change suggests ‘transformation’ rather than ‘transition’, as the key term (Stirling,
this book; see also Brand, 2012b). Within the ‘transitions’ literature there has been
a recent move to address questions of power and politics more explicitly (e.g. Geels,
2014), suggesting a move from a narrow sociotechnical understanding of transitions
to one more aligned with a wider debate about transformative change. Yet the
conceptualizations of power and politics, and their relationship with questions of
knowledge and social justice, require further elaboration. Our focus on trans -
formations assists this. Transformations are inevitably multiple and contested, as
pathways interconnect and compete (Leach et al., 2010). Politics and power are
important to how pathways are shaped, which pathways win out and why, and
who benefits from them.
By prefacing the transformations with the word ‘green’ our intention is to focus
on the environmental dimensions of change, but these almost inevitably raise
questions of social as well as environmental justice. The constitution of ‘green’
transformations varies depending on the setting in which they are occurring. In
many, perhaps especially developing country contexts, there is unlikely to be any
green transformations if questions of social justice are not part of the debate. This
is captured in calls for a ‘just transition’ (Swilling and Annecke, 2012; Newell and
Mulvaney, 2013), which requires attention to both distribution and direction as
part of any assessment (STEPS, 2010).
Respecting differences of context and perspective, the book does not follow a
single definition of ‘green transformations’. Instead, there is a variety of approaches,
ranging from those focusing on environment (e.g. Schmitz, this book, for whom
‘green transformation is the process of structural change which brings the economy
within the planetary boundaries’) to those focusing also on social justice and
distribution, either as intrinsic to the definition (e.g. Stirling, this book) or in talking
of ‘green and just transformations’ (e.g. Leach, this book). In contrast with
definitions focusing on the need to respect environmental limits, others link
‘greening’ intimately with the multiple dimensions of sustainability – social and
economic as well as environmental. A common normative view unites the chapters:
all authors share a concern both for environment, and for people’s inclusion and
well-being. Yet differences lie in conceptualization and analytical implications, with
implications too for which dimensions of politics are highlighted.
We understand ‘greening’, therefore, as a process rather than a measurable endstate. Just as it is impossible to conceive of the end-point of the unfolding lowcarbon transition, so previous transformations did not start out with clear blueprints
and plans that were then rolled out. Rather, they were the product of competition
and interaction between a number of pathways, supported by diverse social actors
with highly uneven political power.
In this book, the notion of ‘green’ is therefore not just reduced to ‘green’
technology or business, but to more radical shifts to sustainable practices. There
are, of course, various shades of green implied by weaker and stronger versions of
sustainability (Spratt, this book), and throughout the book, we are interested in
how different versions of green are represented in politics – in other words, asking
The politics of green transformations 3
this book; see also Brand, 2012b). Within the ‘transitions’ literature there has been
a recent move to address questions of power and politics more explicitly (e.g. Geels,
2014), suggesting a move from a narrow sociotechnical understanding of transitions
to one more aligned with a wider debate about transformative change. Yet the
conceptualizations of power and politics, and their relationship with questions of
knowledge and social justice, require further elaboration. Our focus on trans -
formations assists this. Transformations are inevitably multiple and contested, as
pathways interconnect and compete (Leach et al., 2010). Politics and power are
important to how pathways are shaped, which pathways win out and why, and
who benefits from them.
By prefacing the transformations with the word ‘green’ our intention is to focus
on the environmental dimensions of change, but these almost inevitably raise
questions of social as well as environmental justice. The constitution of ‘green’
transformations varies depending on the setting in which they are occurring. In
many, perhaps especially developing country contexts, there is unlikely to be any
green transformations if questions of social justice are not part of the debate. This
is captured in calls for a ‘just transition’ (Swilling and Annecke, 2012; Newell and
Mulvaney, 2013), which requires attention to both distribution and direction as
part of any assessment (STEPS, 2010).
Respecting differences of context and perspective, the book does not follow a
single definition of ‘green transformations’. Instead, there is a variety of approaches,
ranging from those focusing on environment (e.g. Schmitz, this book, for whom
‘green transformation is the process of structural change which brings the economy
within the planetary boundaries’) to those focusing also on social justice and
distribution, either as intrinsic to the definition (e.g. Stirling, this book) or in talking
of ‘green and just transformations’ (e.g. Leach, this book). In contrast with
definitions focusing on the need to respect environmental limits, others link
‘greening’ intimately with the multiple dimensions of sustainability – social and
economic as well as environmental. A common normative view unites the chapters:
all authors share a concern both for environment, and for people’s inclusion and
well-being. Yet differences lie in conceptualization and analytical implications, with
implications too for which dimensions of politics are highlighted.
We understand ‘greening’, therefore, as a process rather than a measurable endstate. Just as it is impossible to conceive of the end-point of the unfolding lowcarbon transition, so previous transformations did not start out with clear blueprints
and plans that were then rolled out. Rather, they were the product of competition
and interaction between a number of pathways, supported by diverse social actors
with highly uneven political power.
In this book, the notion of ‘green’ is therefore not just reduced to ‘green’
technology or business, but to more radical shifts to sustainable practices. There
are, of course, various shades of green implied by weaker and stronger versions of
sustainability (Spratt, this book), and throughout the book, we are interested in
how different versions of green are represented in politics – in other words, asking
The politics of green transformations 3