Unpacking climate justice rhetoric: a comparative content analysis of international city networks

The climate crisis poses a significant threat to well-being and sustainable development on a global scale. In urban settings, cities are becoming significant players in confronting climate change and protecting citizens and communities. Proactive cities in climate action are often horizontally connected in networks. International city networks with a focus on global issues such as climate change, often described as transnational municipal networks (TMNs), are increasing in number and membership. Such networks have also successfully established cities as important actors in international policy arenas.

On the other hand, climate change is deeply connected to justice issues. As the urban population increases globally, social inequalities in cities have grown and expanded. Justice plays an important role in shaping climate change responses at the local level, and has been recognised as an urban issue by environmental justice scholars and practitioners (Bulkeley et al., 2013; Schlosberg, 2007; McKendry, 2018). Consideration of justice in urban climate policy is increasingly vital as marginalised communities are the most vulnerable to climate hazards. Besides the varied distribution of climate impacts, urban climate justice is also connected to issues such as spatial justice, the poor representation of minorities such as ethnic minorities, women, youth, and immigrants within the urban development plans as well as the poor recognition of their culture and/or values (Shi et al., 2016).

Existing studies have examined the role of city networks in urban climate governance and highlighted their growing influence in global climate politics (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2013; Bulkeley, 2021). However, limited attention has been paid to how these networks frame climate justice across different organisational contexts and how their understanding of justice can be systematically analysed across networks. This study therefore addresses this gap by providing a comparative analysis of justice-related discourse across multiple city networks. It also contributes by developing an analytical framework for systematically examining how justice is framed and articulated within city network discourse, which may also be useful for future justice-related studies. It raises the following research questions (RQs):

To answer these questions, this paper analyses how narratives of justice are articulated and promoted by four international city networks: C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40), CityNet, ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI), and World Organisation of United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG). All four represent major city networks with large memberships, substantial experience, and considerable influence on climate and broader sustainability debates at the global and regional levels (de Losada, 2019; Haupt and Coppola, 2019).

This study first reviews the background and literature on international city networks and urban climate justice. It then outlines the methodology, followed by the results, to examine how justice is framed by the four selected networks by analysing:

• usage of justice-related terms;

• justice dimensions; and

• the contexts in which justice is articulated.

A content analysis was applied using the software MAXQDA2022. The findings and their implications for urban climate governance are then discussed before the conclusions are presented in the final section.

International city networks or TMNs have existed for many years to cooperate and achieve the common goals of the member cities. While a broad variety of the networks has developed, those focusing on global environmental issues and climate change have gradually emerged since the 1980s and these issues have become one of the prominent areas addressed by city networks (Lecavalier and Gordon, 2020).

CityNet and ICLEI are among the promoters of this trend. While CityNet and ICLEI have emerged during such a trend, CityNet, having developed as the largest environmental network of cities in the region (CityNet, 2026), is characterised as technology-driven (de Losada, 2019, pp. 22–23). ICLEI, on the other hand, is a global network of cities, aiming to achieve sustainable urban development (ICLEI, 2026). It has become a major player in creating and promoting Local Agenda 21 since the Earth Summit in 1992 (Mehta, 1996; Rok and Kuhn, 2012).

Among the selected networks, UCLG is one of the oldest city networks, aiming to empower subnational governments by sending their voices to the international community in various fields including democracy, gender equality and climate change (UCLG, 2026). UCLG promotes the “right to the city” concept as one of its core values (UCLG, 2021). Originally proposed by Henri Lefebvre as a call for radical transformation and spatial justice, UCLG later incorporated the concept into its policy agenda and played a significant role in including it in the New Urban Agenda at Habitat III in 2016.

Conventionally, such city networks were voluntary and publicly owned by their member cities (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2013). Like UCLG and ICLEI, those funded (albeit not exclusively) through membership fees and governed by public authorities, such as mayors, are considered as public membership networks (de Losada, 2019). Since the 2000s, however, privately-led networks like C40 have emerged supported by philanthropic organisations and strong individuals (de Losada, 2019). Greater financial and human resources grant such networks a competitive advantage over conventional public networks (de Losada, 2019).

C40 is a privately supported network of megacities that initiates climate change mitigation. The network initially advocated the economic significance of urban climate action (C40 Cities and ARUP, 2016). Unlike public membership networks, C40 does not require membership fees but has established strict membership requirements and compliance mechanisms. If member cities cannot achieve the requirements including the GHG emission target, their access to technical support by C40 will be limited and their membership can be annulled (Pinault, 2019).

The selected networks differ in their size, governance structure, funding source and geographical scope. Table 1 summarises their key characteristics.

While various city networks exist, they often cooperate to issue statements or implement projects in various settings. For instance, they align and collaborate within the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy (GCoM), the largest initiative for combating the climate crisis at the regional and local levels.

As the city networks developed, subnational governments enjoyed the benefits as members through mutual learning and information sharing as well as influencing the international community. Especially for the urban climate policies, member cities can efficiently promote their climate actions while reducing their financial burdens by receiving support such as various tools from the networks (Lecavalier and Gordon, 2020).

While such advantages have long been recognised, especially private city networks are criticised due to their focus on private investments, causing them to disproportionately benefit the Global North elites (Gordon, 2016). They are considered to safeguard prosperity, resources and lifestyles based on existing power relations (Davidson and Gleeson, 2015). Several scholars have thus criticised C40 for triggering a shift towards more neoliberal and strategic urbanism centred primarily on economic growth in climate policy (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2013; Bulkeley, 2021; Davidson and Gleeson, 2015). Its growing influence within climate governance has also raised concerns (Davidson et al., 2019).

Governance of the city networks is also questioned, especially about the transparency of their decision-making processes (Davidson et al., 2019; Bulkeley et al., 2013). It is also criticised that cities of the Global North remain dominant in terms of the financing and coordination of city networks, despite the rising membership of Global South cities especially in C40 and UCLG (Davidson et al., 2019; de Losada, 2019). Moreover, the strong influence of philanthropic organisations (especially private ones), as in the case of C40, has been indicated to hinder transparent decision-making and governance (Davidson et al., 2019).

Private networks have grown rapidly by involving cities and mobilising resources to establish themselves as powerful players in the international policy arena (de Losada, 2019; Lecavalier and Gordon, 2020). This development has transformed the networks into the “most effective channel for promoting the political interests and influence of cities” (de Losada, 2019, p. 20). Moreover, as the influence of the network organisations themselves emerges, they are becoming agenda-setters in international platforms such as the UNFCCC and other global sustainability forums, where they advocate urban climate agendas (Lecavalier and Gordon, 2020; Acuto et al., 2021). As their expertise and capacities increase, they themselves act as diplomatic agents within global climate change governance (Lecavalier and Gordon, 2020; Acuto et al., 2021). The growing presence of international city networks in the global climate debate has attracted increased attention, especially from scholars of urban climate policy and governance. In that sense, investigating their framings towards climate justice reveals their potential influence on both the international community and cities.

Climate justice has been widely discussed in the literature as a framework for understanding how climate change disproportionately affects vulnerable communities and intersects with broader social issues (Jafry et al., 2019). While different interventions are required at the global, national and local levels, there is a basic understanding that justice issues are closely related to the causes and impacts of climate change, and that decarbonisation needs to be achieved in a just and equitable manner (Jafry et al., 2019; Sultana, 2022).

Initially, the concept of climate justice emerged from grass-roots environmental justice movements in the 1990s and was mobilised by social and environmental justice initiatives (Jafry et al., 2019, p. 2; Newell et al., 2021). Since then, it has been widely conceptualised in different contexts and settings such as grass-roots movements, academia and policymaking (for instance, Schlosberg and Collins, 2014; Newell et al., 2021). It has also been interpreted differently across contexts, including climate finance, just transition, gender and urban development (Jafry et al., 2019, p. 4).

At the global scale, climate justice has long been recognised as an issue of unfair distribution of climate impacts between the Global North and South. Along with the multilateral international negotiations, the cooperation with non-state actors as well as private investments has been strongly promoted to redress the Global North-South inequalities. From a justice perspective, however, scholars have raised concerns about introducing the market mechanism into climate policy. For instance, Okereke (2007) criticised a neoliberal view of justice. In the context of global climate governance, he mentioned that neoliberal distributive justice seeks protection of private property rights and mutual advantage limited among the parties in the Global North (Okereke, 2007). A neoliberal perception of justice functions to accelerate “asymmetries of power and resources” between the Global North and South countries rather than mitigating them (Ciplet and Roberts, 2017, p. 150).

Furthermore, it also resonates with the conceptualisation of climate justice in a Western-centric way. Western-centric conceptualisation faces a risk of being ineffective and even producing additional injustices in the Global South contexts (Álvarez and Coolsaet, 2020). Recent scholarship thus stresses the need to decolonise the concept and co-produce knowledge with local communities. Scholars emphasise the decolonisation of climate justice, highlighting the need to recognise context-specific understandings and to move beyond normative frameworks (Sultana, 2022; Wilkens and Datchoua-Tirvaudey, 2022). At the urban scale, this also highlights the importance of co-production, where knowledge and policy are shaped collaboratively with local communities (Wilkens and Datchoua-Tirvaudey, 2022).

Besides climate change, cities have confronted multiple, overlapping crises and many urban residents experience intersecting injustices because of structural discrimination based on gender and race (see Crenshaw, 1991 on intersectionality). Intersectionality highlights how multiple forms of inequality interact to shape uneven experiences in urban climate governance. The issue of justice in local policymaking, particularly in urban settings, has recently regained attention because of intersecting and entrenched inequalities and the mobilisation of environmental justice organisations (OECD, 2024). Recent global phenomena, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and social justice movements, have further brought attention to issues of inequality, reinforcing the relevance of climate justice in contemporary debates.

Such injustices associated with urban climate issues can be interpreted based on the tenets of justice: distributive justice, participatory (procedural) justice and recognition justice. Schlosberg (2007) provides the foundational framework linking these dimensions, while subsequent studies further elaborate their application in environmental and climate contexts (e.g. Jenkins et al., 2016; Evans and Phelan, 2016; Healy and Barry, 2017; Newell and Mulvaney, 2013; Walker, 2012). From the distributive justice perspective, climate policy concerns the fair distribution and allocation of public goods among individuals. It entails not only a distribution of positive resources, i.e. built environment and public services, but also negative outcomes such as pollution and allocation of pollutant industries. Moreover, distributive justice can be expanded to other aspects such as capacity building or education on climate change (McCauley and Heffron, 2018).

The participatory justice perspective, on the other hand, connotes the “fair and equitable institutional process of a state”, which is considered a key component of environmental justice (Schlosberg, 2007, p. 25). It includes the processes of participation, decision-making and information sharing, while marginalised communities often lack opportunities to be involved. Finally, the recognition justice perspective is another significant factor in climate policymaking. It draws attention to the recognition of all individuals regardless of race, gender, age as well as the dignity, values, lifestyles, cultures and whether they are respected and valued (Bulkeley et al., 2013; Walker, 2012). Climate justice in cities thus consists of multidimensional components which require policymakers to address intersecting issues in an integrated manner.

Although such conceptual frameworks have been developed, assessing justice in urban governance is not an easy task. It may risk simplifying and depoliticising the complex and context-specific nature of urban sustainability challenges, thereby making underlying justice concerns less visible (Joss and Rydin, 2018).

This study employs content analysis. The selected documents were coded using the software MAXQDA2022. Content analysis has been widely used in social sciences, including environmental justice studies (for instance, Khanal et al., 2024). It enables the understanding of phenomena in context (Weber, 1990; Elo and Kyngäs, 2008) and drawing inferences from the data (Prasad, 2008, p. 17). This study adopts content analysis using both inductive and deductive approaches, including document selection, category construction, defining units of analysis, sampling of content, and checking reliability of coding (Stempel, 1989), cited in Prasad, 2008).

Documents were selected from four city networks: C40, CityNet, ICLEI and UCLG to capture variation in governance structure, geographical scope and organisational missions. Details of the search hits and screening process are provided in  Appendix 2. Documents were included if they contained one or more justice-related terms (e.g. justice, equity, equality, fairness or inclusion). Although this search strategy may underrepresent alternative vocabularies or implicit expressions of justice, it was adopted to maintain comparability across networks. While this study focuses on justice-related terms, not all instances were explicitly linked to climate change; some were situated within broader sustainability discourse.

To ensure the quality and suitability of the selected documents, document selection was guided by Scott’s (1990) four criteria: authenticity, credibility, representativeness and meaning. Authenticity was ensured by selecting documents published on the official websites of the selected networks. Credibility was addressed by eliminating co-publications where the network was not the leading publisher. Representativeness was considered by selecting documents that reflect the city networks’ main activities across the study period (2016–2022). Documents from regional offices and specific case studies were excluded to ensure comparability across networks. Co-published documents by the selected networks were also excluded to enable independent analysis of each network’s position. To address meaning, documents containing sufficient contextual information were selected to allow interpretation of justice-related concepts, rather than documents such as short announcements or databases. Only documents available in English were analysed, and audiovisual materials were excluded.

As a result, 64 documents were selected: C40 (17 documents), CityNet (15 documents), ICLEI (16 documents) and UCLG (16 documents) (see  Appendix 1). The selected documents comprise a diverse range of document types such as vision documents (e.g. strategic documents), guiding documents (e.g. toolkits), justice-oriented documents and activity documents (e.g. annual reports). The data set is designed to cover key justice-related discourse across the selected networks, rather than to provide a comprehensive account of all publications of city networks (see  Appendix 2).

A framework of categories for coding was developed based on the three analytical dimensions: justice-related terms, justice dimensions and contexts, and their corresponding subcategories as shown in Table 2. This approach combined deductive and inductive elements. The category of justice dimensions was developed deductively based on three widely accepted tenets of environmental justice (distributive, participatory and recognition) while the categories of justice terms and contexts were developed inductively in the preliminary coding process.

The first category, justice-related terms, includes justice, inclusion, equity, equality and fairness. These terms are not conceptually interchangeable; however, they are grouped as “justice-related terms” for analytical purposes to capture how justice is articulated through a range of related vocabularies. This study does not aim to analyse the differences among these terms. Rather, it seeks to capture the broader patterns of a justice-related discourse by considering the terms collectively. The second category, justice dimensions, was based on the three tenets widely accepted in environmental justice. The third category, contexts, is divided into ten themes identified during initial coding. When justice-related terms were not explicitly linked to a specific justice dimension and/or context, they were coded as unspecified.

The primary unit of analysis was the paragraph, allowing the analysis to capture justice dimensions and the contextual meaning in which justice-related terms are embedded. In addition, individual sentences were coded when they represented key messages or statements. Overlapping coding was permitted where a passage corresponded to more than one category.

The coding process was conducted in two stages. Firstly, several documents were selected as samples for coding to refine and adjust the coding framework and subcategories. The coding framework was then revised based on the initial coding. Secondly, the revised framework was applied across the data set. Coding interpretations were reviewed and discussed among the authors to improve consistency in the application of the coding framework. A formal intercoder reliability test was not conducted; however, the coding framework was refined through multiple rounds of revision and discussion among the authors. The final coding was conducted using the revised coding framework across the data set.

This section examines the frequency of justice-related terms by counting the number of coded paragraphs in the documents and then analyses chronological trends using occurrences per 1,000 words. In total, justice terms were coded 1,172 times across all the analysed documents. Differences in term use were observed across networks. Overall, C40 (507 times) and UCLG (365 times) used justice terms most frequently, followed by ICLEI (225 times) and CityNet (75 times). In C40, inclusion (175 times) and equity (164 times) were the most frequently used terms, followed by justice (79 times), equality (47 times) and fairness (42 times). Similarly, inclusion was the most frequently used term in CityNet (43 times) and ICLEI (101 times), with equity being the second most frequently used term (14 times and 67 times, respectively). UCLG, in contrast, employed equality the most (168 times), followed by inclusion (145 times). Across the four networks, justice (131 times in total) and fairness (65 times in total) were generally used less frequently than inclusion, equality and equity.

Although such differences among the terms were observed, chronological trends in the overall use of justice-related terminology were captured by analysing the terms collectively (Figure 1). The documents were classified by publication year, and justice-related term occurrences per 1,000 words were calculated between 2016 and 2022. The number of documents and total word counts by network and year are provided in the Supplementary Table to support interpretation of these trends. No documents met the selection criteria for ICLEI in 2020, resulting in missing values for that year. This gap should be considered when interpreting longitudinal trends, as year-to-year changes may partly reflect document availability rather than shifts in justice discourse.

All networks except CityNet show an increasing trend in the use of justice-related terms, albeit with varying degrees of consistency. Most notably, C40 demonstrates a sharp increase after 2019, which may reflect increased attention to inequalities following the COVID-19 pandemic and racial justice movements (2019). C40 notes that “the pandemic revealed stark systemic inequalities” (C40 Cities, 2021a, p. 3) within cities, reflecting a shift towards integrating justice concerns into climate action narratives. In 2019, C40 also launched the Equity Pledge, which encouraged the member cities to sign and promote inclusive climate actions by caring for the vulnerable communities. Moreover, the membership standard of C40 was renewed in 2021, asking member cities to build an inclusive climate plan and deliver equitable outcomes (C40 Cities, 2021b).

ICLEI similarly shows increased justice term usage in 2021 and 2022, particularly through its Malmö Commitment on Inclusive and Equitable Communities launched in 2021. Although the significance of inclusion had been embedded in its broader sustainability discourse (Rok and Kuhn, 2012), ICLEI promotes inclusiveness and social equity as the core of urban sustainability as “sustainable development […] is a right of all and not a privilege of a few” (ICLEI, 2021, p. 22).

Conversely, UCLG demonstrates a more consistent use of justice terminology over time, advocating for local democracy and human rights (UCLG, 2017). UCLG also links justice to the “right to the city” concept, which associates with inclusive and equitable access to urban space and sustainability (UCLG, 2019; UCLG, 2021). Besides, UCLG adopted the Pact for the Future of Humanity in 2022, highlighting the role of local governments to lead nature-positive pathways addressing inequalities and climate hazards (UCLG, 2022, p.14). CityNet documents showed the least frequent use of justice-related terms, with relatively few publications explicitly focusing on justice-related issues.

These patterns suggest that justice terminology has been widely mobilised across city networks. They also show varied patterns of articulation, including a more recent intensification of equity and inclusion discourse in C40 and more established justice-oriented traditions in UCLG and ICLEI.

How is justice conceived by these city networks? Figure 2 indicates the frequency of appearance of justice dimensions (distributive, participatory and recognition justice) identified within the documents. Some differences can be observed across the networks. Distributive justice appears more frequently in C40 documents than in the other networks. For instance, C40 refers to the equitable distribution of healthcare services and job opportunities. Conversely, recognition justice was most prominently employed by UCLG, emphasising gender equality issues.

Although such differences were observed, approximately half of the justice terminology was used without specifying what was meant by justice in the documents. This suggests that justice is often mobilised as a broad normative term without explicitly clarifying what makes a policy or intervention “just” in concrete terms. For example, ICLEI refers to the pursuit of “inclusive development for all” that safeguards natural support systems for human life (ICLEI, 2018, p. 13) in its commitment document, while C40 states that “climate, social and economic justice can only be achieved together” (C40 Cities, 2019). In both cases, justice is invoked as a broad normative concept, yet the specific dimensions of justice being addressed remain open to interpretation. These patterns suggest that, although justice is frequently referred to across city networks, the explicit articulation of its dimensions remains inconsistent and often unspecified.

In what contexts do city networks refer to justice? This section examines the relationships between justice-related terms and contexts in which they are used by the respective networks (see Figure 3). Although the category of others accounted for the largest number of coded segments, it includes references to specific city network projects as well as contexts not captured by the thematic categories, such as resilience, culture, mobility and digital technology. Apart from the others category, C40 employed justice-related terms most frequently in the contexts of pandemic (59 times) and governance, policy and system (57 times). CityNet used them most in the context of space (22 times), while ICLEI used them most in governance, policy and system (33 times) (28 times). UCLG referred to justice largely in the contexts of governance, policy and system (83 times) and gender (76 times). Clear differences were observed: C40 accounted for more than half of the contexts of economy, pandemic and just transition. UCLG focused on gender far more than others. It is also notable that a substantial number of justice terms appeared without a clearly identifiable context, especially in C40 (53 times) and ICLEI (31 times). For example, C40 states that “The city innovates and starts taking inclusive action to address emissions and climate risk beyond the direct control of the city government […]” (C40 Cities, 2021a, p. 19) without indicating a specific context. Similarly, ICLEI states “Cities and communities can be part of the solution to today’s challenges, encouraging sustainable approaches, innovation, adaptability, participation, and inclusiveness” (ICLEI, 2022, p. 1). Although that paragraph was coded as participatory justice, no specific context could be identified.

Relations between justice-related terms and contexts are presented in Figure 4. C40 makes a strong connection between justice and the pandemic, alongside intersections of inclusion, equity and others. This indicates that justice terminology in C40 is strongly associated with pandemic-related discourse. As previously discussed, C40 highlights the unequal impacts of COVID-19 and frames just recovery as a transition towards a more equitable society supported by economic investment for marginalised communities (C40 Cities, 2020). Economic perspectives are also prominent in C40’s framing of just transition.

UCLG demonstrates a strong relationship between equality and gender, while inclusion is clustered in the contexts of space, governance, policy and system contexts. Its documents frequently link justice to gender equality and the “right to the city” as their core priorities. Besides the climate crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic and global security issues are highlighted as serious causes of a “dramatic setback for peace and democracy” and increasing inequality and injustice at the regional and local levels (UCLG, 2022, p. 5).

Compared to C40 and UCLG, ICLEI displays weaker clustering between justice-related terms and contexts, suggesting that justice is embedded in a broader sustainability discourse. Therefore, its documents exhibit a large proportion of content coded as others, and its usage of justice concepts is spread across various contexts. CityNet documents show limited clustering, mainly around the contexts of space, governance, policy and system. Overall, the studied CityNet documents contained fewer explicit justice-based terms, limiting a more detailed analysis of their justice framing.

The results of the content analysis are summarised in Table 3. Several commonalities were identified among the networks. Inclusion was employed most frequently, while justice and fairness appeared less often across the networks. Many of these terms were employed in a general sense, often without clearly identifiable contexts and/or specified justice dimensions. Differences were observed in how justice-related terms were mobilised across the networks. UCLG consistently framed justice through human rights, spatial justice and gender equality. Meanwhile, C40 showed an increase in justice terminology after 2019, with strong emphasis on the pandemic, just recovery and economic perspectives linked to just transition. ICLEI embedded justice within a broader sustainability discourse, without a strong concentration on particular contexts. CityNet used justice-related terms least frequently, limiting a more detailed analysis of its justice framing.

The findings reveal that justice is framed in distinct ways by these city networks, with differences rooted in their organisational priorities, dominant worldviews and missions. Justice framing is not merely a matter of terminology, but reflects the underlying perspectives through which city networks interpret justice. In this sense, justice functions as a lens that shapes how urban issues are understood and addressed.

As the findings indicate, C40 increasingly incorporates justice considerations into its documentation particularly after the pandemic. C40 documents also frequently underscore the importance of transitioning away from business as usual (C40 Cities, 2020). At the same time, justice-related terms are more frequently associated with economic contexts compared to other networks, suggesting a business-oriented framing.

This framing reflects tensions identified in the literature regarding the neoliberal orientation of urban climate governance. A neoliberal view of justice has been associated with the pursuit of private gains and the exclusion of vulnerable communities in climate governance (Ciplet and Roberts, 2017; Okereke, 2007). C40 has similarly been critiqued for emphasising the economic benefits of urban climate action (Davidson and Gleeson, 2015; Bulkeley, 2021). While the findings may suggest shifts in how C40 frames climate justice, further investigation is required to understand whether these shifts reflect substantive changes in governance approaches and practice.

On the other hand, UCLG frames justice explicitly in relation to human rights and spatial justice, often drawing on the concept of the “right to the city” in its documents. As previously discussed, UCLG has been one of the key actors to advocate the concept globally. However, the institutionalisation of the “right to the city” concept has also attracted criticism from academia and civil society, as its original aspiration for radical transformation has been diluted and reinterpreted as a policy framework compatible with capitalism (de Souza, 2010; Kuymulu, 2013). The findings suggest that UCLG’s conceptualisation reflects its framing of justice, wherein the original concept is incorporated yet diluted in the process of institutionalisation.

As illustrated in the Results (4.2 and 4.3), the findings also reveal that all city networks often articulate justice without specifying in what sense it is “just” or in what contexts. This lack of clarity suggests that justice may be used as tokenistic rhetoric. Recent literature and social movements have criticised the rhetorical use of justice as “justice-washing”, arguing that it may hinder a truly just transition (Titifanue, 2025). Against this backdrop, it is necessary to assess whether justice has become merely a buzzword and whether “justice-washing” is taking place. This raises the question of whether the increasing use of justice-related terminology by city networks necessarily reflects a stronger commitment to justice in practice.

Justice washing also resonates with debates on decolonisation. The study encountered difficulties in capturing how CityNet frames justice due to its limited use of justice-related terms. CityNet comprises numerous member cities, including small and medium-sized cities from the Asia-Pacific region that are severely affected by climate impacts. The limited use of justice terms would not necessarily mean that they do not care about justice. This could be the result of CityNet’s technology-driven character (de Losada, 2019) and/or the socio-political situations of the region.

Instead, this may suggest alternative ways of framing justice. From a decolonial perspective, justice may not always be articulated through dominant or standardised vocabularies but instead may be embedded in context-specific practices and priorities. This highlights the importance of co-production and conceptualisations of justice that are aligned with local contexts and priorities. As climate justice has often been conceptualised through a Western-centric perspective (Álvarez and Coolsaet, 2020), the limited use of explicit justice terminology may reflect different ways of understanding and operationalising justice.

These findings indicate that justice is framed differently across city networks, reflecting variations in organisational priorities and governance approaches. They further suggest that justice is not a unified concept commonly recognised across city networks. Rather, it is continuously reinterpreted and mobilised into more policy-relevant and actionable forms within their discourse. The findings also point to tensions between more technocratic or neoliberal framings of justice and more transformative approaches, where justice may either accommodate existing structures or seek to challenge them.

Whilst some differences in justice framing were observed, these framings also carry broader implications for urban climate governance because they may shape power relations over how justice is promoted and represented in climate policies. This section examines how these different justice framings may influence the ways justice is interpreted and prioritised across city networks.

The findings show an increase in the use of justice-related terms across networks, indicating growing awareness of justice issues in urban climate policies. City networks have long been partners for member cities by providing practical information in the form of seminars, guidebooks or toolkits, and facilitating mutual learning and knowledge sharing to implement better climate policies. For instance, C40 published a series of guidebooks in 2019 such as Inclusive Planning Executive Guide, targeting a wide range of readers including city officials, community groups and youth. Through such support activities, city networks’ ideas of justice could be introduced and mobilised in climate governance at the local level.

However, the extent of this support varies across networks. C40 publishes useful toolkits, yet its relationship with member cities is asymmetric, requiring strict compliance with C40’s standards. To receive technical assistance from C40, member cities need to meet standards including an equity and inclusive perspective. In this context, there is a possibility that member cities may align with C40’s idea of justice to achieve the targeted policy outcomes. This can be understood as a form of norm diffusion through which city networks disseminate particular understandings of justice.

On the other hand, city networks also foster common understandings of climate justice among member cities through declarations, pledges and commitment statements, such as the Malmö Commitment on Inclusive and Equitable Communities of ICLEI or Pact for the Future of Humanity of UCLG. They invite cities to sign these documents to disseminate the voices of cities globally. While these activities support urban climate policymaking and strengthen collective commitments, they may also reinforce particular normative understandings of justice across member cities. These tensions are also linked to broader power asymmetries within urban climate governance. City networks have been critiqued for their Northern-centric character and opaque governance (Davidson et al., 2019). The increased use of justice-related terms may also reflect broader institutional responses to such criticism. Yet, the asymmetric relationship between a city network and its member cities raises concerns that a city network might interfere with locally developed perspectives and priorities on climate justice.

Furthermore, the power relations between the member cities, particularly between large cities and smaller cities, must also be considered. Large cities have greater financial and human resources and are therefore more capable of engaging in international affairs than smaller cities. City networks represent cities, but this representation is biased (Garcia-Chueca, 2019). C40, in particular, consists of megacities and is considered as an “exclusive club” (Garcia-Chueca, 2019, p. 106). When influence is concentrated in larger and better-resourced cities, this asymmetry might reinforce Northern-centric perceptions of justice, particularly among small and medium-sized cities in the Global South. City networks would thus be expected to mediate such power relations among the cities, leading to a common understanding of justice in climate crises. This also highlights the importance of co-production in urban climate governance, ensuring that justice is shaped collaboratively with local actors rather than predominantly through externally defined frameworks.

These power relations also shape whose perspectives are represented in the articulation of justice. From the perspective of intersectionality, urban justice cannot be understood as a single, universal category; rather it is constituted by overlapping layers of inequalities such as gender, race and economic status (Sultana, 2022). Several networks highlight intersecting forms of inequality in their documentation. For instance, C40 refers to racial justice and unfair impacts of the pandemic as an important factor for working on climate justice. ICLEI highlights justice and inclusiveness as a pillar of sustainable development, while UCLG emphasises gender equality and spatial justice in cities. Although city networks increasingly refer to justice, it remains unclear whether such framings address deeper structural and intersectional injustices in practice.

City networks have also played an external role vis-à-vis the international community and successfully championed the significance of cities. Given their growing influence within the international climate debate, they could advocate for climate justice effectively. For networks such as UCLG, where justice has long been a core part of their mission, urban climate justice is likely to gain greater visibility. Criticism against private networks like C40 also stems from the threat of its growing impact globally. Yet more than as an agent of cities, there is also a fear that their own influence in international climate debates is growing stronger (Lecavalier and Gordon, 2020; Acuto et al., 2021). This raises issues about whose perspectives are represented when justice is articulated in both global and local climate governance. In this sense, city networks may need to strengthen participatory and representative governance frameworks and clarify how justice commitments are translated into their activities. To realise a truly just climate policy in cities, the question of climate justice for whom should be repeatedly asked both externally and internally.

Overall, these findings suggest that justice framings within city networks have important implications for urban climate governance. While city networks can promote greater attention to inclusion and inequality, they also shape how justice is interpreted and prioritised. These dynamics highlight the importance of critically examining whose perspectives are represented in climate justice discourse and how more locally grounded and co-produced approaches can be incorporated into urban climate governance.

This study examined city networks and their framing of climate justice in urban settings. It compared documents published by C40, CityNet, ICLEI and UCLG to ascertain how they articulate their views on justice within climate policy. Overall, an increase in the use of justice-related language was noted in their documentation, although these were often narrated without specific implications or contexts. This suggests that justice is not a fixed, commonly recognised concept among city networks, but is continuously interpreted and mobilised in different ways within urban climate governance. The original mandate and raison d‘être of each network influenced the way justice was employed in its documents. The usage of justice-related terms ranged from economic perspectives on urban climate action to concerns with gender, space, and other intersecting urban inequalities.

These findings indicate that justice framings have broader implications for urban climate governance. They may shape which justice concerns are prioritised, how justice is interpreted and whose perspectives are represented within climate action agendas. Furthermore, justice framings reflect power relations over who has the power to define and operationalise justice in climate action. As global climate governance becomes increasingly fragmented, understanding how city networks frame justice will remain important for assessing their role in shaping more just and sustainable urban futures.

Several limitations should be acknowledged. Firstly, the study focused on documentation issued by the headquarters of the selected city networks, excluding their regional activities. Secondly, the analysis was limited to published online documents. Thirdly, only documents published by each city network were considered, and co-published documents were excluded. The relationships between different city networks could be investigated further. Fourthly, the study examined justice-related discourse broadly rather than isolating climate justice strictly. Finally, the study focuses on discourse and does not assess how justice is implemented in practice, which may differ from its rhetorical articulation. Future studies could examine how justice framings are translated into urban climate governance and policy processes.

The increasing attention to justice across city networks presents an opportunity to advance urban climate justice globally. However, it remains unclear whether this growing rhetoric is reflected in actual implementation. This raises concerns about the risk of justice-washing, where justice is rhetorically mobilised without meaningful structural change. Further research is therefore required to assess how city networks influence the mobilisation of climate justice by cities and whether they contribute to more locally grounded climate justice initiatives for just urban futures.

The authors gratefully acknowledge Ms Dunja Krause for her valuable contributions to this research and the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) for providing the opportunity for the corresponding author to serve as a Visiting Fellow, which enabled research on climate justice and a just transition. The authors also thank the associate editor and anonymous reviewers for their constructive and encouraging comments.

C40:

1. Search the “Knowledge Hub” on the website published in 2016–2022: 439 documents identified (Link to C40 Knowledge HubLink to the website of C40 Knowledge Hub).

2. Additional search of the C40 website to capture relevant materials not retrieved through the first step (Link to C40Link to the website of C40).

3. Retrieved materials were screened and selected according to the four document types and Scott’s (1990) criteria described in Section 3.2. Materials not meeting the document selection criteria (e.g. blogs, events, videos, and press releases) were excluded.

4. Selected documents: 17 documents.

CityNet:

1. Search the “Publication” and “News” on the website published in 2016–2022: 312 documents identified (Link to Citynet NewsroomLink to the website of Citynet Newsroom).

2. Additional search of the website of CityNet to capture relevant materials not retrieved through the first step (Link to CitynetLink to the website of Citynet).

3. Retrieved materials were screened and selected according to the four document types and Scott’s (1990) criteria described in Section 3.2. Materials not meeting the document selection criteria (e.g. blogs, events, videos, and press releases) were excluded.

4. Selected documents: 15 documents.

ICLEI:

1. Search the “ICLEI e-library” (Link t oICLEI e-LibraryLink to the website of ICLEI e-Library) and “News” (Link to Stay informed with our latest updatesLink to the website of Stay informed with our latest updates) on the website published in 2016–2022 by ICLEI World Secretariat: 790 documents identified.

2. Search the entire website of ICLEI to capture relevant materials not retrieved through the first step (Link to IcleiLink to the website of Iclei).

3. Retrieved materials were screened and selected according to the four document types and Scott’s (1990) criteria described in Section 3.2. Materials not meeting the document selection criteria (e.g. blogs, events, videos, and press releases) were excluded.

4. Selected documents: 16 documents.

UCLG:

1. Search the “Publications” and “Policy Statement” published in 2016–2022: 236 documents identified (Link to United Cities and Local GovernmentsLink to the website of United Cities and Local Governments).

2. Search the entire website of UCLG to capture relevant materials not retrieved through the first step (Link to United Cities and Local GovernmentsLink to the website of United Cities and Local Governments).

3. Retrieved materials were screened and selected according to the four document types and Scott’s (1990) criteria described in Section 3.2. Materials not meeting the document selection criteria (e.g. blogs, events, videos, and press releases) were excluded.

4. Selected documents: 16 documents.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.