Editorial

In May 2011, the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies published Lessons for the Coalition: an end of term report on New Labour and Criminal Justice (Silvestri, 2011). In that collection I described Labour's performance on environmental issues as ‘too little too late’. The UK experienced a period of Blair/Brown environmental governance that demonstrated ‘symbolic success but real failure’. Amongst New Labour's environmental achievements were the establishment of the Climate Change Act 2008, the creation of the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the establishment of numerous green quangos to oversee and implement a range of environmental policies. However, these steps forward were seemingly threatened by the early days of a Cameron-led coalition where austerity measure, trade and the abolition of green quangos were on the cards. In sum, I concluded ‘future UK government report cards on the environment do not look good’ (Walters, 2011). After two and half years of a Conservative/Liberal Democratic coalition, and much rhetoric about it being ‘the greenest government ever’, the interim report card for the Cameron government on environmental matters is grim reading indeed. The demise of green quangos, record carbon emissions, renewable energies policies stultified, environmental criminality and victimisation all but ignored, and billions of pounds lost to environmental corporate fraudsters are just some of the headlines of Tory inspired governance with much environmental rhetoric and no environmental results.

Towards a dignified and sustainable electricity generation sector in Australia : a comparative review of three models

Electricity is the cornerstone of modern life. It is essential to economic stability and growth, jobs and improved living standards. Electricity is also the fundamental ingredient for a dignified life; it is the source of such basic human requirements as cooked food, a comfortable living temperature and essential health care. For these reasons, it is unimaginable that today's economies could function without electricity and the modern energy services that it delivers. Somewhat ironically, however, the current approach to electricity generation also contributes to two of the gravest and most persistent problems threatening the livelihood of humans. These problems are anthropogenic climate change and sustained human poverty. To address these challenges, the global electricity sector must reduce its reliance on fossil fuel sources. In this context, the object of this research is twofold. Initially it is to consider the design of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 (Cth) (Renewable Electricity Act), which represents Australia's primary regulatory approach to increase the production of renewable sourced electricity. This analysis is conducted by reference to the regulatory models that exist in Germany and Great Britain. Within this context, this thesis then evaluates whether the Renewable Electricity Act is designed effectively to contribute to a more sustainable and dignified electricity generation sector in Australia. On the basis of the appraisal of the Renewable Electricity Act, this thesis contends that while certain aspects of the regulatory regime have merit, ultimately its design does not represent an effective and coherent regulatory approach to increase the production of renewable sourced electricity. In this regard, this thesis proposes a number of recommendations to reform the existing regime. These recommendations are not intended to provide instantaneous or simple solutions to the current regulatory regime. Instead, the purpose of these recommendations is to establish the legal foundations for an effective regulatory regime that is designed to increase the production of renewable sourced electricity in Australia in order to contribute to a more sustainable and dignified approach to electricity production.

Working knowledge for collaborative water planning in Australia’s Wet Tropics region

Cooperation between multiple environmental decision-makers and activities is necessary to address the impacts of diffuse sources of agricultural pollution on the water quality entering Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR). Water planning efforts requires available knowledge to inform this co-operative water program implementation and reform. This paper uses knowledge sharing, translation and feedback features of collaboration as a way to assess knowledge work practices during key phases of the water planning process. This enabled a systematic review of knowledge work practices in partnership with collaborative water planning groups established to inform water quality program investment decisions in the GBR’s Wet Tropics region. This research builds on the growing academic and policy interest in the conditions required to enable different types of knowledge to be successfully used for policy-making by focusing on when, how and why knowledge work to meet these conditions is required.

Lock the gate: Fracking, investor-state dispute settlement, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

There has been much debate about the relationship between international trade, the environment, biodiversity protection, and climate change.The Obama Administration has pushed such issues into sharp relief, with its advocacy for sweeping international trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. There has been much public concern about the impact of the mega-trade deals upon the protection of the environment. In particular, there has been a debate about whether the Trans-Pacific Partnership will promote dirty fracking. Will the Trans-Pacific Partnership transform the Pacific Rim into a Gasland?There has been a particular focus upon investor-state dispute settlement being used by unconventional mining companies. Investor-state dispute settlement is a mechanism which enables foreign investors to seek compensation from national governments at international arbitration tribunals. In her prescient 2009 book, The Expropriation of Environmental Governance, Kyla Tienhaara foresaw the rise of investor-state dispute resolution of environmental matters. She observed:'Over the last decade there has been an explosive increase of cases investment arbitration. This is significant in terms of not only the number of disputes that have arisen and the number of states that have been involved, but also the novel types of dispute that have emerged. Rather than solely involving straightforward incidences of nationalization or breach of contract, modern disputes often revolve around public policy measures and implicate sensitive issues such as access to drinking water, development on sacred indigenous sites and the protection of biodiversity.'In her study, Kyla Tienhaara observed that investment agreements, foreign investment contracts and investment arbitration had significant implications for the protection for the protection of the environment. She concluded that arbitrators have made it clear that they can, and will, award compensation to investors that claim to have been harmed by environmental regulation. She also found that some of the cases suggest that the mere threat of arbitration is sufficient to chill environmental policy development. Tienhaara was equally concerned by the possibility that a government may use the threat of arbitration as an excuse or cover for its failure to improve environmental regulation. In her view, it is evident that arbitrators have expropriated certain fundamental aspects of environmental governance from states. Tienhaara held: As a result, environmental regulation has become riskier, more expensive, and less democratic, especially in developing countries. This article provides a comparative analysis of the battles over fracking, investment, trade, and the environment in a number of key jurisdictions including the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Part 1 focuses upon the United States. Part 2 examines the dispute between the Lone Pine Resources Inc. and the Government of Canada over a fracking moratorium in Quebec. Part 3 charts the rise of the Lock the Gate Alliance in Australia, and its demands for a moratorium in respect of coal seam gas and unconventional mining. Part 4 focuses upon parallel developments in New Zealand. This article concludes that Pacific Rim countries should withdraw from investor-state dispute settlement procedures, because of the threat posed to environmental regulation in respect of air, land, and water.

Greenwashing the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Fossil fuels, the environment, and climate change

There has been much controversy over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a plurilateral trade agreement involving a dozen nations from throughout the Pacific Rim – and its impact upon the environment, biodiversity, and climate change. The secretive treaty negotiations involve Australia and New Zealand; countries from South East Asia such as Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, and Japan; the South American nations of Peru and Chile; and the members of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Canada, Mexico and the United States. There was an agreement reached between the parties in October 2015. The participants asserted: ‘We expect this historic agreement to promote economic growth, support higher-paying jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and to promote transparency, good governance, and strong labor and environmental protections.’ The final texts of the agreement were published in November 2015. There has been discussion as to whether other countries – such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and South Korea – will join the deal. There has been much debate about the impact of this proposed treaty upon intellectual property, the environment, biodiversity and climate change. There have been similar concerns about the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – a proposed trade agreement between the United States and the European Union. In 2011, the United States Trade Representative developed a Green Paper on trade, conservation, and the environment in the context of the TPP. In its rhetoric, the United States Trade Representative has maintained that it has been pushing for strong, enforceable environmental standards in the TPP. In a key statement in 2014, the United States Trade Representative Mike Froman insisted: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative maintained: ‘Our proposals in the TPP are centered around the enforcement of environmental laws, including those implementing multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in TPP partner countries, and also around trailblazing, first-ever conservation proposals that will raise standards across the region’. Moreover, the United States Trade Representative asserted: ‘Furthermore, our proposals would enhance international cooperation and create new opportunities for public participation in environmental governance and enforcement.’ The United States Trade Representative has provided this public outline of the Environment Chapter of the TPP: A meaningful outcome on environment will ensure that the agreement appropriately addresses important trade and environment challenges and enhances the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment. The Trans-Pacific Partnership countries share the view that the environment text should include effective provisions on trade-related issues that would help to reinforce environmental protection and are discussing an effective institutional arrangement to oversee implementation and a specific cooperation framework for addressing capacity building needs. They also are discussing proposals on new issues, such as marine fisheries and other conservation issues, biodiversity, invasive alien species, climate change, and environmental goods and services. Mark Linscott, an assistant Trade Representative testified: ‘An environment chapter in the TPP should strengthen country commitments to enforce their environmental laws and regulations, including in areas related to ocean and fisheries governance, through the effective enforcement obligation subject to dispute settlement.’ Inside US Trade has commented: ‘While not initially expected to be among the most difficult areas, the environment chapter has emerged as a formidable challenge, partly due to disagreement over the United States proposal to make environmental obligations binding under the TPP dispute settlement mechanism’. Joshua Meltzer from the Brookings Institute contended that the trade agreement could be a boon for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim: Whether it is depleting fisheries, declining biodiversity or reduced space in the atmosphere for Greenhouse Gas emissions, the underlying issue is resource scarcity. And in a world where an additional 3 billion people are expected to enter the middle class over the next 15 years, countries need to find new and creative ways to cooperate in order to satisfy the legitimate needs of their population for growth and opportunity while using resources in a manner that is sustainable for current and future generations. The TPP parties already represent a diverse range of developed and developing countries. Should the TPP become a free trade agreement of the Asia-Pacific region, it will include the main developed and developing countries and will be a strong basis for building a global consensus on these trade and environmental issues. The TPP has been promoted by its proponents as a boon to the environment. The United States Trade Representative has maintained that the TPP will protect the environment: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the TPP negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative discussed ‘Trade for a Greener World’ on World Environment Day. Andrew Robb, at the time the Australian Trade and Investment Minister, vowed that the TPP will contain safeguards for the protection of the environment. In November 2015, after the release of the TPP text, Rohan Patel, the Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, sought to defend the environmental credentials of the TPP. He contended that the deal had been supported by the Nature Conservancy, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, the World Wildlife Fund, and World Animal Protection. The United States Congress, though, has been conflicted by the United States Trade Representative’s arguments about the TPP and the environment. In 2012, members of the United States Congress - including Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and John Kerry (D-MA) – wrote a letter, arguing that the trade agreement needs to provide strong protection for the environment: ‘We believe that a '21st century agreement' must have an environment chapter that guarantees ongoing sustainable trade and creates jobs, and this is what American businesses and consumers want and expect also.’ The group stressed that ‘A binding and enforceable TPP environment chapter that stands up for American interests is critical to our support of the TPP’. The Congressional leaders maintained: ‘We believe the 2007 bipartisan congressional consensus on environmental provisions included in recent trade agreements should serve as the framework for the environment chapter of the TPP.’ In 2013, senior members of the Democratic leadership expressed their opposition to granting President Barack Obama a fast-track authority in respect of the TPP House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said: ‘No on fast-track – Camp-Baucus – out of the question.’ Senator Majority leader Harry Reid commented: ‘I’m against Fast-Track: Everyone would be well-advised to push this right now.’ Senator Elizabeth Warren has been particularly critical of the process and the substance of the negotiations in the TPP: From what I hear, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to rig the deal in the upcoming trade talks. So the question is, Why are the trade talks secret? You’ll love this answer. Boy, the things you learn on Capitol Hill. I actually have had supporters of the deal say to me ‘They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed. Think about that. Real people, people whose jobs are at stake, small-business owners who don’t want to compete with overseas companies that dump their waste in rivers and hire workers for a dollar a day—those people, people without an army of lobbyists—they would be opposed. I believe if people across this country would be opposed to a particular trade agreement, then maybe that trade agreement should not happen. The Finance Committee in the United States Congress deliberated over the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations in 2014. The new chair Ron Wyden has argued that there needs to be greater transparency in trade. Nonetheless, he has mooted the possibility of a ‘smart-track’ to reconcile the competing demands of the Obama Administration, and United States Congress. Wyden insisted: ‘The new breed of trade challenges spawned over the last generation must be addressed in imaginative new policies and locked into enforceable, ambitious, job-generating trade agreements.’ He emphasized that such agreements ‘must reflect the need for a free and open Internet, strong labor rights and environmental protections.’ Elder Democrat Sander Levin warned that the TPP failed to provide proper protection for the environment: The TPP parties are considering a different structure to protect the environment than the one adopted in the May 10 Agreement, which directly incorporated seven multilateral environmental agreements into the text of past trade agreements. While the form is less important than the substance, the TPP must provide an overall level of environmental protection that upholds and builds upon the May 10 standard, including fully enforceable obligations. But many of our trading partners are actively seeking to weaken the text to the point of falling short of that standard, including on key issues like conservation. Nonetheless, 2015, President Barack Obama was able to secure the overall support of the United States Congress for his ‘fast-track’ authority. This was made possible by the Republicans and dissident Democrats. Notably, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden switched sides, and was transformed from a critic of the TPP to an apologist for the TPP. For their part, green political parties and civil society organisations have been concerned about the secretive nature of the negotiations; and the substantive implications of the treaty for the environment. Environmental groups and climate advocates have been sceptical of the environmental claims made by the White House for the TPP. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, the Australian Greens and the Green Party of Canada have released a joint declaration on the TPP observing: ‘More than just another trade agreement, the TPP provisions could hinder access to safe, affordable medicines, weaken local content rules for media, stifle high-tech innovation, and even restrict the ability of future governments to legislate for the good of public health and the environment’. In the United States, civil society groups such as the Sierra Club, Public Citizen, WWF, the Friends of the Earth, the Rainforest Action Network and 350.org have raised concerns about the TPP and the environment. Allison Chin, President of the Sierra Club, complained about the lack of transparency, due process, and public participation in the TPP talks: ‘This is a stealth affront to the principles of our democracy.’ Maude Barlow’s The Council of Canadians has also been concerned about the TPP and environmental justice. New Zealand Sustainability Council executive director Simon Terry said the agreement showed ‘minimal real gains for nature’. A number of organisations have joined a grand coalition of civil society organisations, which are opposed to the grant of a fast-track. On the 15th January 2013, WikiLeaks released the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP - along with a report by the Chairs of the Environmental Working Group. Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' publisher, stated: ‘Today's WikiLeaks release shows that the public sweetener in the TPP is just media sugar water.’ He observed: ‘The fabled TPP environmental chapter turns out to be a toothless public relations exercise with no enforcement mechanism.’ This article provides a critical examination of the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP. The overall argument of the article is that the Environment Chapter of the TPP is an exercise in greenwashing – it is a public relations exercise by the United States Trade Representative, rather than a substantive regime for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim. Greenwashing has long been a problem in commerce, in which companies making misleading and deceptive claims about the environment. In his 2012 book, Greenwash: Big Brands and Carbon Scams, Guy Pearse considers the rise of green marketing and greenwashing. Government greenwashing is also a significant issue. In his book Storms of My Grandchildren, the climate scientist James Hansen raises his concerns about government greenwashing. Such a problem is apparent with the TPP – in which there was a gap between the assertions of the United States Government, and the reality of the agreement. This article contends that the TPP fails to meet the expectations created by President Barack Obama, the White House, and the United States Trade Representative about the environmental value of the agreement. First, this piece considers the relationship of the TPP to multilateral environmental treaties. Second, it explores whether the provisions in respect of the environment are enforceable. Third, this article examines the treatment of trade and biodiversity in the TPP. Fourth, this study considers the question of marine capture fisheries. Fifth, there is an evaluation of the cursory text in the TPP on conservation. Sixth, the article considers trade in environmental services under the TPP. Seventh, this article highlights the tensions between the TPP and substantive international climate action. It is submitted that the TPP undermines effective and meaningful government action and regulation in respect of climate change. The conclusion also highlights that a number of other chapters of the TPP will impact upon the protection of the environment – including the Investment Chapter, the Intellectual Property Chapter, the Technical Barriers to Trade Chapter, and the text on public procurement.

Supermarkets’ governance of the agri-food supply chain : is the ‘corporate-environmental’ food regime evident in Australia?

This article investigates the extent to which the purported greening of food retailing and consumption in Australia is consistent with the development of a corporate-environmental food regime. Recent developments in food regime theory, particularly the concept of an emerging third food regime (the so-called ‘corporate-environmental food regime’), provide a useful organizing framework for understanding recent agri-restructuring trends. We find that, while a globally based, third food regime is becoming more apparent, the attributes that relate to corporate retail-driven greening of the supply chain are less evident within Australia’s domestic market than in its EU counterparts. However, there is some evidence that Australia’s export market is subject to some degree of ‘greening at a distance’ due to private regulations imposed by supermarkets overseas. We argue that while broader agri-restructuring trends may be evident at an international level, elements of greening specific to national contexts are important for determining the trajectory of any third food regime.

Governance and effectiveness in regional planning: an analysis of North American, European, and Australasian practice

Over the past several years, there has been resurgent interest in regional planning in North America, Europe and Australasia. Spurred by issues such as metropolitan growth, transportation infrastructure, environmental management and economic development, many states and metropolitan regions are undertaking new planning initiatives. These regional efforts have also raised significant question about governance structures, accountability and measures of effectiveness.n this paper, the authors conducted an international review of ten case studies from the United States, Canada, England, Belgium, New Zealand and Australia to explore several critical questions. Using qualitative data template, the research team reviewed plans, documents, web sites and published literature to address three questions. First, what are the governance arrangements for delivering regional planning? Second, what are the mechanisms linking regional plans with state plans (when relevant) and local plans? Third, what means and mechanisms do these regional plans use to evaluate and measure effectiveness? The case study analysis revealed several common themes. First, there is an increasing focus on goverance at the regional level, which is being driven by a range of trends, including regional spatial development initiatives in Europe, regional transportation issues in the US, and the growth of metropolitan regions generally. However, there is considerable variation in how regional governance arrangements are being played out. Similarly, there is a range of processes being used at the regional level to guide planning that range from broad ranging (thick) processes to narrow and limited (thin) approaches. Finally, evaluation and monitoring of regional planning efforts are compiling data on inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes. Although there is increased attention being paid to indicators and monitoring, most of it falls into outcome evaluations such as Agenda 21 or sustainability reporting. Based on our review we suggest there is a need for increased attention on input, process and output indicators and clearer linkages of these indicators in monitoring and evaluation frameworks. The focus on outcome indicators, such as sustainability indicators, creates feedback systems that are too long-term and remote for effective monitoring and feedback. Although we found some examples of where these kinds of monitoring frameworks are linked into a system of governance, there is a need for clearer conceptual development for both theory and practice.

Stakeholder engagement by governance networks

Public awareness of large infrastructure projects, many of which are delivered through networked arrangements is high for several reasons. These projects often involve significant public investment; they may involve multiple and conflicting stakeholders and can potentially have significant environmental impacts (Lim and Yang, 2008). To produce positive outcomes from infrastructure delivery it is imperative that stakeholder “buy in” be obtained particularly about decisions relating to the scale and location of infrastructure. Given the likelihood that stakeholders will have different levels of interest and investment in project outcomes, failure to manage this dynamic could potentially jeopardise project delivery by delaying or halting the construction of essential infrastructure. Consequently, stakeholder engagement has come to constitute a critical activity in infrastructure development delivered through networks. This paper draws on stakeholder theory and governance network theory and provides insights into how three multi-level networks within the Roads Alliance in Queensland engage with stakeholders in the delivery of road infrastructure. New knowledge about stakeholders has been obtained by testing a model of Stakeholder Salience and Engagement which combines and extends the stakeholder identification and salience theory and the ladder of stakeholder management and engagement. By applying this model, the broad research question: “How do governance networks engage with stakeholders?” has been addressed. A multiple embedded case study design was selected as the overall approach to explore, describe, explain and evaluate how stakeholder engagement occurred in three governance networks delivering road infrastructure in Queensland. The outcomes of this research contribute to and extend stakeholder theory by showing how stakeholder salience impacts on decisions about the types of engagement processes implemented. Governance network theory is extended by showing how governance networks interact with stakeholders. From a practical perspective this research provides governance networks with an indication of how to more effectively undertake engagement with different types of stakeholders.

Project governance in Malaysia hillside developments

Hillsides in urban areas around the world are being developed at an accelerating rate, to accommodate population growth and rapid urbanization. Developments at hillside are attractive places to live because of the views, fresh air, exclusivity and the sense of being close to nature. Despite its attractiveness, hillside developments are prone to natural hazards such as landslides that can have environmental, social and economic consequences. To minimise these risks, it is necessary to consider the concerns of all stakeholders during the project review stage. This paper proposes that project governance concept can be used for this purpose by defining the rights, responsibilities and interests of the key stakeholders. It can also provide a framework within which decisions are made in order to minimise risks associated with natural hazards.

The Law and Governance of Water Resources : The Challenge of Sustainability

To achieve the sustainable use and development of water resources is a daunting challenge for both the global and local communities. It requires commitments by all groups within the international, national and local communities from their own particular, possibly conflicting, perspectives. Without a set of coherent legal arrangements designed to ensure effective governance of water resources, their sustainable use and development are unlikely to be achieved. This study looks at how the legal arrangements for managing water resources have evolved across the continents over hundreds of years; their relevance for contemporary society; how the norms of current international and national legal regimes are responding; and, most importantly, how legal rights and duties should be structured so as to achieve sustainability in the future.

IT governance adoption in Malaysia : a preliminary investigation

IT Governance (ITG) adoption remains a relevant topic of study. While extensive research has been done looking into the drivers and critical success factors of ITG practice, there seems to be a lack of interest in identifying the barriers to its adoption. This study reports on a survey conducted to first: provide some primary data that suggest ITG adoption and maturity levels are still low, especially in a developing country like Malaysia; and second: to provide initial empirical support for model development. Results obtained supported our assumptions that: (1) ITG adoption and maturity levels are still relatively low in Malaysia, therefore justifying Malaysia as a suitable case; (2) organizational factors, environmental factors and characteristics of the innovation as identified from the literature may serve as possible barriers to adoption.

Global forest governance

This book identifies the fundamental legal principles and the governance requirements of sustainable forest management. An analytical model for assessing forest regulation is created which identifies the doctrinal concepts that underpin forest regulation (justice, property, sovereignty and governance). It also highlights the dominant public international institutions involved in forest regulation (UNFF, UNFCCC and WB) which is followed by analysis of non-state international forest regulation (forest certification and ecosystem markets). The book concludes by making a number of practical recommendations for reform of global forest governance arrangements and suggested reforms for individual international forest institutions.

Collaborative governance and innovation in social enterprises

While social enterprises have gained increasing policy attention as vehicles for generating innovative responses to complex social and environmental problems, surprisingly little is known about them. In particular, the social innovation produced by social enterprises (Mulgan, Tucker, Ali, & Sander, 2007) has been presumed rather than demonstrated, and remains under-investigated in the literature. While social enterprises are held to be inherently innovative as they seek to response to social needs (Nicholls, 2010), there has been conjecture that the collaborative governance arrangements typical in social enterprises may be conducive to innovation (Lumpkin, Moss, Gras, Kato, & Amezcua, In press), as members and volunteers provide a source of creative ideas and are unfettered in such thinking by responsibility to deliver organisational outcomes (Hendry, 2004). However this is complicated by the sheer array of governance arrangements which exist in social enterprises, which range from flat participatory democratic structures through to hierarchical arrangements. In continental Europe, there has been a stronger focus on democratic participation as a characteristic of Social Enterprises than, for example, the USA. In response to this gap in knowledge, a research project was undertaken to identify the population of social enterprises in Australia. The size, composition and the social innovations initiated by these enterprises has been reported elsewhere (see Barraket, 2010). The purpose of this paper is to undertake a closer examination of innovation in social enterprises – particularly how the collaborative governance of social enterprises might influence innovation. Given the pre-paradigmatic state of social entrepreneurship research (Nicholls, 2010), and the importance of drawing draw on established theories in order to advance theory (Short, Moss, & Lumpkin, 2009), a number of conceptual steps are needed in order to examine how collaborative governance might influence by social enterprises. In this paper, we commence by advancing a definition as to what a social enterprise is. In light of our focus on the potential role of collaborative governance in social innovation amongst social enterprises, we go on to consider the collaborative forms of governance prevalent in the Third Sector. Then, collaborative innovation is explored. Drawing on this information and our research data, we finally consider how collaborative governance might affect innovation amongst social enterprises.