Beyond divest vs. engage: a review of the role of institutional investors in an inclusive fossil fuel phase-out.

Institutional investors, who control as much as $154 trillion globally, may play an important role in shaping the energy transition as major stakeholders in fossil fuel producing, distributing and consuming companies. Research on investors and fossil fuels has focused largely on the divestment movement or on shareholder engagement. However, given their limited success to date, additional strategies to influence the fossil fuel sector are merited. This review paper expands the scope of attention to investors, asking: what strategies for influencing the fossil fuel industry are available to institutional investors and what are the implications of these for achieving an inclusive fossil fuel phase-out? Through a systematic review of 153 papers, we identify seven strategies for influencing the fossil fuel phase-out: divestment, shareholder engagement, hiring practices, engaging the financial sector, engaging indirect financial actors, litigation, and green investment. These strategies represent ways for investors to increase the impact of their engagements, as well as areas deserving greater attention from academics, policymakers, and activists. Across these strategies, we note trade-offs in favour of financial returns at the expense of social, ecological, and equity outcomes. We argue that future research should focus on: (a) the role of under-studied actors in aligning finance with climate goals; (b) the implications of investor action for an inclusive energy transition; and (c) policy solutions capable of overcoming investors' short-term profit motives to instead incentivise long-term investor engagement with climate issues.

Legal mandates and uncertainties in how to apply fiduciary responsibility with respect to climate change result in investors and asset managers prioritizing short-term profits at the expense of climate goals.Voluntary investor efforts focus predominantly on transparency and disclosure and are insufficient to meet climate goals. Legally binding decarbonization strategies are needed to align finance with the Paris Agreement.Influence over investment strategies is increasingly concentrated in a small number of powerful actors. Policymakers should consider not only asset owners, but also asset managers, index providers, and proxy advisory firms.Investors can increase their climate action by incorporating policies on climate into their mandates for asset managers and engaging with fossil fuel financiers.

The planetary commons: A new paradigm for safeguarding Earth-regulating systems in the Anthropocene.

The Anthropocene signifies the start of a no-analogue trajectory of the Earth system that is fundamentally different from the Holocene. This new trajectory is characterized by rising risks of triggering irreversible and unmanageable shifts in Earth system functioning. We urgently need a new global approach to safeguard critical Earth system regulating functions more effectively and comprehensively. The global commons framework is the closest example of an existing approach with the aim of governing biophysical systems on Earth upon which the world collectively depends. Derived during stable Holocene conditions, the global commons framework must now evolve in the light of new Anthropocene dynamics. This requires a fundamental shift from a focus only on governing shared resources beyond national jurisdiction, to one that secures critical functions of the Earth system irrespective of national boundaries. We propose a new framework-the planetary commons-which differs from the global commons framework by including not only globally shared geographic regions but also critical biophysical systems that regulate the resilience and state, and therefore livability, on Earth. The new planetary commons should articulate and create comprehensive stewardship obligations through Earth system governance aimed at restoring and strengthening planetary resilience and justice.

Safe and just Earth system boundaries.

The stability and resilience of the Earth system and human well-being are inseparably linked1-3, yet their interdependencies are generally under-recognized; consequently, they are often treated independently4,5. Here, we use modelling and literature assessment to quantify safe and just Earth system boundaries (ESBs) for climate, the biosphere, water and nutrient cycles, and aerosols at global and subglobal scales. We propose ESBs for maintaining the resilience and stability of the Earth system (safe ESBs) and minimizing exposure to significant harm to humans from Earth system change (a necessary but not sufficient condition for justice)4. The stricter of the safe or just boundaries sets the integrated safe and just ESB. Our findings show that justice considerations constrain the integrated ESBs more than safety considerations for climate and atmospheric aerosol loading. Seven of eight globally quantified safe and just ESBs and at least two regional safe and just ESBs in over half of global land area are already exceeded. We propose that our assessment provides a quantitative foundation for safeguarding the global commons for all people now and into the future.

Equitable, effective, and feasible approaches for a prospective fossil fuel transition.

Most fossil fuel resources must remain unused to comply with the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Scholars and policymakers debate which approaches should be undertaken to Leave Fossil Fuels Underground (LFFU). However, existing scholarship has not yet inventoried and evaluated the array of approaches to LFFU based on their effectiveness, equity, or feasibility. Hence, this review article asks: What lessons can we learn from reviewing scholarship on proposed approaches to leaving fossil fuels underground (LFFU)? We identify 28 unique LFFU approaches, of which only 12 are deemed environmentally effective (e.g., fossil fuel extraction taxes, bans and moratoria, and financial swaps); eight involve moderate-to-high (non-)monetary costs, and only four are deemed entirely just and equitable. Of the 12 environmentally effective approaches: only three were deemed cost-effective (regulating financial capital for fossil fuel projects, removing existing fossil fuel subsidies, and bans & moratoria); merely four were deemed equitable (asset write-offs, retiring existing fossil infrastructure, pursuing court cases/litigation, and financial swaps); and all were deemed institutionally problematic in terms of their feasibility (six were challenging to implement as they threatened the vested interests of powerful stakeholder groups). Moreover, the reviewed scholarship draws heavily on empirical studies of how these LFFU approaches can be optimized in European, North American, and Chinese contexts; fewer studies have explored the effectiveness and fairness of LFFU approaches in the South and/or in a North-South context. Future research should particularly focus on North-South fossil fuel financial flows, which have received comparatively little attention. This article is categorized under:The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Decarbonizing Energy and/or Reducing Demand.

Equity, justice and the SDGs: lessons learnt from two decades of INEA scholarship.

Environmental justice issues have been incrementally but consistently covered within this journal in the last two decades. This article reviews theoretical and empirical approaches to justice in INEA scholarship in order to identify trends and draw lessons for the interpretation and implementation of the 2030 Agenda and for living within environmental limits. Our review traces how justice considerations were initially covered within new institutionalist scholarship on collective action and social practices, to conceptualizing justice as 'access and allocation', to newer notions of planetary justice. We link these trends to scholarship on diverse epistemologies and typologies of justice, including conservative, corrective, distributive and procedural justice, and examine their operationalization within the empirical domains of climate, water and sustainable development. In concluding, we draw out implications for the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. We argue that a just approach is essential to living within environmental limits, with greater synergies needed between collective action and social practice approaches. While justice can be unpacked for practical and political reasons into access and allocation, we find that (procedural) access considerations are more politically palatable in practice than a concern with allocation (distributive justice), which remains much more contested. As such, dominant approaches promote 'conservative' or thin market-based notions of justice. We conclude by noting that just allocation is a precondition to just access. A failure to prioritize and achieve more corrective and distributive forms of justice will, without doubt, contribute to exacerbating global ecological degradation.

Fossil fuels, stranded assets and COVID-19: Imagining an inclusive & transformative recovery.

The 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change implicitly requires phasing out fossil fuels; such a phase out may cost hundreds of trillions of dollars and induce widespread socio-ecological ramifications. The COVID-19 'pancession' (pandemic + recession) has rattled global economies, possibly accelerating the fossil fuel phase out. This raises the question: What opportunities has COVID-19 presented to phase out fossil fuels, and subsequently, how can transformative recovery efforts be designed to utilize these opportunities and promote social, ecological and relational inclusiveness? We find that: (a) the COVID-19 pancession provides a unique opportunity to accelerate climate action, as it has devalued financial assets, stunned fossil fuel production and paralyzed relevant infrastructure, thus easing the pathway towards stranding global fossil fuel resources and assets; (b) four possible post-pancession recovery scenarios may unravel, of which only one is ecologically, socially and relationally inclusive, transformative, and in line with the Paris Agreement and Agenda 2030; and (c) an inclusive recovery requires that political leadership channels the gargantuan state resources for recovery into prioritizing healthcare and the environment as public/merit goods, conscious investment in non-fossil fuel energy sector recovery accompanied by stringent climate policy, and equitably managing stranded assets to ensure that the burden falls on rich and capable actors, predominantly from the North.

COVID-19, poverty and inclusive development.

The COVID-19 epidemic provides yet another reason to prioritize inclusive development. Current response strategies of the global community and countries expose a low level of solidarity with poorer nations and poorer people in all nations. Against this background, this paper addresses the question: What are the development challenges that the COVID-19 pandemic lays bare and what lessons can be learnt for the way recovery processes are designed? Using an inclusive development and DPSIR lens to assess the literature, our study finds that, first, the current response prioritises the 'state' and 'impact' concerns of wealthier classes at the expense of the remainder of the world population. Second, responses have ignored underlying 'drivers' and 'pressures', instead aiming at a quick recovery of the economy. Third, a return to business-as-usual using government funding will lead to a vicious cycle of further ecological degradation, socio-economic inequality and domestic abuse that assist in exacerbating the drivers of the pandemic. We argue instead for an inclusive development approach that leads to a virtuous cycle by emphasizing human health, well-being and ecosystem regeneration. We conclude that the lost years for development did not commence in 2020 with the onset of COVID-19; the downward trend has actually been waxing over the past three decades. From this perspective, COVID-19 may be the shock needed to put the last first and transform vicious into virtuous cycles of inclusive development.

Framework for Participatory Quantitative Health Impact Assessment in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

BACKGROUND: Conducting health impact assessments (HIAs) is a growing practice in various organizations and countries, yet scholarly interest in HIAs has primarily focused on the synergies between exposure and health outcomes. This limits our understanding of what factors influence HIAs and the uptake of their outcomes. This paper presents a framework for conducting participatory quantitative HIA (PQHIA) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including integrating the outcomes back into society after an HIA is conducted. The study responds to the question: what are the different components of a participatory quantitative model that can influence HIA implementation in LMICs? METHODS: To build the framework, we used a case study from a PQHIA fieldwork model developed in Port Louis (Mauritius). To explore thinking on the participatory components of the framework, we extract and analyze data from ethnographic material including fieldnotes, interviews, focus group discussions and feedback exercises with 14 stakeholders from the same case study. We confirm the validity of the ethnographic data using five quality criteria: credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability, and authenticity. We build the PQHIA framework connecting the main HIA steps with factors influencing HIAs. RESULTS: The final framework depicts the five standard HIA stages and summarizes participatory activities and outcomes. It also reflects key factors influencing PQHIA practice and uptake of HIA outcomes: costs for participation, HIA knowledge and interest of stakeholders, social responsibility of policymakers, existing policies, data availability, citizen participation, multi-level stakeholder engagement and multisectoral coordination. The framework suggests that factors necessary to complete a participatory HIA are the same needed to re-integrate HIA results back into the society. There are three different areas that can act as facilitators to PQHIAs: good governance, evidence-based policy making, and access to resources. CONCLUSIONS: The framework has several implications for research and practice. It underlines the importance of applying participatory approaches critically while providing a blueprint for methods to engage local stakeholders. Participatory approaches in quantitative HIAs are complex and demand a nuanced understanding of the context. Therefore, the political and cultural contexts in which HIA is conducted will define how the framework is applied. Finally, the framework underlines that participation in HIA does not need to be expensive or time consuming for the assessor or the participant. Yet, participatory quantitative models need to be contextually developed and integrated if they are to provide health benefits and be beneficial for the participants. This integration can be facilitated by investing in opportunities that fuel good governance and evidence-based policy making.

Systematic Literature Review of Health Impact Assessments in Low and Middle-Income Countries.

Health Impact Assessments (HIAs) motivate effective measures for safeguarding public health. There is consensus that HIAs in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) are lacking, but no study systematically focuses on those that have been successfully conducted across all regions of the world, nor do they highlight factors that may enable or hinder their implementation. Our objectives are to (1) systematically review, geographically map, and characterize HIA activity in LMICs; and (2) apply a process evaluation method to identify factors which are important to improve HIA implementation in LMICs. A systematic review of peer-reviewed HIAs in 156 LMICs was performed in Scopus, Medline, Web of Science, Sociological abstracts, and LILACs (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences) databases. The search used PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and covered HIAs across all type of interventions, topics, and health outcomes. HIAs were included if they reported a clear intervention and health outcome to be assessed. No time restriction was applied, and grey literature was not included. The eligible studies were subjected to six process evaluation criteria. The search yielded 3178 hits and 57 studies were retained. HIAs were conducted in 26 out of 156 countries. There was an unequal distribution of HIAs across regions and within LMICs countries. The leading topics of HIA in LMICs were air pollution, development projects, and urban transport planning. Most of the HIAs reported quantitative approaches (72%), focused on air pollution (46%), appraised policies (60%), and were conducted at the city level (36%). The process evaluation showed important variations in the way HIAs have been conducted and low uniformity in the reporting of six criteria. No study reported the time, money, and staff used to perform HIAs. Only 12% of HIAs were based on participatory approaches; 92% of HIAs considered multiple outcomes; and 61% of HIAs provided recommendations and fostered cross-national collaboration. The limited transparency in process, weak participation, and inconsistent delivery of recommendations were potential limitations to HIA implementation in low and middle-income countries. Scaling and improving HIA implementation in low and middle-income countries in the upcoming years will depend on expanding geographically by increasing HIA governance, adapting models and tools in quantitative methods, and adopting better reporting practices.

Adaptive Governance, Uncertainty, and Risk: Policy Framing and Responses to Climate Change, Drought, and Flood.

As climate change impacts result in more extreme events (such as droughts and floods), the need to understand which policies facilitate effective climate change adaptation becomes crucial. Hence, this article answers the question: How do governments and policymakers frame policy in relation to climate change, droughts, and floods and what governance structures facilitate adaptation? This research interrogates and analyzes through content analysis, supplemented by semi-structured qualitative interviews, the policy response to climate change, drought, and flood in relation to agricultural producers in four case studies in river basins in Chile, Argentina, and Canada. First, an epistemological explanation of risk and uncertainty underscores a brief literature review of adaptive governance, followed by policy framing in relation to risk and uncertainty, and an analytical model is developed. Pertinent findings of the four cases are recounted, followed by a comparative analysis. In conclusion, recommendations are made to improve policies and expand adaptive governance to better account for uncertainty and risk. This article is innovative in that it proposes an expanded model of adaptive governance in relation to "risk" that can help bridge the barrier of uncertainty in science and policy.