the Global South, including:
- A mobilizing political category;
- A geographical reference;
- A research subject; and
- A site of knowledge production.
Responses highlighted that the Global North and Global South are not just about location. The distinction goes beyond geography, encompassing historical, political, and epistemological dimensions, as highlighted by the words development, justice, diversity, and epistemology.
Question 2: Where do you find the Global South in the ESG Network?
Participants highlighted the Global South:
- As a case study or object of research;
- Related to publications and articles;
- An epistemological stance, diverse perspectives, and scientific values; and
- Specific stances in the ESG networks – research centres, task forces, projects, collaborative initiatives, and early career scholars.
However, some respondents indicated that Global South representation remains limited in some areas of the network.
Question 3: What contributions can the SSI community make to the ESG Project and the new Science Plan?
The participants presented many contributions, which are divided in categories:
a) Transforming Research Agendas and Knowledge Frameworks
Contributions in this category debate the conceptual foundations and research priorities of Earth System Governance scholarship:
- Challenge the current structures
- More critical scholarship
- Broaden/support/counter the ESG research agenda through critical perspectives embedded in Global South
- Lead collaborations coming from non-conventional perspectives
- Go beyond institutional focus and include societies (and their pluralities) in the conversation
- Advance contextually grounded governance research
- Research on more informal infrastructures that help in governance
- Nature-based solutions
b) Conceptual and Epistemological Development
These proposals highlight the need to rethink conceptual categories and expand theoretical debates.
- Potentially propose a new phrase to replace “Global South”, given that it often refers to a diverse range of countries
- Understand better what the Global South is right now, so it can be proposed a definition and/or a project from its own place
- Promote linguistic diversity, particularly for training, and promote ontological and epistemological discussions
- Provide training on Southern theories and philosophy
c) Capacity Building and Training
This category emphasizes strengthening research skills and supporting early-career scholars.
- Training programmes and scholarships for students and early career researchers
- Long-term platform for online methodology training and collaboration
d) Collaboration and Network Development
Suggestions under this category aim to strengthen cooperation within the research community.
- Meaningful and structured collaboration
- Lead collaborations coming from non-conventional perspectives
- Provide translations of research and publish in other languages
e) Inclusion, Diversity, and Representation
These contributions focus on increasing diversity and representation in research structures and practices.
- Cultivate, represent and operationalize cultural and linguistic diversity
- Better and updated approaches and suggestions on how to be more inclusive toward researchers/institutions from the Global South
f) Structural Support and Research Infrastructure
These proposals address systemic barriers affecting Global South participation in research.
- Financial support plans
- Provide relevant data sources or find a solution for the ‘reliable data’ issue
g) Publications and Knowledge Dissemination
Suggestions related to academic dissemination and visibility, with one mention to the ESG Special Issue.
Participants also highlighted financial barriers, particularly Article Processing Charges (APCs), which can prevent Global South scholars from publishing in international journals. One proposal involved creating waivers or funding support from wealthier institutions within the ESG network.
Another major challenge concerns structural inequalities in academic indexing and citation systems, which tend to privilege Global North journals and institutions.
Discussion and Questions
The discussion raised important methodological and structural questions, including:
- Whether co-authorship analysis reflects institutional affiliation rather than authors’ nationality, meaning that Global South scholars based in Global North universities may be contributing significantly to the literature.
- Whether it would be possible to track who reads and cites Global South research, in addition to who produces it.
Participants also reflected on the principle often expressed in social justice movements: “Don’t talk about us without us.” This prompted debate about whether research on the Global South adequately includes Global South scholars and perspectives.
Final Reflections
The webinar concluded with reflections on the structural hierarchies shaping global research systems.
Participants acknowledged that academic frameworks, methodologies, and institutional structures often reproduce inequalities rooted in historical power dynamics. Addressing these challenges requires:
- Greater representation of Global South scholars
- More inclusive research agendas and governance structures
- Stronger collaboration across regions and disciplines
The ongoing development of the new ESG Science and Implementation Plan was highlighted as an important opportunity to integrate these concerns and promote more equitable knowledge production within the Earth System Governance Project.
The event ultimately emphasized that while no simple solutions exist, continued dialogue and institutional reform within networks such as the Earth System Governance Project can contribute to a more inclusive and plural global research community.
