Contributions of the voluntary local review process to policy integration: evidence from frontrunner cities

The paper addresses how local governments can operationalise policy integration to implement the UN 2030 Agenda and its 17 SDGs. While SDG localisation is widely recognised as necessary, cities face challenges translating national-level goals into local policy, embedding them in decision-making, financing, and monitoring with locally adapted indicators. Policy integration—distinct from but related to concepts like policy coherence and the nexus approach—is essential to exploit synergies and minimise trade-offs across economic, social, and environmental dimensions. However, local governance silos, coordination needs across departments, joint prioritisation, and evidence-based mechanisms make integration difficult. Voluntary Local Reviews (VLRs) have emerged as a popular localisation tool mirroring national VNRs, with rapid uptake since 2019 despite limited early guidance and no formal recognition in the 2030 Agenda’s review architecture until 2020. Prior guidelines and reports claim VLRs help align policies, facilitate integration, inform VNRs, and provide monitoring tools, but there is limited empirical evidence on outcomes and particularly on organisational and operational aspects of integration. The study’s research question is: how does the VLR process contribute to policy integration? Following integration research, the analysis examines motivations to conduct VLRs, the design of VLR processes, and their outcomes and impacts on policymaking, based on thematic analysis of interviews and a questionnaire with officials from 12 frontrunner cities conducting VLRs in 2019–2020.

The paper situates VLRs within evolving guidance and scholarship on SDG localisation and policy integration. It distinguishes policy integration from policy coherence and the nexus approach, highlighting the need to link policies across domains and to manage SDG synergies and trade-offs. It reviews the emergence of multiple VLR guidelines: UNESCAP and UNDESA global elements (2020), UN-Habitat and UCLG typologies and recommendations (2020), EU JRC’s European handbook (2020), IGES’s Shimokawa method (2020), and subsequent regional guidelines by UNECE (2021) and UNECA (2022). These frameworks emphasise aligning policy, stakeholder engagement, data collection, reporting, and follow-up but provide limited operational detail on integration. Previous claims about VLR benefits include priority-setting, facilitating integration, informing VNRs, and enabling evidence-based monitoring, yet empirical validation is scarce—reflecting a broader evidence gap on outcomes of policy integration initiatives. The study leverages models by Turnpenny et al. and Tosun & Lang to analyse motivations, design, and outcomes as key dimensions of integration research.

Design: Qualitative, cross-case thematic analysis focused on policy integration dimensions (motivations, design, outcomes/impacts). Cases and sampling: 12 frontrunner cities that conducted VLRs between 2019 and 2020 (Barcelona, Bonn, Bristol, Buenos Aires, Espoo, Ghent, La Paz, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, São Paulo, Taoyuan, Turku). Of 40 cities globally with VLRs by 2020, more than 20 were contacted; 12 agreed to participate. Geographic spread: roughly half in Europe, two in North America, three in Latin America and the Caribbean, one in Asia-Pacific; no African cases responded. Four early adopters (2019): Bristol, Buenos Aires, La Paz, Los Angeles; others in 2020. Buenos Aires had a second VLR by interview time. Participants: 14 total; targeted city officers responsible for VLR processes to capture internal procedures and decision-making. Data collection: 11 semi-structured interviews and one open-ended questionnaire conducted online between March and June 2021. An interview protocol covered motivations, integration with existing policies, governance influences, and outcomes; adapted iteratively during and after interviews. Ethical approval obtained from IGES (Japan); informed consent secured; quotes anonymised. Analysis: Thematic analysis using a hybrid deductive–inductive coding approach. A codebook was developed around three broad codes (motivations, design, outcomes/impacts) with working definitions and inclusion criteria. Authors independently coded a sample, compared, and iterated through multiple rounds to enhance reliability and trustworthiness, using an interactive and reflexive approach until consensus on themes was reached.

• Motivations to conduct VLRs clustered into three themes: (1) external drive (international organisations, networks, global visibility, fulfilling commitments); minimal national-level drivers except select cases (e.g., Buenos Aires’ agreement with national government); local stakeholders provided support (academia, citizens, foundations, third sector). (2) Organisational drive to localise the SDGs and create monitoring frameworks; VLRs as communication tools to raise awareness and transparency; joining communities of practice. (3) An explicit desire to foster policy integration was less frequently a primary motivator but emerged during the process.
• Design of the VLR process centred on: (a) interdepartmental work—mapping policies to SDGs, identifying gaps, facilitating cross-department dialogue, and forming ad hoc working groups/task forces (e.g., São Paulo, Ghent). VLRs intertwined with cross-cutting local initiatives (climate neutrality, procurement reform, fossil-fuel divestment). LA developed an open-source SDG Activities Index platform. (b) Stakeholder engagement—surveys, workshops, forums with citizens, academia, NGOs, and networks; improved transparency, added local knowledge, and increased stakeholder understanding of municipal sustainability policymaking (e.g., Espoo engaging schools to select ~90 projects).
• Outcomes and impacts on policymaking:
  1. Facilitated cooperation and interdependencies across policy domains within local governments, leading to more coherent reformulation of policies and identification of synergies/trade-offs. Beneficial areas included procurement, mobility/transport, education, gender, racial/ethnic equity, climate/energy, and disaster mitigation.
  2. Creation or improvement of instruments to mainstream and coordinate SDG work: standardised evaluation tools and reporting frameworks (e.g., Barcelona, La Paz, Bonn); online indicator platforms (e.g., Los Angeles). These tools set baselines, enable follow-up, and support evidence-based decisions; some used Open SDG platforms.
  3. Enhanced sustainability competencies (SCs) among staff—systems-thinking, futures-thinking, values-thinking, strategic-thinking, and interpersonal competencies—via learning through the VLR process and participatory engagement, empowering staff to address complex challenges and understand SDG interlinkages.
• Extent of structural change: Limited concrete changes to governance structures noted during the study period; impacts may expand over time. Ad hoc working groups enabled coordination but risk limited durability without institutional embedding and sustained resources.
• Scope and context: Sample comprised 12 cities; 11 interviews + 1 questionnaire; four early adopters (2019), others in 2020; interviews in early 2021 when many outcomes were still emerging.

The study directly addresses how VLRs contribute to policy integration. Although policy integration was seldom a primary motivation, the VLR process functioned as a procedural policy instrument, fostering horizontal coordination, structured appraisal, and shared understanding of SDG interdependencies. The three principal mechanisms—interdepartmental cooperation, creation of mainstreaming instruments, and growth of sustainability competencies—collectively advance integrated policymaking. However, reliance on ad hoc groups and absence of explicit mandates limited immediate transformation of governance structures; impacts are vulnerable to political cycles and funding constraints. Monitoring tools (e.g., Open SDG-based platforms) promote accountability, enable tracking synergies and trade-offs, and facilitate comparison within and across cities, thereby reinforcing integration. The participatory nature of VLRs supports learning and capacity-building, particularly valuable for cities earlier in localisation. Overall, VLRs help bridge silos, standardise procedures, and embed integration principles, but sustained institutionalisation and resource commitments are necessary to achieve deeper structural change.

The paper demonstrates that conducting a VLR can catalyse policy integration by: (1) strengthening cooperation and interdependencies across municipal policy sectors; (2) generating instruments and frameworks to mainstream and coordinate SDG work; and (3) enhancing staff sustainability competencies. These outcomes position VLRs as transformative processes for SDG localisation, even if major governance restructuring was limited during the study window. The authors recommend that cities integrate policy integration objectives from the outset of VLRs and allocate adequate resources, funding, and staffing to build sustainability capacity. Future research should examine institutional and political dynamics of VLR implementation, how VLRs articulate with broader global agendas, methods to measure and compare outcomes and impacts across policy domains, and the development of sustainability competencies through VLRs. Embedding VLRs within broader, long-term shifts in policymaking is essential to realise their full potential for a sustainable future.

• Temporal limitation: Most VLRs were conducted in 2020 and interviews occurred in early 2021, making it too early to capture full outcomes; subsequent impacts on governance structures may have emerged later.
• Sample scope: No African cities participated despite outreach; sample focuses on frontrunner cities, potentially biasing findings toward more advanced integration and capacity.
• Institutional embedding: Many coordination mechanisms were ad hoc, potentially constrained by political cycles and resources, limiting durable structural change.
• Bottom-up variability: Early adopters pursued diverse, bottom-up approaches with limited guidance, which may confound attribution of integration outcomes specifically to VLRs.
• Generalisability: Qualitative design with 12 cases limits generalisability; findings illustrate mechanisms and tendencies rather than universal effects.