Uncovering different degrees of eco-social policy

For many years, calls for sustainability and climate action have been growing louder and a lot of progress has been made in bringing eco-social concerns onto the international policy agenda. While the field of explicit eco-social policy work and research is still comparatively small, the growing importance of addressing the interlinkages and intersections of environmental and social policy has been recognized by a range of different stakeholders both within and beyond the political mainstream. Reconciling environmental and social concerns is not an easy task as prosperity and well-being are often seen as a function of economic growth, whereas environmental sustainability is inherently incompatible with unlimited economic growth (see Büchs in this Forum). As a result, the field of eco-social policy (ESP) is broad and encompasses a range of different approaches and initiatives that can vary quite significantly in terms of their underlying worldviews, main objectives and ambition for change.

ESP can be the adjustment of traditional social policies to include environmental considerations, for example, through adaptive social protection systems that aim to reduce vulnerability to climate extremes or public work programmes offering employment in conservation and sustainable land management. Similarly, environmental policies can be expanded to incorporate social dimensions in order to become ESP, for example, when savings from fossil fuel subsidy removal are redistributed to alleviate the burden fuel price increases have on poor households. The perhaps biggest potential of eco-social policy lies in truly integrated approaches that combine ambitious environmental objectives with progressive social objectives from the start in order to promote policy that can set boundaries for economic choices based on their sustainability impacts (see Cook and Dugarova, 2014; United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), 2016).

It is important to acknowledge the variation that exists within the field of ESP in order to understand different assumptions and objectives underpinning markedly different pathways to sustainability. Utting (2013) distinguishes market liberalism, embedded liberalism and alter-globalization as three ideal-typical approaches to sustainability that differ both in terms of problem identified and solutions proposed. For both market liberalism and embedded liberalism, the problem is identified as a crisis in the system to which the solutions proposed are different degrees of adjustment and reform to fix the problem (see Jessop, 2012). For alter-globalization, the problem identified is seen as a problem of the system, so that the appropriate solution requires much more radical change or transformation of the system.

If we transfer this assessment to the climate crisis, we can observe all three pathways in different contexts and institutional arrangements. In many countries, public policy and spending continues to be constrained by the persistence of neoliberal thinking which prioritizes market-based solutions and profit orientation over equity and sustainability. Market-based solutions thus often dominate international climate negotiations between different member states. Recently and perhaps a result of the increasing urgency of the climate crisis, embedded liberalism favouring more regulatory interventions (including proposals for a Green New Deal) gain traction at the level of national or regional policy making, whereas alter-globalization and calls for degrowth and system change are more prevalent among climate activism and civil society responses.

Despite their contradictions, the different pathways can, to some degree, co-exist in a complex institutional landscape. Existing power asymmetries in the global political economy tend to favour “business as usual” approaches over more profound change while social movements and activists build up pressure to demand transformation. Powerful elites often manage to mobilize either-or narratives that suggest we must choose between protecting the environment and safeguarding well-being and prosperity, thereby pitting public opinion against stricter emissions reduction policies.

The just transition concept (see Gueye in this Forum) is a promising example of a grounded concept, emanating from the labour movement, that has the potential to inform integrated ESP and seeks to counteract such narratives by promoting people-centred, socially just climate policy. Just transition policies offer support to affected workers and communities and can thereby not only tackle a fair distribution of benefits and costs of climate action, but also increase the overall political acceptance of environmental regulation. It is important to note, however, that proposed policies and interventions can again range from those largely preserving the existing political economy to those envisioning significantly different futures as they are being proposed by different groups and in different contexts (Just Transition Research Collaborative (JTRC), 2018).

This kind of variation can be found in many different policy areas and it is important to uncover the nuances and implications of different approaches for sustainability and justice. Within just transition initiatives, we can find narrowly defined compensation mechanisms for workers who are affected by the shutdown of polluting industries as well as much more transformative and emancipatory movement for sustainability and justice at the grassroots level. More work is needed to explicitly identify implications of different pathways chosen in terms of environmental sustainability and social justice outcomes. Otherwise, ESP initiatives run the risk of reproducing existing inequalities and failing to deliver on environmental sustainability.

Bringing together two already broad and complex policy fields into one integrated field is an inherently political process that is prone to divergent views of what kind of policy change is desirable and necessary. Inclusive political processes, equitable forms of partnership, multilevel governance reforms, and increased state capacity are thus prerequisites for forging innovative policies that are conducive to bringing about the kind of transformative change that is called for by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Adopting an eco-social lens to examine processes, policies and outcomes is conducive to fostering deliberate transformations towards sustainability (see UNRISD, 2016).

Recognizing and acknowledging these different degrees of eco-social policy is an important task for research in a nascent field as the different pathways can have distinct implications for eco-social justice. In this context, it is important to question whose ideas and values are in the driving seat of ESP and how this influences transition pathways and the degree of change that is being pursued. ESP research can play an important role in mapping out the impacts of choosing different pathways and informing integrated approaches that can tackle root causes of unsustainability and inequality.