Systematic literature review analyzes decarbonisation policies' integration of climate justice concerns, suggesting gaps exist.
In the context of decarbonisation processes, key priorities in international sustainability commitments, various public policy instruments have been implemented. However, it is important to recognise that a decarbonising society does not always lead to climate justice. This raises the question of whether climate justice is sufficiently integrated into decarbonisation policy instruments discussed within the current scientific literature. The research question guiding this study is: To what extent are decarbonisation public policy instruments discussing climate justice within peer-reviewed literature? This study aims to systematically analyse peer-reviewed social science literature to understand how these instruments relate to climate justice or facilitate a just transition. Methodologically, this study conducted a systematic literature review to analyse scientific publications on decarbonisation public policy instruments aligned with the research objectives. The Scopus database was selected and a total of 132 articles were included in the review. The analysis was supported by a codebook developed to assess the degree of integration of climate justice dimensions within the policy instruments analysed in the reviewed articles. The findings indicate that the decarbonisation public policy instruments discussed generally do not ensure climate justice nor facilitate a just transition. Although some redistributive, participatory, and social targeted approaches are identified, climate justice dimensions are more frequently discussed in relation to the inequalities, exclusions, asymmetries, and differentiated vulnerabilities produced or reinforced by decarbonisation processes and policy instruments themselves. Overall, climate justice is treated more as a corrective or reactive concern than as a foundational principle shaping the design of decarbonisation public policy instruments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ramôa et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: