The policy impact of climate change advisory bodies: government responses to the UK Climate Change Committee’s recommendations, 2009–2020
Creators: name: Dudley, Harriet
name: Holmes, James
name: Jordan, Andrew
name: Lorenzoni, Irene
Publisher: name: Taylor & Francis
Year: 2025
Subjects: subject: Biochemistry
subject: Genetics
subject: FOS: Biological sciences
subject: Molecular Biology
subject: Pharmacology
subject: Ecology
subject: Sociology
subject: FOS: Sociology
subject: Cancer
subject: Science Policy
subject: Mental Health
subject: Plant Biology

description: Climate advisory bodies have been established in over 40 countries. However, the existing literature focuses on their formation and remits, not their unfolding policy impact. This article addresses this important gap by reporting the findings of a novel analysis of the UK Government’s responses to the UK Climate Change Committee’s (CCC) mitigation and adaptation recommendations published in its annual progress reports, taking written acceptance as a proxy for policy impact. The fact that the CCC is the oldest such body in the world makes it an obvious case to develop and test empirically a new method for undertaking assessments of policy impact. A systematic content analysis of government responses to 592 of the CCC’s 700 recommendations (2009–2020) finds that 23% were accepted, of which only 2% were accepted in full. However, it also reveals that the characteristics of individual recommendations have a notable association with the type of government response (i.e. accepted, rejected, or non-committal). For mitigation recommendations, those with a cross-sectoral focus were over four-times more likely to be accepted than those addressing a specific sector. For those addressing adaptation, the only predictor of acceptance was the degree of repetition; repeated recommendations were nearly five-times more likely to be accepted than fresh ones. For the first time, these findings demonstrate the extent of the association between the form and content of recommendations and how they are subsequently received by government. Moreover, they suggest that climate advisory bodies may be able to achieve greater impact by repeating recommendations over time, and ensuring they contain a clear addressee and a specific action point. Further research should, however, also explore other factors that influence government responses as well as assess how far accepted recommendations are implemented. In the UK 23% of mitigation and adaptation recommendations published by the CCC in progress reports were accepted by the government, and only 2% in full.Nevertheless, the characteristics of recommendations, including to whom they are addressed, their sectoral focus, and whether they contain delivery targets, have a statistically significant relationship with how the government responds.Recommendations are more likely to be positively received when they repeat a previous recommendation, when they are cross-sectoral, and when they eschew quantitative targets.Advisory bodies can learn from this example by providing short, clear and direct recommendations. This would enable them to hold governments to account for their response to, and (non-)implementation of, recommendations. In the UK 23% of mitigation and adaptation recommendations published by the CCC in progress reports were accepted by the government, and only 2% in full. Nevertheless, the characteristics of recommendations, including to whom they are addressed, their sectoral focus, and whether they contain delivery targets, have a statistically significant relationship with how the government responds. Recommendations are more likely to be positively received when they repeat a previous recommendation, when they are cross-sectoral, and when they eschew quantitative targets. Advisory bodies can learn from this example by providing short, clear and direct recommendations. This would enable them to hold governments to account for their response to, and (non-)implementation of, recommendations.