For the many not the few: introducing just transition for supply chain management

We are seeing the climate crisis happen before our eyes, with off-the-chart records across planetary boundary indicators. 20 of the 35 indicators were broken by huge margins, with 2023 the hottest year on record (Carrington, 2023).

The global energy sector will be instrumental in tackling this problem as it generates three-quarters of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions globally (IEA, 2021b). It is crucial to replace fossil fuels, such coal, gas and oil with energy from renewable sources, such as wind, hydro and solar; to reduce carbon emissions. UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated “without renewables, there can be no future” (United Nations, 2023) and climate scientists insist that decarbonisation by phasing-out of fossil fuels must happen rapidly (Carrington, 2024).

Supply chain management is crucial to decarbonisation. Supply chains are at the heart of the worsening climate crisis (Silva et al., 2023b); as supply chain carbon emissions (Scope 3) constitute, on average, 86% of all company emissions (Hoepner and Schneider, 2022), with only eight of the world’s supply chains responsible for 50% of total global emissions (Lesser, 2021).

To tackle this, supply chain management must become socio-ecological systems ensuring harmonic integration with natural resources (Gualandris et al., 2023). Supply chain management is, therefore, expected to reshape its processes and practices to be culturally and context specific (Samson and Swink, 2023). Yet, despite efforts, instrumental and traditional supply chain assumptions lack a shared vision for socio-ecological systems (Gualandris et al., 2023). Decarbonisation requires restorative solutions for a variety of supply chain-related issues and the supply chain management discipline finds itself in need of a new foundation rooted in environmental and social justice.

Currently, decarbonisation and sustainability transitions are often framed, and endorsed by both practice and research, as technology and innovation-focused, prioritising the role of governments and markets for innovative and, often, niche solutions (Hale et al., 2021). While, the growing environmental justice discourse is concerned with “the unequal distribution of environmental risks on already disadvantaged individuals, communities, and non-humans” (Williams and Doyon, 2020, p. 291). Fossil fuels must be phased-out and renewables must be phased-in, but this transition should not be framed solely on emissions reduction, because this completely ignores social and economic issues faced by communities and workers at multiple levels (Johnstone and Hielscher, 2017).

Therefore, a social justice narrative must be adopted to understand “how (climate change) adaptation might exacerbate existing inequities and create new ones, and how voices from grassroots communities can be incorporated into just, democratic and workable transitions” (Routledge et al., 2018, p. 78). Given that human agency, politics, governance and power imbalances are often overlooked in sustainability transitions (Hale et al., 2021), commentators underline the need for a just transition to a sustainable future (Carrington, 2023).

Just transitions are different from sustainability transitions. Engaging with social justice, a just transition ensures not only environmental impact reduction but also decent work, social inclusion and poverty elimination (Casano, 2019; Gilbert et al., 2018). The concept of just transition originated in the 1960 and 1970s in the USA when coal mining operations changed from small, local, independent producers to large-scale operations following a series of mergers and acquisitions. Several small unprofitable mines closed, and trade unions demanded rights for workers and communities to avert mass unemployment and decline. This had varying degrees of success, due to the lack of union influence over industrial planning and policymaking (Abraham, 2017).

Two decades later the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) included the term “just transition” in a statement at the 1997 Kyoto Conference and in 2010 during the ITUC World Congress the resolution on “combating climate change through sustainable development and just transition” was adopted by unions (ITUC, 2010). The phrase gained universal recognition by international bodies, governments, trade unions, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and activists in 2015, following its mention in the Paris Agreement noting “the imperatives of a just transition”. The concept continues to grow in scope and there are efforts at local, national, and international levels to create transformative and alternative models to tackle climate crisis in just ways for the future.

Despite its growing popularity, importance, and what appears to be an abundance of just transition projects and related policies, there is no commonly agreed definition of just transition or consistent focus (Kenfack, 2019). Little is known about how communities can be integrated into these transitions (Lennon, 2020). There is no consensus on how local communities and groups can work together to envisage a better future (Cock, 2019) or the real impact of just transitions on individuals and communities (Bainton et al., 2021).

Lack of construct clarity has resulted in a lack of consistency in theory building since the meaning of just transition varies across studies. Consequently, theory building, theory testing, replication, and generalisation of findings have been difficult. Most theoretical contributions are descriptive and lack theoretical foundation. The just transition concept is broader than specific environmental issues such as energy security or low-carbon technologies, therefore it is imperative that we build multidisciplinary theory to understand what just transitions are, how they work and if, and how, societies, communities, and marginalised groups, such as women, indigenous people, and ethnic minorities, can influence just transitions.

In the shift to decarbonisation, the idea of just transition is fundamental for the transition and development of supply chains. The integration of just transition into the supply chain management discipline is essential to achieve a fair and equitable low-carbon economy, but has been, almost totally, ignored (Karaosman and Marshall, 2023). Both research and practical application of just transition in supply chain management are underdeveloped (e.g. Bainton et al., 2021). As supply chain discourse has ignored just transition, the transition discourse also fails to include supply chains (Eaton, 2021).

However, it is clear that extractive activities and investments are cascaded onto lower-tier supply chains (Iskander and Lowe, 2020) and eco-industrial policies are needed to compliment strategies and practices that challenge exploitative supply chains (White, 2019). Transitions can significantly harm individuals, communities, and various stakeholders across supply chains and it is vital to address how just transitions affect lower-tier suppliers, such as marginalised small-scale farmers (Härri et al., 2020) and miners. Restorative solutions are essential for a variety of supply chain-related transition issues that go beyond job losses in declining industries (Bainton et al., 2021). Knowing that decarbonisation will impact sourcing, production and the distribution of materials, products and services, the concepts of justice and just transition must be embedded in supply chain management.

Even though many supply chain management researchers use the concept of sustainability, most supply chain discourse still uses a limited conceptualisation of sustainability, taking an incremental and static approach and focusing on operational performance, profitability and risk management without acknowledging the link between supply chains and planetary as well as social boundaries (Wieland, 2021). Supply chain research could provide important answers to transitioning from high-carbon to low-carbon systems. But to do this, supply chains, supply chain management and supply chain research need to be reimagined. The current supply chain discourse that views sustainability as an accounting tool (Elkington, 2018) and that uses organisational theories that fail to explain networks with overlapping structures needs to change (Gualandris et al., 2021).

Decarbonisation requires radical action by transforming how energy is sourced, produced and managed. Phasing-out fossil fuels and phasing-in renewable energy is the most effective and practical solution (Carrington, 2022). However, decarbonisation practices are pushed further down supply chains (Iskander and Lowe, 2020), often onto suppliers with fewer resources and more vulnerable communities (Karaosman and Marshall, 2023).

Additionally, decarbonisation does not preclude negative environmental and social impacts across energy supply chains. Even though onshore-wind-electricity production in 2020 was twice that generated in 2019 (IEA, 2021a), individual wind turbine capacity has more than doubled in a decade, and solar energy is more cost effective than fossil fuels in many countries (Robertson-Fall, 2022), renewable energy development still has environmental and societal challenges (Robertson-Fall, 2022). Renewable energy infrastructure relies on finite materials and the renewable energy industry operates in a linear “take-make-waste” system contributing to environmental problems, such as waste and biodiversity loss. For example, 48 million tonnes of wind turbine blades are anticipated to become waste by 2050 (Robertson-Fall, 2022); while solar panel waste is predicted to reach 78 million tonnes by 2050 (IRENA and IEA-PVPS, 2016). Furthermore, mineral production, including graphite, lithium and cobalt, is expected to increase by approximately 500% by 2050 to meet demand for renewable energy technologies (Hund et al., 2020) with governments exploiting these natural resources for their own strategic advantage (Brende, 2022), ignoring severe health and safety impacts on workers and local communities (Dominish et al., 2019). While, most renewable energy projects focus on cost reduction and ignore the means of production leading to modern slavery, community deprivation, biodiversity loss and human rights abuses (DeBoom, 2020), causing significant harm and damage not only for direct workers but also for supply chains.

Even though there are direct links between decarbonisation and supply chain management (e.g. Dahlmann et al., 2023), decarbonising supply chains is a complex task (Xu et al., 2023). Pagell and Wu (2009) categorise supply chain management practices as: sourcing management, operations and investments in people and talent. Therefore, achieving decarbonisation means transitioning each of these practices. Knowing that transitions involve intensifying actions around sourcing and operations, as well as distribution, just transitions must include a wide range of stakeholders (Härri et al., 2020). Meixell and Luoma (2015) provide a framework of supply chain stakeholders, including primary stakeholders (suppliers, employees, managers, shareholders) and secondary stakeholders (communities, NGOs, trade associations), which need to be included in just transitions.

Recently, supply chain researchers have included transitions in their studies, for example, electric vehicle transitions (Chizaryfard et al., 2022), energy transitions (Lennon, 2021), and transitioning to low-carbon fashion supply chains (Karaosman and Marshall, 2023). Yet, despite these efforts, supply chain research almost completely neglects the individuals in supply chains whose rights are adversely impacted by these transitions (Meehan and Pinnington, 2021) and fails to deliver strong theoretical and practical implications (Karaosman and Marshall, 2023).

Decarbonisation and supply chain management are interconnected (Xu et al., 2023) and research at this intersection is needed. Supply chain management research is important for the just transition discourse to understand how to include the lived experiences of lower-tier suppliers, such as miners, into transitions (Hale et al., 2021). And more important for our field, just transition is vital for supply chain management to understand how to create dynamic, socio-ecological systems so future disruptions, which will require new capabilities, skills and knowledge, can be managed better (Samson and Swink, 2023).

Building from the just transition literature we explore how just transition can be conceptualised and executed to create implications for supply chain management theory, practice and policy. Our research questions are:

This paper investigates multiple just transition case studies in the literature, as a foundation for supply chain management research and practice to interrogate how to transition to low-carbon supply chains in environmentally and socially just ways, while also providing advice for policymakers. The paper defines, elaborates, and extends the just transition construct by developing a taxonomy with two key dimensions. The purpose dimension (profit or shared outcomes) and the governance dimension (government-/industry-led versus civil society-involved), which, in combination, generate four just transition archetypes. Building on the taxonomy, we uncover just transition’s theoretical grounding for supply chain management.

This study used a systematic literature review (SLR) methodology. The SLR protocol, developed by Tranfield et al. (2003), was followed to identify the appropriate keywords, inclusion and exclusion criteria, filter and read the papers, analyse and synthetise knowledge, and develop the final taxonomy. This helped to eliminate bias and subjective reflections throughout the process.

Identifying the keywords for this study was a complex process. Sustainability transitions, in general, are framed in technical and innovation terms, focused on emissions reduction with no consideration of social issues (Johnstone and Hielscher, 2017). Just transitions are a very different concept from sustainability transitions, as they focus on the issues of social justice, human agency, politics, governance and power imbalances (Casano, 2019). Therefore, to capture the complexities and important issues faced by communities and workers before, during and after sustainability transitions, the key words “just transition” were used to ensure the focus on this specific idea and discourse, ultimately including not excluding the people affected by the sustainability transition. “Just transition” was identified within the abstract, key word, or title field to ensure the relevance of the publication.

Scopus and Web of Science were used as the databases for the literature search due to their wide range of disciplines and the quality, range and depth of their contributions. The review included only peer-reviewed journal articles, as examples from other resources such as newspapers, conferences, textbooks were likely to be featured in the academic papers (Karaosman et al., 2016). Consequently, Scopus generated 227 results. A reliability analysis was undertaken, and Web of Science results were compared to Scopus results and missing articles were inserted to the sample.

After duplicated articles were eliminated, the results were combined into a single list comprising a total of 252 papers. Titles and abstracts of these papers were carefully reviewed. For exclusion criteria, due to the people focus of the just transition concept, papers that did not focus on communities, workers, actors, and other stakeholders, for example those articles focusing on general policy development, accounting, or mathematical modelling regarding emission reductions where communities, workers, actors, and other stakeholders were not involved, were excluded.

This step generated 118 papers. These papers, focusing on social issues within and across just transition projects, were fully reviewed. 31 papers were then excluded due to their lack of explicit focus on people, 15 papers were excluded as they were not available, and attempts made to contact the authors failed. A final 72 papers, directly related to the phenomenon of just transition (projects, processes, mechanisms) and people (for communities, workers, other stakeholders), were included in the study. These papers, given in  Appendix 1, cement the foundation for the theoretical discussion and propositions.

72 papers were thoroughly analysed by the author team. A spreadsheet was created to categorise the papers based on their descriptive details including Article code, Authors, Subject area, Method, Unit of analysis, Context and Research Questions. Then, each paper was analysed to obtain key findings pertaining to Objectives, Mechanisms, Community Effects, Key Success Factors, Key Failure Factors and Future Research Directions. The author team discussed their individual contributions and synthesised the findings, leading to the creation of the just transition taxonomy.

Moving beyond simple descriptions of the papers, the purpose of this review is to help scholars generate theory at the nexus of just transition and supply chain management. This review article combines integrative and generative approaches, as suggested by Post et al. (2020). The review exposes an emerging perspective by identifying a theoretical perspective on just transition. The just transition taxonomy illustrates the theoretical dimensions along which this new perspective is discussed. The taxonomy is then elaborated through the lens of supply chain management, providing an informed research agenda that offers suggestions on what to focus on, explore and report. Figure 1 shows the SLR methodology.

Key dimensions of the just transition literature included the discipline, theory and method. The full list of the articles reviewed can be found in  Appendix where each article is given a code, for example Article 1 (A1), and associated with descriptive details in terms of its focus, theory and method.

25 (35%) articles were published in geographical and environmental science journals, (A3, A4, A5, A8, A17, A18, A20, A25, A29, A30, A32, A33, A34, A36, A37, A38, A39, A41, A45, A50, A53, A56, A58, A60, A70). 13 (18%) articles were published in energy-related journals, A7, A9, A15, A19, A22, A24, A27, A31, A35, A47, A52, A67, A71. About 8 (11%) articles were in sociology journals (A12, A43, A46, A49, A51, A54, A61, A69) and 2 (3%) articles were in industrial relations journals (A23, A65). The remaining 26 (36%) articles came from agroecology (A16), food systems (A26), political science (A1, A40, A66, A68), social and political philosophy (A6, A21) climate policy (A28, A55), environmental politics (A10, A13, A28, A64), alternatives journals (A11), development studies (A14, A59, A62), transformation (A48) and extractive industries (A42), globalisation (A57, A63), urban planning (A44), A2 common market studies (A2) and community development (A23, A72).

Forty-seven, or over 60% of the papers, did not include a theoretical lens. Feminist theories covering ecofeminism and gender were used in four papers (A2, A3, A7, A51); counter hegemony (A16, A26) and neo-Gramscian theory (A71) were used in 3 papers; radical design theory was used in one paper (A69); Colonialism (A25, A46) and Authoritarianism (A38) were used in three papers, and justice theories including social justice (A8) and climate justice (A60) were used in two papers. The remaining papers covered space and place (A15), agroecology (A39), necropolitics (A17), green political theory and civic republicanism (A6), transformative resistance (A14), transitional labour market theory (A12), transitions management theory (A27), treadmill of production (A65) and triple embeddedness (A9).

The most common methods were descriptive analysis (A2, A7, A46, A48), essays (A18, A19, A30, A41, A42, A47, A51, A53, A54, A57, A58, A59, A66, A69, A72), and reviews (A4, A10, A11, A20, A61, A64 (35%) followed by case studies (A14, A26, A27, A29, A38, A39, A43, A55, A56, A60, A62, A68, A70), interviews (A49), and mixed methods (A3, A17, A67) (24%). Other methods used were literature reviews (A12, A28, A32), comparative analysis (A1, A31, A52), critical analysis (A6, A33, A37), and action research (A63).

The climate emergency means that many governments across the planet are accelerating efforts to transition to low-carbon economies, mainly through technical and market-based efforts such as carbon-offset projects or renewable energy generation. These actions, however, have been shown to create injustice problems at both national and international levels with effects lasting for generations (Lamb et al., 2020 (A45); Newell and Mulvaney, 2013 (A53)). Previous transition projects have exploited marginalised communities, similar to the exploitation practices of the fossil fuel industries (Dale, 2019 (A16); DeBoom, 2020 (A17); Lennon, 2020 (A46); Masterman-Smith, 2010 (A49)), therefore, just transition has emerged in opposition to techno-focused sustainability transitions that have failed to include issues of justice (Mayer, 2018 (A50); Williams and Doyon, 2020 (A70)).

Since its introduction, just transition has increased in popularity and has been adopted across a number of international, multinational, national, and sub-national policy frameworks (Bainton et al., 2021 (A4)). A typical just transition definition is the Silesia Declaration at COP24 in Poland (2018): “a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs are crucial to ensure an effective and inclusive transition to low greenhouse gas emission and climate resilient development, and to enhance the public support for achieving the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement” (UNCCC, 2018).

Just transition, however, does not have a globally agreed or accepted definition. Framing just transition in economic terms, some authors state that the costs associated with sustainability transitions must not be borne by the workers, targeted industries, and/or local communities (Abraham, 2017 (A1); Casano, 2019 (A12)). Others focus on labour, and use just transition as an overarching construct to promote green jobs (Bainton et al., 2021 (A4)). For example, the International Labour Organization (ILO) states ‘a just transition means ensuring the climate actions we take protect the planet, people and the economy. This initiative is designed to encourage policy coherence around measures that boost decent green job opportunities, skills development, and enterprise innovation, along with social protection measures for the vulnerable’ ILO Director-General Guy Ryder, UN Climate Action Summit 2019.

Some authors accentuate the ongoing jobs versus climate debate (Healy and Barry, 2017 (A35)) and provide a delineation between what labour unions and climate activists advocate with varying interpretations of just transition and strategic differences (Kenfack, 2019 (A43)). Although both trade unions and climate activists support just transition, labour unions defend “affirmative just transition”. This approach advocates for a transition within the existing socio-political system. This can be perceived as an ecological transition within the current political economy (Kenfack, 2019 (A43)). Climate justice activists, on the other hand, define “transformative just transition”. This approach advocates for a radical change of the current political economy and climate justice activists emphasise self-determination through grassroots movements and reject market-based efforts (Velicu and Barca, 2020 (A66)).

Just transition is advocated as an alternative vision to destructive capitalism and imperialism (Bainton et al., 2021 (A4)). Researchers and policymakers are acknowledging the intertwined social and political issues of transitions (Johnstone and Hielscher, 2017 (A42)), seeing just transition as a feminist issue (Bell et al., 2020 (A7)) and envisioning a post-capitalist transition beyond a low-carbon version of today’s system (Healy and Barry, 2017 (A35); Kenfack, 2019 (A43)). The rhetoric of just transition is shifting to a discussion of systemic transformation that rejects technology-focused and market-based solutions and that emphasises inclusion by placing marginalised communities at the centre of the transition (Satgar, 2015 (A61)).

It is vital to understand that just transition encompasses broader issues of democracy, engagement and socioeconomic tensions (Barry, 2019 (A6); García-García et al., 2020 (A24)) and that a transition cannot be just if it does not also involve bottom-up approaches based on inclusion, respect, and equity (Banerjee et al., 2017 (A5); Elliott and Setyowati, 2020 (A21); Haggett et al., 2020 (A29); Mookerjea, 2019 (A51)). However, inconsistencies, ideological clashes and perception gaps between how just transition can be understood and how it can be conceptualised must be identified to understand how to achieve low-carbon economies in environmentally and socially just ways.

Building from the SLR, the research developed a just transition taxonomy. The taxonomy has two overarching dimensions. The first dimension is Purpose, which captures the primary objective of the transition over time. The purpose of the transition is framed and executed around self-interest by pursuing strategies for profit maximisation; while also identifying transitions that aim for multiple, shared outcomes beyond profit, such as restoring environmental or social justice, for the greater good. Transitions also involve phasing-out fossil fuels, e.g. shutting down coal mines; and phasing-in renewables, e.g. developing offshore wind projects.

The second dimension captures the Governance mode of just transition, for example, those led primarily by government or private industry, versus those involving civil society. The taxonomy proposes four key just transition archetypes with illustrative examples.

Even though the just transition literature is focused on justice, the articles identified in the SLR featured transition projects characterised by self-interest, short-term financial targets and top-down governance. We call these Neoliberal Transitions as these are characterised by self-interest for profit maximisation and technical and market-based solutions. In Neoliberal Transitions, communities, workers and unions are completely ignored (Goddard and Farrelly, 2018 (A27)) and industrial lobbies, pursuing similar neoliberal objectives, influence the procedures and processes of the transitions (Herberg et al., 2020 (A36); Evans and Phelan, 2016 (A22)). With neoliberal interests fuelled by authoritarian approaches, political instability and fossil fuel lobbies, energy transitions become strategic manoeuvres based on self-interest (Dodd et al., 2020 (A19)), and the just transition idea ends up being an empty concept (Bainton et al., 2021 (A4)), as social issues and problems faced by communities are ignored (Johnstone and Hielscher, 2017 (A42)).

Facing economic pressure, UK coal experienced significant decline in the last decades, leading to rapid closure of several coal fields. Then, the UK decided to phase-out coal by 2025. The UK generated more electricity from renewables than from coal, marking its first coal-free day in 2016. Yet, the UK coal phase-out plan, characterised by top-down policymaking without community inclusion resulted in high levels of unemployment (coal-economy-related jobs dropped from 221,000 in 1985 to 7,000 in 2005), lack of benefits and lack of job opportunities for communities (Johnstone and Hielscher, 2017 (A42)). Similarly, in the US, 30,000 jobs were lost in coal mining between 2011 and 2017 and the Appalachian region’s coal output is now expected to decline by 58% by 2035, with no plan for the workers (Abraham, 2017 (A1)).

In contexts where there is political instability, neoliberal transitions tend to dominate. For example, in early 2011, the Federal government in Australia, the Gillard Labour Party in coalition with the Green Party and independents, created a national energy policy, the Clean Energy Future (CEF). Among their goals was a “just transition” of the Latrobe Valley, where the primary inexpensive electricity producer was located. The producer generated over 85–90% of the State’s electricity from three massive coal mines and four brown-coal-fired power stations (Snell, 2018 (A63)). However, the State government (Victorian Labour) lost the election in November 2011 and was replaced by the incoming Conservative Liberal-National coalition that was less interested in equality issues. Just transition efforts stalled and the State and Federal governments established a new policy action area under which the Valley’s transition was reframed at a regional scale. By enlarging the policy zone, they made any available re-distributional funding to communities from the federal CEF programme eligible for distribution over the wider, conservative-voting area (Weller, 2019 (A68)). The wider territory silenced the community voice of those directly affected and distracted attention from disadvantaged and marginalised communities.

Furthermore, when governments try to phase-out coal due to falling profitability but fail to create multistakeholder, collaborative social dialogues with local communities in regions where coal is perceived as culturally celebrated, coal’s cultural significance eclipses its detrimental health and environmental impacts and instead finds communal support to cherish coal as part of community identity (Mayer, 2018 (A50)). This tends to lead to civil disobedience and resistance against just transitions (Wagemans et al., 2019 (A67)). Examples include the coal industry-funded “Friends of Coal” campaign in West Virginia (Mayer, 2018 (A50)); the Appalachian community blaming the federal government for environmental regulations; and the community of Emery County, Utah, with coal mining stretching back to the 1800s, seeing renewables as a threat to the local economy and incompatible with their local identity; are all examples where energy transitions are seen as mechanisms to punish coal workers, communities and supply chain stakeholders.

Fossil fuel lobbies also fabricate negative publicity for renewables and advocate for clean coal or gas as viable alternatives. For example, just transition efforts in the province of Alberta, Canada (responsible for 65% of Canada's total coal capacity with strong community support) failed and the Alberta government lobbied to frame the transition from coal to gas as more environmentally friendly (Harrahill and Douglas, 2019 (A31)).

In many cases, industrial lobby groups and corporations influence transitions. For example, in the US, fossil fuel firms influenced policymakers and energy strategies (Healy and Barry, 2017 (A35)). In Poland, the largest hard coal producer in the EU, the government teamed up with fossil fuel lobbies and coalitions, private industry, and parts of civil society to orchestrate a resistance campaign, lobbying for legislation for phasing-in coal, lobbying for phasing-out renewables and building narratives around the importance of coal for energy security and clean coal technologies (Brauers and Oei, 2020 (A9)).

Corporatist Transitions focus on decarbonisation, by phasing-in renewables, to enable multiple, shared outcomes such as ensuring communities having cleaner and cheaper energy. These transitions are led by governments and industry bodies. Although these transitions focus on shared outcomes and development, these outcomes are usually framed in economic terms, rather than social justice (Elliott and Setyowati, 2020), with most projects failing to pay attention to multifaceted aspects of supply chain management (e.g. sourcing). Additionally, powerful stakeholders rely on issue framing and agenda-setting where policymakers determine how problems are defined and positioned relative to others (Weller, 2019 (A68)).

Corporatist transitions fail to understand that renewable energy projects are nature-based with societal consequences. For example, the impact of producing electric batteries on the workers’ and miners’ health and well-being is ignored, while being promoted as vital for the storage of energy from solar panels or wind sources. Renewable energy projects are endorsed but questions of how the disposal of construction materials will affect farmers, agricultural and grazing lands are not considered. Despite good intentions, corporatist transitions fail to protect, not only nature, but also communities and their rights.

In corporatist transitions, community engagement and social dialogues are neglected. Governments, in collaboration with industrial partners, pursue development of technological solutions, such as solar panels, ignoring holistic action, such as behavioural and system changes (e.g. Satgar, 2015 (A61)). For example, by only focusing on technological solutions, California’s massive unregulated solar market benefited from unskilled labour exploitation (Healy and Barry, 2017 (A35)).

Additionally, the raw materials used for renewable energy solutions, e.g. lithium ion batteries to store energy from solar panels, are produced by exploiting workers and miners in various countries (Lennon, 2020 (A46)). Many of the biggest sources of raw materials, fundamental for phasing-in renewables, are based in Africa where modern slavery issues are rife. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, produces 60% of global cobalt, a key component in electric vehicle batteries (DeBoom, 2020 (A17)). Other essential battery components, such as graphite, coltan, and lithium are found in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Ivory Coast, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, and Niger. Malawi is also expected to become a massive producer of neodymium and praseodymium, which are rare earth elements to be used in electric vehicles and wind turbines (DeBoom, 2020 (A17)).

Phasing-in renewables requires the exploitation and extraction of important natural resources. However, local communities depend on these resources, including communal forests and rivers for their homes and livelihoods. The change of ownership and legal status of natural resources previously held by local communities results in social problems including income and gender inequality, conflicts and violence, and even when compensation packages are offered to these communities, promises made often fall short of reality (Lamb et al., 2020 (A45)).

Many phasing-in renewables projects abuse the ecological and social rights of developing or underdeveloped countries in order to reduce the Global North’s carbon emissions but also to ensure a continuous supply of cheap but green energy beyond their borders, otherwise known as carbon colonialism (DeBoom, 2020 (A17)). When a limited number of people in power manage key resources through top-down approaches, cultural and democratic practices are damaged (Routledge et al., 2018 (A60)). A transition that narrowly focuses on market-based technological solutions, which policymakers often favour (Johnstone and Hielscher, 2017 (A42)), ignores systemic issues of undemocratic and colonised sourcing and production processes in these supply chains (White, 2019 (A69)).

Polycentric Transitions mostly focus on phasing-out coal. They are initially driven by decreases in profitability, but these transitions are created, led by or involve civil society actors. Although these transitions focus on involving multiple stakeholders, the outcomes are usually framed in economic terms.

Polycentric transition cases show that unions with strong ties to fossil fuels have mounted resistance when phasing-out coal and phasing-in renewables. Unions are fundamental to just transitions but can be counterproductive if unions do not ensure accountability and do not provide their members with transparent information about their agendas, priorities, negotiations and decisions. For example, the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) pursued a dictatorial agenda and created action plans that were not democratic for Appalachia’s coalminers. Union’s leaders agreed to furlough thousands of miners in return for higher wages and larger benefits for the remaining unionised miners in untransparent negotiations between union leaders, the government and coal companies (Abraham, 2017 (A1)).

Even when governments partner with civil society organisations, their agendas can by driven by profit rather than shared outcomes. For example, in Port Augusta, South Australia, the worker- and union-led just transition plan to transform coal-fired power to solar-thermal power failed due to lack of government support in terms of financial support and equity loans (Herdic, 2019 (A37)). And, in Hamburg, the constant opposition of the Social Democrats, as well as the local energy unions, hindered attempts to create a more integrated renewable energy policy resulting in the public company created to run the grid by Social Democrats not integrated with local state-run Hamburg Energie (Routledge et al., 2018 (A60)).

When the focus of decarbonisation concentrates on cost reduction rather than on supply chain issues, for example raw material sourcing and energy production, the transition can result in counterproductive consequences. For example, one transition initiative in the Northeast US saw environmental and climate justice organisations launch a solar energy campaign in low-income communities of colour: Solarize. They grouped houses into larger procurement pools to ensure lower energy prices, with the community selecting the supplier. However, the project focused on cost reduction for renewable energy use and failed to look at the means of production in its supply chain. The supplier selected used solar panels manufactured under some of the worst working conditions for those producing them, so the project, while aiming for racially just and cheap renewable energy, perpetuated extractive social practices (Lennon, 2020 (A46)).

Government support, leadership and stakeholder engagement are antecedent to success, leading to numerous environmental and societal benefits. But polycentric transitions lack a more democratic and plural nature, so human and community well-being is not always enhanced through community-led, collaborative, and participatory actions. Furthermore, there is tension between short-term climate change mitigation strategies and long-term social issues. The research found that polycentric transitions fail to ensure socially and environmentally just pathways to transitions. Finally, ignoring supply chain workers and communities, embedded in sourcing and production stages of renewable energy, results in environmental and social issues, on a larger scale, being exacerbated rather than solved, showing that supply chain thinking must be embedded to ensure just transitions.

The cases from the literature demonstrated that some decarbonisation initiatives are driven by shared outcomes and are led by or involve civil society organisations. Pluralist Transitions are characterised by multi-level processes that enable inclusivity; where communities, networks and stakeholders take action to decarbonise by phasing-out coal or by phasing-in renewables to restore environmental, economic and social resources. Pluralist transitions, characterised by multi-level government and policy support and community consultation and inclusion, help to achieve increased economic activity, job creation, supply chain worker development programmes, socially owned renewable energy infrastructure, and land protection in affected regions. The cases demonstrated that when government-led initiatives are managed inclusively with active community participation, private industry-funded fossil fuel campaigns and risks of civil disobedience are more likely mitigated.

Pluralist transitions occur when various stakeholders, including women, workers, local communities and underrepresented groups, are integrated into phasing-in renewables projects. In these transitions, it is evident that decision-making power is decentralised, and social dialogues are important for success. For example, Enel, an Italian energy company, built long-lasting industrial relations across its supply chains (Tomassetti, 2020 (A65)) after initiating strong social dialogues with unions, local representatives, and supply chain communities, in Enel’s shift to carbon neutrality (Galgóczi, 2020 (A23)). Enel’s social dialogues led to successful worker reallocation programmes with reskilling, redeployment, and early retirement for elderly workers, with wage levels sustained (Tomassetti, 2020 (A65)).

In Germany, the state-approved co-determination law ensures companies have to make decisions with workers (Oei et al., 2020 (A55)). This meant that social dialogue between local government, federal government, workers and affected communities led to the phasing-out of coal in the North Rhine-Westphalia region. Similarly, in Australia, when a private company, Paris-based Engie and its investment partners, announced the closure of the jointly owned Latrobe Valley’s Hazelwood power station within less than five months, the State government (Victorian Labour) collaborated with the unions and local communities to create a worker transition programme (Snell, 2018 (A63)). The pluralist transition succeeded while the corporatist transition, in the same geography, failed.

Some pluralist transitions also happen when neoliberal actions fail to deliver just transitions and lead to union action. Unions assert their structural and political power through direct talks with politicians and strike action (Brauers and Oei, 2020 (A9)). For example, in South Africa, when the government initially launched a neoliberal transition and energy plan which was dominated by fossil fuels; NUMSA, a workers’ union, took various actions, including forming research and development groups, bringing together workers and supply chain stakeholders from different sectors, and launching an action plan to bring themselves into the decision-making process. The union consulted with workers and communities and changed the energy plan into one that worked for workers and communities as well as the energy companies (Satgar, 2015 (A61)).

Civil society organisations also use grassroot campaigning to ensure environmental and social justice and representation for workers, affected communities and broader stakeholders (e.g. supplier workers), and force neoliberal transitions to become pluralist. For example, in Kenya, a coalition of local social and environmental activists mobilised workers and communities, concerned about negative ecological and societal consequences of coal power production, to develop a campaign and file a lawsuit to stop the development of Kenya’s first coal-fired power plant, with the primary aim of disrupting colonial, extractive and growth-oriented coal development (Brown and Spiegel, 2019 (A10)). While, in Germany, green and left-wing group activists formed a radical grassroots movement to confront state actors supporting privatised models of energy delivery in favour of public- and community-owned models of renewable energy delivery. They embraced more democratised and decentralised principles in decision-making where they brought together civil society and communities (Routledge et al., 2018 (A60)).

Pluralist transitions that are also characterised by union transparency and accountability, deliver positive outcomes. In the Hazelwood example above, the worker transition programme delivered training and support with more than 300 workers engaged in the programme as the Federal government agreed to provide training support to all Hazelwood workers including their spouses. The State government also created Victoria’s first special economic zone, providing financial incentives for new businesses, such as fee exemptions for property purchases and tax reductions for those generating jobs for ex-Hazelwood workers (Snell, 2018). In the South African example, the NUMSA union convinced the government to use local procurement and pioneered socially owned renewable energy (Satgar, 2015 (A61)).

However, even within pluralist transition, it is evident that supply chain workers are negatively and disproportionally affected by phasing-out coal projects. In Germany, when early retirement was possible or miners were transferred to other industries, supply chain workers were excluded (Oei et al., 2020 (A55)). In Latrobe Valley, when miners were engaged in just transition programmes, supply chains workers were excluded (Snell, 2018 (A63)). Long-term social dialogues are pivotal mechanisms in managing these multi-tier supply chains. Pluralist actions must, therefore, ensure the representation and inclusion of the supply chain workers throughout just transitions.

From the SLR, the research identified four archetypes of the just transition taxonomy (Neoliberal, Corporatist, Polycentric and Pluralist), based on the purpose of the transition, whether it is focused on profit or if there are multiple, shared outcomes for the phasing-out or phasing-in of renewables, and the governance, whether transitions are government and industry led or involve civil society actors. The taxonomy is shown in Figure 2.

The worsening environmental and socio-political crises force supply chains to move beyond a minimal harm vision toward a vision of harmony with living systems (Gualandris et al., 2023). However, supply chains are rarely viewed as socio-ecological systems (Gualandris et al., 2023) and technological solutions are presented as the remedy for challenges facing supply chains, devaluing labour and exacerbating power imbalances (McCarthy et al., 2022).

Supply chains are dynamic systems, not static entities (Silva et al., 2023b), but most supply chain management research fails to capture the knowledge of lower-tier suppliers (Santos et al., 2023), ignoring lower tiers, their stories and experiences (Glover, 2020). Transitions comprise various types of agency, such as sense-making, learning, power and forming partnerships (Köhler et al., 2019), which makes it vital to explore the specific skills, knowledge and techniques that can be used (Allwood, 2020).

Knowledge is embodied in the context, and sustainability knowledge, behaviours and values are shaped through experience (Santos et al., 2023). Suppliers and lower-tier suppliers have tacit knowledge, challenging the notion that buying firms are the only source of knowledge (Silva et al., 2023a). Hence, more research is needed to understand how lower tier suppliers’ knowledge can influence the learning of buying firms (Silva et al., 2023a).

Creating equitable and resilient supply chains requires companies to take responsibility for their supply chain practices. Yet, to do this, governments and organisations need to be aware of the intertwined problems that happen in these supply chains, and then co-design policies and solutions with supply chain stakeholders (Pullman et al., 2024). This requires supply chain management research to extend its focus from the organisational workforce to supply chain stakeholders, particularly during times of transition (Samson and Swink, 2023). Furthermore, supply chain researchers need to explore the theories, methods and constructs used by other scientists who explore socio-ecological systems (Gualandris et al., 2023) and must take into account how processes and practices are shaped by different cultures and contexts (Samson and Swink, 2023).

The just transition concept provides an important opportunity for supply chain management discourse. This section explores the implications of decarbonisation and just energy transitions for supply chain management, creating research pathways for the supply chain community to enable leading-edge research with substantial practical and policy implications.

Closing coal mines is key to phasing-out fossil fuels. But many phasing-out fossil fuel transitions fail to consider social or cultural issues and do not represent coal miners or affected communities. If transitions take an instrumental approach, individuals and communities will be ignored within supply chains. Therefore, it is important to understand how supply chains during just transitions can be managed.

Sourcing Management: Supply chain researchers are concerned that many products and industries, e.g. plastics, toys, textiles, etc., are contingent on oil- and gas-derived raw materials. Researchers have to explore the scalable, equitable and healthy alternatives for these products and how alternative supply chains are created, managed and sustained. Although this discourse has started to evolve in supply chain management (Marshall et al., 2022, 2023), there is huge research potential in this area.

Building from the examples illustrated in Poland, the US and Canada, influential industry coalitions can affect decisions and frame decarbonisation in financial terms. When driven by profit, as evidenced by neoliberal and polycentric transitions, these projects harm marginalised communities (DeBoom, 2020 (A17)). With increasing public scrutiny and legislative pressure for supply chain due diligence, supply chain management needs to better understand how standards and verification mechanisms of, for example, offsetting schemes, renewable energy credits and certifications that see natural resources as market commodities, can be converted into schemes that recognise cultural values and rights that are not aligned with powerholders’ financial interests.

Additional research paths include exploring how supply chains within transition projects are planned as socio-ecological systems. For example, many REED + projects to tackle deforestation have resulted in the appropriation of indigenous’ communities and their lands without consent (Ciplet and Harrison, 2020 (A13)). Supply chain research can investigate how to transform neoliberal transitions into pluralist transitions based on shared outcomes.

As evidenced by various examples such as Enel in Italy, Numsa in South Africa and activist coalitions in Kenya, the just transition discourse also shows supply chain management scholars how anti-extractivist organisations do supply chain planning differently. Supply chain scholars can explore how these transition projects are managed in more inclusive ways and create the radical strategies and holistic action plans needed.

Operations: Many suppliers need to invest in infrastructure to decarbonise their operations, and consequently their supply chains. However, costs disproportionately affect small and micro organisations across supply chains. Therefore, supply chain scholars must understand how operations and supply chain finance can be arranged so suppliers can invest in the tools, processes and technologies necessary for decarbonisation across their supply chains. Additionally, increasing carbon taxes will impact small and medium-sized enterprises across various industries. Supply chain management needs to explore how increased carbon taxes will affect suppliers and how compensation and/or incentives can help minimise the use of fossil fuels across supply chains.

The lack of decarbonised suppliers in most industries is another key issue. For example, fashion brands source from developing countries where accessibility and availability of renewable energy is scarce. It is imperative to understand, how that transition will happen in low- and middle-income countries and the location decisions during that transition and how to build capabilities for decarbonising while managing conflicts that will arise. For example, how grassroots movements have converted oil- and gas-dependent to renewable energy operations (Ciplet and Harrison, 2020 (A13)), and how multiple supply chain stakeholders can be brought together, regardless of differences to develop these competences and capabilities.

Just transition can help supply chain management to explore questions such as how collective power can be enacted, how community identities can be understood to develop collective competences through partnership, and how divergent views impeding progress can be understood to develop longer-term structural changes across supply chains.

Investment in People: Around 13 million energy-related jobs will be lost globally as a consequence of phasing-out fossil fuels in the energy sector (Zahidi et al., 2024). Most of these job losses will occur in supply chains where alternative employment opportunities are scarce. Research is needed to understand reskilling, upgrading and employment opportunities for supply chain workers in new alternative settings. Understanding how workers, displaced across fossil fuel supply chains, can be reskilled and equipped so that communities, supply chains and economies dependent on fossil fuels can be diversified in just ways.

As just transition and sustainability transitions are happening across multiple sectors, the examples from the just transition discourse can show supply chain researchers the dynamics of these transitions and their positive and negative impacts on all aspects of supply chains and supply chain management.

Phasing-in renewables projects can be just as problematic as the introduction of fossil fuels. Supply chain stakeholders need to be acknowledged, listened to and protected. Supply chain management must explore the nuanced consequences of decarbonisation efforts focused on supply chain practices, processes and stakeholders.

Sourcing Management: Renewable energy production is growing, along with the demand for metals and minerals. Access to these critical materials will directly affect multiple supply chains. Supply chain scholars must explore sourcing management at the nexus of the environment and labour movements, local and national government and community organisations.

Bottom-up or pluralist transitions can guide supply chain research. Instead of focusing on industry leaders and/or governments for decarbonisation, supply chain researchers need engage with just transition communities to see how radical actions are undertaken to create alternative sourcing based on community strengths and supply chains as dynamic ecosystems.

Given that low-carbon processes and practices will disrupt employment, alternatives, such as regenerative agriculture, need to be developed. But this must be done in fair and just ways. For example, regenerative supply chain practices, including water cycle improvement and/or biodiversity protection, can create up to 5 million jobs by 2040 in Africa (Zahidi et al., 2024) but it is not clear how these supply chains should be created, managed and sustained or how to include supply chain stakeholders in framing these policies and strategies.

Operations: Renewable energy is becoming the cheapest energy source, but there are barriers associated with infrastructure and maintenance for power generation, operations and distribution. Researchers should explore how to manage these operations and how to equitably distribute costs across supply chain actors so they are not abdicated to vulnerable and dependent suppliers. Capital costs for low-carbon materials, processes and solutions are high, therefore, research is needed to understand what incentives are needed for clean energy production, for example tax credits, and how these incentives can be shared and promoted across supply chains. Supply chain research can answer how purchasing policies and operations strategies can be designed to maximise the potential of low-carbon technologies to make them equitable, accessible and available for supply chains, especially within developing countries.

Low-carbon processes, material alternatives and innovative technologies, are costly and accelerating decarbonisation efforts is contingent upon access to finance. Supply chain finance needs to facilitate just transition for a fair decarbonisation, distributing benefits and opportunities to suppliers across multiple tiers, including farmers and homeworkers. Supply chain finance and operations management research can explain how to ensure equitable access to technology to accelerate innovation across supply chains, such as food, construction and fashion.

Investment in People: Pluralist just transitions symbolise the principles of community engagement, solidarity and rejecting the extractive decarbonisation concept that has negative natural and societal consequences. How primary workers are considered in the planning and management of these transitions, and how this can be extended to the broader supply chain workforce that will be disproportionally affected by decarbonisation, needs to be understood. If the supply chain workers are not provided with the same benefits, such as early retirement or transfers to other industries that coal miners, and other primary workers, receive, it is vital to explore how social dialogues can be used during transitions, ensuring representation and inclusion of the supply chain workforce in decision-making and benefit-distribution schemes.

Renewable energy projects need specialist know-how, but skills are relatively rare. It is estimated that almost 40% of the world’s workforce will need new skills and competences in renewable energy (Zahidi et al., 2024). Unfortunately, this change means that gender inequality will be exacerbated because new jobs will be available in industries with higher male employment, such as construction and manufacturing (García-García et al., 2020 (A24)). Some suppliers, especially in low- and middle-income countries, have already developed context-specific, localised solutions and tacit knowledge that need to be shared with broader supply chain communities. Researchers building strong alliances with social movements across supply chains including workers, feminists and environmentalists, are key to success.

It is imperative for supply chain scholars to learn from the taxonomy in terms of how stakeholders can be integrated, how unskilled workers can be upskilled, how they can be involved in low-carbon transitions, and how new employment can be created for and with them. It is important to understand what upskilling a workforce means and what consequences, intentional or unintentional, may emerge. For example, would scaling up new innovative processes and models mean geographical relocation of production and sourcing, and what are the challenges and opportunities of such geographic changes?

This paper contributes to both just transition and supply chain management disciplines by examining the current literature on just transitions to understand what happened in the past, what worked, what did not work, and what factors led to success or failure. Building on the just transition literature through the lens of supply chain management, the review shows that just transitions need harmony between nature and people through decentralised decision-making, engaged communities, and orchestrated community-led projects. Hence, giving agency back to people at various supply chain levels is vital while, simultaneously, improving the well-being of the planet and society.

The taxonomy conceptualises supply chains as dynamic systems in which the role of people and tacit knowledge, embedded in their context, are vital for transformations. Suppliers and lower-tier suppliers are needed to create equitable and resilient supply chains. By extending the supply chain research focus from organisational workforce to supply chain stakeholders, supply chain researchers are provided with research pathways to further explore just transition across supply chain practice and processes, including sourcing, operations and investment in people.

Conversations at the intersection of union and environmental politics are happening, but these conversations are usually limited to health and safety issues (Satgar, 2015 (A61)). This needs to be extended to broader socioeconomic and political issues. Transitions cannot be just if local actions are not framed in a global context (Iskander and Lowe, 2020 (A40)).

Decarbonisation practices should be framed around the means of production (Lennon, 2021 (A47)), rather than promoting innovation as techno-centric solutions without discussions around their socially destructive consequences (Johnstone and Hielscher, 2017 (A42)). Supply of minerals, metals and materials are some of the most problematic areas for the communities (Bainton et al., 2021 (A4)), which require holistic action plans. Therefore, companies and organisations need to prevent the inhumane exploitation of Congolese miners in supply chains in which lithium ion batteries are produced (Lennon, 2020 (A46)) and forest management policies and systems, such as REDD + initiatives, need to tackle issues such as the forced displacement of indigenous peoples (Elliott and Setyowati, 2020 (A21)).

Severe socioeconomic impacts on communities, including forced migration, labour exploitation, the destruction of local economies, and jobs, with increasing poverty and social inequality result in perceptions of the unsustainable nature of sustainability transitions (Anigstein and Wyczykier, 2019 (A3)). Practices must, therefore, put supply chain stakeholders at the centre, recognising their experiences, rights, identities and values. For example, women’s agency and specific skills around agricultural techniques and low-carbon cooking practices, are of paramount importance in climate change adaptation (Allwood, 2020 (A2)). These skills need to be explored and cherished. Supply chain workers need to be trained for new and different jobs and acquire education for new skills, while at the same time social protection and retirement benefits have to be ensured to prevent intergenerational injustice problems (Stevis and Felli, 2015 (A64)).

Policymaking on energy transitions does not sufficiently integrate supply chain logic or cultural values and, consequently, fails to provide alternatives to the dominant instrumental view. Top-down decision-making, supported by policies favouring business over societal protection, benefits elite powerholders and neglects communities across supply chains. When these communities are not integrated into decision-making, politically charged, investor-friendly projects fail communities with effects lasting for generations (Schapper, 2021 (A62)).

When policy instruments and strategies do not develop reflexive or participatory decision-making processes workers cannot act. Phasing-in renewables can be seen as the most logical thing to do toward decarbonisation. But, as the corporatist transitions suggest, if these actions are led by governments and industries, short-term economic development becomes the primary goal, hijacking concerns over long-term environmental and social justice issues and resulting in failure.

Transitions characterised by multi-level processes and community engagement, however, reject extractive decarbonisation and consider workers in the planning and management phases of transition projects. Unfortunately, most community-involved transitions do not include supply chain workers. Supply chain workers are often ignored and are not provided the same benefits that directly affected communities, such as coal miners, receive. Even though we applaud community inclusion and social dialogue dynamics in these transitions, the lack of supply chain worker representation and inclusion are serious concerns.

Policies are needed to integrate broader communities into decentralised decision-making processes, including civil society, women, workers, local communities and underrepresented groups. Just transition requires strong and decisive policies that ensure multi-level decision-making with plural, local and societal values represented.

This is an SLR paper, which can be considered a limitation; therefore, we invite researchers to conduct empirical studies to bring evidence of the dynamic nature of energy transitions across supply chains. There is much to learn about the connection between just transitions and supply chains; therefore, alternative methods, such as action research and ethnographies, should be used.

In addition, the full life cycle of transitions is overlooked in the literature (Healy and Barry, 2017). Therefore, our focus must shift to the impact of upstream operations (e.g. extraction of fossil fuels) on health, so we can judge how traditional supply chain management practices should change. Countries and supply chain communities in the Global South are disproportionally affected by climate change; however, various indigenous communities show remarkable resilience. Their traditional knowledge and cultures provide valuable lessons for supply chain management to combat climate change. Supply chain management research can provide a deeper understanding of the knowledge embedded in attitudes, values, beliefs, experiences and behavioural responses to climate change.

Researchers should immerse themselves with supply chain stakeholders to understand how supply chains phasing-out of coal or phasing-in of renewables can be truly inclusive and successful. Future research needs to understand how to embed social values, such as diversity, gender equality and intersectionality into a strong, political paradigm shift; therefore, we call for research to interrogate development and supply chain strategies that forge the path from authoritarian transitions to people-centred partnerships.

Further, gender issues and inequality problems must be central to future research. We need to understand how to move beyond symbolic endeavours or tick-box exercises toward radical policy transformation for just transition with gender-focused and community-based inclusion at all supplies chain levels. Policy, research and practice must recognise the problem of ingrained structural inequality for women, people of colour, lower classes, and indigenous communities within these supply chains. It is not about top-down assumptions of what just transition should be, it is about realising that just transition structures and mechanisms must include the experienced realities of all supply chain stakeholders to craft just, fair and equitable socio-ecological systems. This can be the only way to protect people’s rights. These questions form an important research agenda for future supply chain management research for just transition and beyond.

This paper forms part of a special section “Toward a paradigm shift within global supply chains: From ‘sustainability’ rhetoric to transformative action for environmental and social justice”, guest edited by Minelle E. Silva.

Hakan and Donna lead the research centre Fashion’s Responsible Supply Chain Hub (FReSCH), which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant agreement No. 895711. Hakan and Donna are named in the Vogue Business 100 Innovators: Class of 2023 as Sustainability Thought Leaders.

This project received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 895711.

Table A1