This letter to the editor explores the importance of a just transition for waste pickers in the context of the global plastics treaty. It sets out ideas for just transition at the level of production reduction, replacements and substitutes, systems change and waste management.

The energy sector requires a fresh evaluation that achieves compatibility between three pillars, namely sustainability, affordability and accessibility concerns. The overall energy system undergoes an unprecedented transition due to climate change requirements and the need for universal energy access at affordable costs. Balancing sustainability, affordability and accessibility remains the most pressing challenge for research institutions, industry leaders and government policymakers. Prioritizing renewable energy transitions becomes critical for countries to implement equitable and fair energy systems that address their stated future goals. This article addresses the equity concerns in the energy transition process beyond energy generation and supply. Sustainability, affordability and accessibility issues concerning energy policy, infrastructure preparation and emerging technology development are explored in this article. It also emphasizes the necessity of unified solutions to create socially inclusive and sustainable energy transformation while providing a helpful perspective to policymakers and stakeholders.

The scramble to extract critical energy transition minerals creates risk of widespread negative human rights impacts. A just transition in the extraction of critical minerals must involve deep examination of the mine-community interface to gain a better understanding of the drivers of successful engagement between mining companies and communities. Drawing on fieldwork in South America’s lithium triangle, this paper finds that the nature of the corporate-community relationship is increasingly key to enabling a just transition whereby communities participate in the benefits of extraction with negative impacts mitigated. It establishes that key success factors are related to empowerment of Indigenous communities and have the potential to maximise positive outcomes for communities in the context of lithium extraction. Governments and companies must embed a more bottom-up process with an end goal of communities themselves defining the parameters of what a just transition means in the critical minerals context.

African countries have increasingly emphasized adopting lower carbon, more efficient and environmentally responsible energy systems. Despite these efforts, little progress has been made in addressing the adverse human rights impacts of energy transition programs and projects, and the responsibilities of extractive sector corporations and operators. Existing legal and institutional frameworks supporting human rights face hindrances in adapting to local contexts to pursue clean energy transition and energy justice. Through the lens of community engagement, gender equality and other rights-based approaches, this article argues that socially excluding vulnerable groups in accessing energy markets is primarily a function of consolidating energy delivery in a way that navigates current discrimination and responds to the central roles played by different actors. The article explores how energy is produced, extracted, distributed and shared to help outline a future agenda for shaping discussions on just transitions in Africa, emphasizing the prioritization of fairness in these efforts.

The special issue brings together diverse academic and practitioner perspectives to explore the legal and governance aspects of implementing a just transition in practice. Recent studies have highlighted how efforts to advance clean energy transition programs in energy and extractive sectors have been increasingly linked to social exclusions, greenwashing, rising energy poverty levels and constraints to access to land and other resources in already vulnerable communities. While the need for a just transition is clear, an interdisciplinary and multijurisdictional examination of the practical challenges and gaps in the design and implementation of just transition programs has remained sparse. This special issue seeks to fill this gap in the existing literature. Through thematic and geographical case studies, the contributions herein critically examine the social, environmental and human rights implications of the clean energy transition, illuminating what a just transition should entail and how it can be realized in diverse contexts.

The International Seabed Authority is under pressure from some states and companies to adopt the regulations that would allow deep seabed mining (DSM) to commence. While presented by its supporters as necessary to procure the minerals and metals needed for energy transition, DSM presents serious risks for the marine environments and human rights whose extent is still insufficiently understood. This article focuses on whether, should DSM be allowed in the short term, the current regulatory regime would suffice to ensure that the corporations leading this activity carry out effective assessment, prevention and mitigation of environmental impacts. In order to answer this question, it explores contractor obligations as they emerge from the current version of the ‘Mining Code’. In light of persisting scientific uncertainty and the high-risk profile of DSM activities, this article contends that the current version of the regulations does not devise sufficiently stringent due diligence obligations.

The need to urgently shift away from fossil-based systems of energy for the sake of the planet and its people is clear. The green transition comes, however, with negative impacts on human rights and the environment, notably on the rights of Indigenous Peoples in the Global South, where most of the essential minerals and metals needed for the transition are found. In this piece, we discuss recent legal developments in the Netherlands from the perspective of the need for a just energy transition. Against the background of the recently adopted European Union (EU) Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), we analyze two draft Dutch due diligence laws and their potential in the context of a just energy transition. The focus is on the rights of Indigenous Peoples who are in an extremely vulnerable position in the transition process.

This article examines the intersection between forced labour, supply chain risks and environmental, social and governance concerns that pose a threat to the ‘Just Transition’. It addresses how states, businesses and other stakeholders drive or fail Just Transitions and why. Through an application of a ‘policy currents framework’ to the case study of solar panel supply chains originating in China, we analyse states, international organisations and civil society organisations’ framing of modern slavery issues in the context of the ‘Just Transition’. We focus on the framing of challenges and solutions to the nexus of forced labour and climate change. We draw attention to the fact decarbonisation risks are being achieved at the cost of labour rights abuses within supply chains, question whether the concept of renewable sources is ‘Just’ and provide a series of recommendations for stakeholders.

This article presents a novel framework for analysing the politics of eco-social policies, focusing on the political conflicts surrounding this third generation of social risks. We distinguish two key dimensions of conflict: an ideational approach dimension, which focuses on conflicts among political actors over the possible synergies and trade-offs between social and ecological goals and their potential integration through eco-social policies, and a design dimension with several sub-dimensions related to the formulation and implementation of eco-social policies. To illustrate the merit of this analytical framework, we apply it to the analysis of party manifestos for the 2021 German federal election. Our findings reveal a striking divergence in the first dimension: While most parties emphasise the synergy potential of eco-social policies, albeit to varying degrees, the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) stands out by opposing this narrative. The second dimension largely reflects established welfare positions, with centre-left and left-wing parties advocating state involvement and social consumption (the Social Democratic Party of Germany [SPD], the Greens, and The Left) and selective/needs-oriented measures (SPD and The Left) to a greater extent than centre-right parties (Christian Democratic Union of Germany [CDU]/Christian Social Union in Bavaria [CSU] and Free Democratic Party [FDP]). Furthermore, pro-growth approaches dominate, but there are signs that positions on degrowth policies may emerge as a significant conflict line in the future. Our analysis shows that eco-social policy conflicts are multidimensional, partly reshaping the political landscape around welfare policies, and are about not only how eco-social policies should be designed but whether they can and should be pursued at all.

Experts argue that resource transfers from developed to developing countries are central to international climate policy efforts. Yet as countries grapple with the political difficulties of provisioning and accepting climate funds, understanding why voters support or oppose international climate finance becomes critical. Focusing on domestic audiences in both donor and recipient countries, we investigate the determinants of public support for cross-border climate transfers. Theoretically, we focus on the effects of emphasizing the compensatory purposes of funding, favoring mitigation over adaptation activities, and prioritizing partnerships between donor and recipient agents—three factors that generate both normative and material benefits, and thus build support among broader coalitions of voters. Paired survey experiments in the United States and India corroborate the relevance of these transfer features for citizens in donor and recipient countries. Taken together, our findings shed light on the domestic political-economy attributes of transfer agreements that can unlock support for cross-border climate cooperation.

Globally, companies are developing and implementing their strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, in line with the Paris Agreement. However, there is also growing recognition and awareness of the potential negative impacts of these activities on human rights. Recent pressure from international normative standards and ESG expectations, emerging legislative developments, and legal precedents are driving companies to consider human rights impacts across their climate action. This piece explores some of the human rights risks associated with the transition to renewable energy; the transformation to regenerative agriculture; the scaling up of the circular economy; and the implementation of nature-based solutions. It then explores the challenges of conducting effective human rights due diligence given the scale and scope of the transitions needed and provides examples of how companies are seeking to respect human rights in their climate action.

Coal is declining in the U.S. as part of the clean energy transition, resulting in remarkable air pollution benefits for the American public and significant costs for the industry. Using the AP3 integrated assessment model, we estimate that fewer emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and primary fine particulate matter driven by coal’s decline led to $300 billion in benefits from 2014 to 2019. Conversely, we find that job losses driven by less coal plant and mining activity resulted in $7.84 billion in foregone wages over the same timeframe. While the benefits were greatly distributed (mostly throughout the East), costs were highly concentrated in coal communities. Transferring a small fraction of the benefits to workers could cover these costs while maintaining societal net benefits. Forecasting coal fleet damages from 2020 to 2035, we find that buying out or replacing these plants would result in $589 billion in air quality benefits, which considerably outweigh the costs. The return on investment increases when policy targets the most damaging capacity, and net benefits are maximized when removing just facilities where marginal benefits exceed marginal costs. Evaluating competitive reverse auction policy designs akin to Germany’s Coal Exit Act, we find that adjusting bids based on monetary damages rather than based only on carbon dioxide emissions – the German design – provides a welfare advantage. Our benefit–cost analyses clearly support policies that drive a swift and just transition away from coal, thereby clearing the air while supporting communities needing assistance.

Waste pickers are recognised as a key stakeholder in the ongoing negotiations towards an international legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution. Up to 34 million waste pickers contribute to recovering close to 60% of recycled post-consumer plastic waste globally. The International Alliance of Waste Pickers (IAWP) has actively engaged in the negotiations to safeguard a just transition for these important but vulnerable and frequently overlooked workers. This article explores how the IAWP has gained prominence in the plastics treaty negotiations through three iterative processes. First, the reiterative naming of “waste pickers” has constituted a symbolic practice and discursive influence that heightened recognition of waste pickers’ role as knowledge and rights holders in a just transition to end plastic pollution. Second, the performative dimension of waste picker advocacy has influenced official and informal events. Third, by engaging in “scale work”, waste pickers have influenced and leveraged their alliances to work towards a just transition across national, regional and international levels. By examining the role and influence of waste pickers in the plastics treaty through the frames of naming, performance and scale, the article contributes to advance the scholarly literature on just transition and grassroots movements in global environmental governance (GEG).