Giuseppe Feola presents keynote talk at EURAC

Sustainability transformation: critical perspectives in times of discord. Keynote talk. Social Sciences for Climate Change: From Knowledge to Action, Eurac Research, Bolzano/Bozen, 4-5 September 2025.

Abstract. Over the past few decades, the social sciences have established their presence in global environmental change and sustainability studies. They have been shown to be crucial in unpacking the social conditions and processes that drive ongoing social-ecological damage and injustice, as well as in identifying the processes and conditions necessary for sustainability transformation. Many different notions of transformation have been proposed and coexist in the literature as well as public discourse. Despite, or perhaps thanks to, such conceptual fluidity, ‘sustainability transformation’ has become an established and popular term, featuring in research programmes, global assessments, policy proposals, and social movements and non-governmental organisations alike. However, such conceptual fluidity has facilitated the appropriation of the term ‘transformation’ to justify the status quo, attempting to align responses to climate change with the imperatives of capitalist accumulation.

On the other hand, many critical social scientists across the Global North and South have argued that ushering in a just and environmentally sustainable future requires challenging and transforming the modern capitalist societies and their cultural, social, and political foundations. A sustainability transformation entails questioning capitalist modernity and its entanglements with colonialism, racism and patriarchy, as reflected not only in the political economy, but also, among other aspects, in the ideas of progress as unending growth, individualism, commodification of human and non-human life, and extractivist and exploitative logics.

What are some of the emerging research directions matching the call for critical approaches to sustainability transformation?

First, inner transformation encompasses changing consciousness, mindsets, values, worldviews, beliefs, and spirituality. Inner transformation focuses on changing capitalist-modern subjectivities (e.g., the consumer), as well as extractive and exploitative attitudes, individualism, and separation from other humans and non-human species. Inner transformation may involve unlearning, an intentional process that involves individuals and/or organisations abandoning, discarding, or stopping to use established mindsets, practices, and beliefs. As part of their transformation efforts at the local level, social movements, faith communities, and community-led initiatives (such as ecovillages and transition towns) have developed methodologies such as workshop designs, group conversation setups, or physical exercises, which are informed by various intellectual traditions, including mindfulness, Buddhism, and critical pedagogies. They involve creating spaces that are safe yet encourage reflection and the elaboration of discomfort. It is a promising direction of future research to further understand how these approaches work and how they connect inner and societal change.

A second research direction is that of deliberate destabilisation. Deliberate destabilisation involves processes by which specific socio-technical arrangements, technologies, practices, and institutions that support unsustainability are deliberately brought to an end. Transformation discourses and notions have overly emphasised the emergence of novelty, while underplaying the need to actively deconstruct and disarticulate existing socioecological configurations. The phase-out of coal, meat taxes, a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, and defunding campaigns are all examples of interventions aimed at destabilising system configurations that lead to unsustainable outcomes, rather than supporting alternative ones. To focus on the emergence of novelty is problematic because it restricts the options and trajectories of change, and it is often ineffective. For example, the increase of energy provision from renewable sources is ineffective if it adds to, rather than replaces, energy produced from fossil fuels – and this is exactly what is occurring in the energy system. It is crucial to advance research on the effectiveness of destabilisation policies, also in connection with diverse policy mixes, the politics of destabilisation, and the role of incumbent actors, as well as the normative evaluation (e.g., justice) of its outcomes.

A third research direction concerns alternative economies: grassroots and community-led collective action that attempts to create alternative systems of provision through experimentation with radically regenerative practices, convivial technologies, horizontal organisation, deep democracy, and social inclusion. Their goals include social justice, ecological sustainability, autonomy, dignity, and sovereignty. They are seen as alternatives to capitalism, demonstrating that non-capitalist ways of organising economies and social collectives do exist and function. Very many questions remain open. For example, what is the transformative potential of alternative economies? Which new logics (e.g., care, sufficiency) and institutional arrangements (commons, social enterprises), new discourses and imaginaries are developed in alternative economies?

Finally, sustainability transformation research must address societal discord. Policy efforts face constant conflict and resistance, driven by both material interests and differing beliefs. Instead of seeking full agreement, we should accept discord as the norm and recognise that both cooperation and friction shape the process of change.Thus, transformation may involve continuously finding “partial political settlements”: negotiated but uncomfortable compromises to realise a minimal degree of productive cooperation among key actors who influence a policy outcome in a situation that otherwise risks intractable conflict and failed transformation. Partial political settlements represent something that actors can live with rather than something they necessarily fully embrace, thereby downplaying the provision of definitive solutions. This approach seeks to internalise discomfort rather than avoiding it, which can help to shift political conditions and make new actions possible. Yet, further research is needed to address the following open issues: to what extent, and under what conditions, do partial political settlements have transformative effects? How do they interact, spill over, and cumulate? How do partial political settlements interact with other forms of action (e.g., protests, lobbying, participation, goal-setting) both within and beyond formal political processes?