Environment strategy: transformative changes for sustainability

4. Challenges in Transformative Change Theory

There is not yet a consensus on what sustainability transformations constitute or entail. For some authors, definitions of sustainability will always change (Scoones et al, 2020) as societies change, i.e. sustainability is not something that can be measured as a static characteristic, but is continually re-defined by societies depending upon their goals and ways of thinking (hence the democratic processes that enable plural forms of knowledge and voices to shape those definitions and how to achieve sustainability are what matters) (Scoones et al, 2020). This has implications for intentional transformative change design processes, actions and evaluation.

Evidence challenges and the nature of evidence. In a recent IPBES assessment (2022), specific challenges were identified in assessing whether a policy instrument is transformative or not. This is because there is not yet a consensus, as explained above, but also because there has been limited evidence-gathering to date and challenges of attribution.

Limits on nation state power to effect transformative change. Assumptions are common that change can be delivered by nation states and policymakers. However, some authors query whether state action is capable of effecting transformative change and suggest that grassroots action is essential (Smaessert and Feola 2023; Escobar, 1995), because nation states are embedded in webs of capitalist relations or colonial modernities, which lead them to focus more on techno-scientific and market-based solutions (Moore, 2015). The accumulation imperative of capitalism can be seen as a way of unlocking investment in sustainability transitions, but they are a key underlying cause of global unsustainable practices. While green growth is seen as a way around this inherent challenge, evidence is lacking that green growth is happening or likely to (Haberl et al, 2020; Parrique et al, 2019; Fitzpatrick et al, 2022, Hickel and Kallis (2020), without more fundamental changes (e.g. closure of highly damaging sectors through public control of such sectors).

Challenges in moving beyond constraining techno-scientific responses. Calls for ‘evidence-based policymaking’ abound, but even when discussing transformative change (i.e. values, goals and paradigm shifts), there is a strong tendency for conceptualisations in policy circles to foreground scientific and technical knowledge solutions, and market-based perspectives and responses, sidelining others (Darnhofer, 2021).

Intentional design processes and system complexity: Any organisation or state will find it hard to control change given the uncertainties inherent in emergent, on-linear change processes in complex, adaptive systems, hence more decentralised, adaptive responses are important (Leach et al, 2010).

The notion that the corporate private sector should be at the table lacks critical reflection from a transformative change perspective and ignores the intensifying power of large corporations over policy directions and decisions. Capitalist relations restrict the space for the creation of alternatives e.g. alternative ways of organising economies underpinned by different value sets, yet this is what is needed e.g. see IPBES Values Assessment (2022) which concludes that moderating market values is needed (IPBES, 2022) to conserve biodiversity, for example, with efforts to amplify ethics of care and solidarity. Yet, the main features of capitalism, are privatisation, consumerism, proprietary rights to land and resources etc, in driving environmental unsustainability. Oft repeated calls for the private sector to be at the table and to deliver on environmental sustainability goals, obscures the role of corporate power in preventing transformative change and the need for wider change in the very nature of democracies (Hausknost, 2019), as well as authoritarian states, to achieve transformative change. Increasing corporate power has meant an increase in political lobbying in many democracies, a lessening of grassroots organizational power through trade unions, and business representatives even taking positions of power (Standing, 2011).