This article develops a mechanism-based account of how nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) seek to convert network relationships into policy influence across climate-governance venues. It treats climate governance as the broad analytical domain and decarbonisation policy as one important subset. A structured review codes 24 peer-reviewed publications from the three most recent complete publication years available at the search cut-off, 2023–2025. The synthesis separates structural network properties, organizational capabilities, and relational qualities; records multiple advocacy mechanisms and policy outcomes; and distinguishes empirical evidence from contextual benchmarks. The reviewed publications most often discuss information and framing and coalition brokerage, but their codes overlap and do not estimate comparative effectiveness. Five China-focused publications provide scope-conditioned, theory-generating observations rather than a test of a general hierarchy effect. Only one core empirical study offers direct process evidence on implementation, and none estimates a comparable causal effect on compliance, investment, or emissions. Six propositions specify units, predictors, outcomes, moderators, and observations that would count against them. The article positions embedded network advocacy as an incremental contribution: its main addition is a conversion and feedback logic that links changing advocacy portfolios to policy stages, while recognizing risks of selective access, dependence, and co-optation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Guo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: