As conversations around climate action intensify, a new study is urging policymakers to look beyond carbon targets and renewable energy expansion to a more pressing concern: justice.
A research paper by Gerald E. Arhin, Research Fellow at University College London, together with Dr. Emmanuel Kofi Gavu and Prof. David Ato Quansah of the Brew-Hammond Energy Centre, examines how Ghana and Kenya are integrating “just transition” principles into their Energy Transition and Investment Plans (ETIPs). The study finds that while both countries demonstrate commitment to decarbonization, justice considerations remain limited, technocratic, and in some cases, largely absent.
The concept of a just transition has gained prominence globally as governments seek to ensure that the shift away from fossil fuels does not deepen existing inequalities. At its core, it demands that climate policies protect vulnerable communities, create inclusive economic opportunities, and address historical environmental harms. However, the researchers reveals that there is little empirical evidence showing how countries embed these principles into national transition frameworks.
To address this gap, the study evaluates Ghana’s and Kenya’s ETIPs using four dimensions of justice: distributional, procedural, recognition, and restorative justice. The findings reveal that both countries make reference to distributional justice, particularly through projected job creation in renewable energy sectors. Yet the plans do not adequately address potential job losses in fossil fuel-linked industries or outline concrete measures to cushion affected workers and communities. While employment figures are highlighted, little attention is paid to how impacts differ across gender, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups.
Procedural justice also receives uneven treatment. Kenya demonstrates relatively stronger stakeholder engagement, whereas Ghana’s planning process appears more influenced by international actors. In both cases, however, local and subnational actors have limited decision-making authority. The researchers conclude that the transition plans were largely developed “for” the countries rather than “with” them.
The study revealed that the most significant gaps emerge in recognition and restorative justice. The ETIPs do not explicitly address the differentiated needs of women, persons with disabilities, indigenous communities, or other marginalized groups. Nor do they establish clear mechanisms to compensate communities disproportionately affected by climate change or past environmental degradation. In already vulnerable contexts, the study warns, such omissions risk entrenching inequality under the banner of green development.
A central argument of the paper is that energy transitions are not just technical exercises but deeply political processes. The interplay of interests, ideas, and power dynamics, from fossil fuel lobbies and international donors to domestic political actors and local communities, shapes both planning and implementation. The authors argue that ignoring these political economy realities undermines the feasibility and fairness of transition efforts.
The researchers therefore call for a shift in approach. Transition plans should incorporate robust impact assessments that examine both benefits and risks across different social groups. Broader consultations must be institutionalized, ensuring meaningful participation from national to local levels. Gender-responsive budgeting, integration of indigenous knowledge systems, accessible grievance mechanisms, and compensation frameworks for climate-affected communities should be embedded from the planning stage.