A Just Transition and Beyond

The European Green Deal and its social dimension

The European Green Deal is the flagship of the Commission that wants to transform the EU into a climate-neutral, resource-efficient, and competitive economy by 2050, that “leaves no person and no place behind”1. Its approval was an important change of direction compared to the former Commission. It was logical to embrace it from a green perspective, and to debate it in a constructive way to make sure the promised ambitions are realized. Last years the political context has made the positioning towards the Green Deal complex. On the one hand, the implementation of the Green Deal has not delivered (think e.g. of the promising Farm to Fork strategy which was not translated
into a radical other CAP budget). One the other hand, with the multiple crises, vested interests (such as Pesticide Industry) are lobbying to at least slow down Green Deal policies. So, green actors have
defended policies which at the same time they don’t find ambitious enough. It is undeniable that the Green Deal will stay central in the debates the coming period.

This project wants to expose a crucial weakness in the EU Green Deal, which is its social dimension. Social measures (e.g. specific social funds) are developed to counterbalance the negative social
effects of already developed policies (such as applying ETS to housing and transport). So far, it rests on a ‘compensation logic’ while we need a holistic approach that integrates the social rights from the
beginning, as the climate crisis should be understood as and can only be tackled as an inequality crisis (Hoon & Pype, 2022). To go further, eco-social policies would need to address the ‘double
injustice’ whereby the poorest household groups, i.e. the ones least responsible for environmental damage, are worst placed to cope with mitigation and adaptation (Koch, 2020). Thus, it is unclear,
and rather doubtful, whether the Green Deal contains the needed transformational approach that answers to the challenge of a society providing a good life for all within planetary boundaries. If, for
instance, support for households, to insulate their homes for example, is given in the form of subsidies, mostly households that can afford these investments will make us it, while low-income
groups don’t have the financial means to use them. This is the so-called Mattheus effect: ‘those who already have, will get more’.

The key question is then: how can we settle for policies that are not inherently social and that exclude the most vulnerable groups from the necessary transition? The concept of Just Transition explains the importance of ‘leaving no person and no place behind’ in the transition towards an economy and society that respect planetary boundaries. It could be seen as an overarching framework to make sure that this transition towards an ecological society is done in a socially just
and equitable way. A just transition should thus be a constant guiding principle in policymaking, instead of it being implemented into climate policy as a compromising afterthought. In other words,
we should not compensate climate policy with social policy to make the transition possible. Instead, climate policy should be inherently social, or it will not be at all. (Holemans & Volodchenko, 2022).
To go further, it is not only important to implement social justice for the effectiveness of climate and broader ecological policies, but it is also crucial for ensuring public support and acceptability, as a
lack of social justice and an uneven transition is likely to trigger public discontent and political backlash. Next to that, if citizens are completely excluded from the process of policymaking, and do
not feel sufficiently informed, consulted, and listened to, they will experience climate policies as undemocratic, which again, can lead to political backlash. Therefore, drafting and deploying these policies should happen in close cooperation with local representatives and civil society actors close to targeted groups. (Hoon & Pype, 2022).

In this project, we will look at the Green Deal, and to what extent it is social, or promotes and enhances a just transition, from the perspective of different countries. This will allow us to see how the Green Deal is implemented and from thereon we can formulate policy proposals, or things that could be done differently, to truly ‘leave no person and no place behind’. From a green perspective, there is a need to develop further an eco-social approach that allows positioning and action at two levels, which is the focus of this project. The first challenge, or level, is to develop proposals that allow the integration of the social in the concretization of the Green Deal. How to strengthen the proposals that the green family has to integrate the social dimension in the Green Deal in an ambitious way? The aim here is to have a balanced but critical view on the Green Deal in a concise way, that allows to be precise in public
debates, and to move towards a ‘Just Green Deal’. As already said above, we will analyse Green Deal policies of a limited number of regions and countries, which recognizes the different realities in
urban, post-industrial, and rural regions.

Going beyond the Green Deal

A key element of a successful transformation is the ability of mobilizing and stimulating our political imagination, to envision a better society. Here political foundations have a key role to play, as they
have the freedom to go beyond the debate on current policies. Green foundations become the most relevant if they can mobilize ideas and concepts that allow to develop a vision on the needed transformation into a socio-ecological society. A just transition, in that sense, entails fundamental changes, not only regarding production and consumption systems like energy, transport and agriculture, but also infrastructure, societal value and politics. It emphasizes the need for a shift
towards a human and fair economic system, with healthy ecosystems, health care, public services, education, and culture at its heart. This systemic change means that we must redefine what
economic prosperity, welfare and wellbeing really signify. (Holemans & Volodchenko, 2022).

The second level of this project thus explores, from a more radical perspective, the question if the current Green Deal is the sufficient answer to make the EU futureproof amidst the multiple crises.
We have to look beyond the focus on carbon-neutrality of the Green Deal and introduce a broader vision of a future we want to live in that ensures a good life for everyone within planetary
boundaries. The question arises, how do we imagine our future and does the Green Deal actually answer to that? Therefore, we must nourish the public debate on the Green Deal with innovative concepts that allow the renewal of the principles of the 20th century Welfare State. For this task, the project will mobilize existing research on concepts such as Sustainable Welfare related to the vision of an Ecological Welfare State, or a Wellbeing State, and investigate the importance of implementing the idea of Universal Basic Services.

If the key achievement of the high-income countries in the 20th century was the Welfare State, that was and is, based on an extractive economy, detrimental to the rest of the world, how to redefine
this Welfare State to envision an Eco-Welfare State, based on the concept of Sustainable Welfare that delivers a good life to Europeans considering in an equitable way the needs of the rest of the
world? The German scholar, Max Koch, introduces the concept of Sustainable Welfare, in which the role of social policy is addressed in an ecological and social transition beyond the growth imperative.
Important to note is that the key concern in this Sustainable Welfare is not to provide the ‘happy few’ in Western societies, as has been the case in the 20th century Welfare State, but rather to satisfy
basic needs for all humans now and in the future (with for example social tariffs, maximum limits on income and wealth, or Universal Basic Services, as discussed below). Focussing on a truly just transition and making social policy inherent to climate policy forces us to think about whose welfare, or wellbeing, should be represented in current societies. We should develop a sense of responsibility or obligation toward future generations and to those affected the most by climate change. This includes the recognition of critical thresholds and limitations, and of the fact that needs, aspirations and wants must be reviewed and possibly restrained. In this sense, Sustainable Welfare is oriented
towards satisfying human needs within ecological limits, from an intergenerational and global perspective. (Koch, 2020).

We think it is key to define what green actors understand by ‘sustainable welfare’ and to work on the contours of an Eco-Welfare State, or what we would like to introduce as a Wellbeing State. While authors like Koch redefine the 20th century Welfare State into an Eco-Welfare State based on Sustainable Welfare, we want to introduce the concept of a Wellbeing State, where a good life with social and ecological wellbeing is guaranteed for everyone. As the 20th century Welfare State is failing to provide a good life for everyone within planetary boundaries, we suggest moving towards a Wellbeing State. Not because we do not agree with authors like Koch, but rather to strengthen their ideas by making clear that we shift the focus from welfare to wellbeing for everyone. We believe this is the key concern for the future, to live in a society that can ensure social and ecological wellbeing for people and for the planet. Instead of serving economic growth, a Wellbeing State would serve people and planet. Policies should be set up to deliver quality of life and flourishing for all people, in harmony with our environment, by default. (Wellbeing Economy Alliance, 2022)
An important concept that we want to focus on in this Wellbeing State, is the approach of Universal Basic Services (UBS). Instead of focusing only on a Universal Basic Income, which ‘merely’ changes
the systems of redistribution and in a sense reinforces individualism while there is no guarantee it reinforces social security (if e.g., public transport and health care are privatized and very expensive), we want to bring the concept of Universal Basic Services to the debate. Commonly owned goods and services would increase individual liberty in addition to improving social security (think again of e.g., high-quality, and affordable public transport and healthcare for all). UBS rest on a simple commitment: every member of society should have access to life’s essentials, which are the minimum resources needed not just to survive, but to participate in society and flourish (Coote, 2023). In addition, they might also increase cohesion of the population through shared experiences in the use of universally available services (Neuvonen & Malho, 2019). While basic human needs are universal, how they are met varies widely. Therefore, services should be appropriate, rather than uniform, and experienced as sufficient for all by all (Coote, 2023). For providing these services, a combination between state and non-state actors are definitely possible (think of collective measures
from the public sector as well as market transactions installed by private companies or initiatives set up by non-profit organisations). (Coote, 2023; Neuvonen & Malho, 2019). Last but not least, when people can rely on effective services (like getting an education, a decent home, care when needed, etc.), they are better protected from certain risks and vulnerabilities that might otherwise arise from problems associated with poverty (e.g. problems, and thus a demand for services to cope with this, as a result of inadequate housing). (Coote, 2023). With UBS, problems like this can be prevented rather than ‘cured’ afterwards. In that sense, we could see Universal Basic Services as an investment
in the future, that will benefit all.

Moving towards a Just Green Deal and a Wellbeing State

With this broader vision of a Wellbeing State and concepts like Universal Basic Services in mind, we want to summarize the project goal as a challenge. What could be the set of crucial Green Deal proposals, that by design will benefit the lives of disadvantaged populations the most, within the horizon of a Wellbeing State? This way we want to introduce new attractive ideas and building blocks to the green vision of a Wellbeing State, showing that the green family is the place to be for envisioning and creating a better future for all.