Nine steps for a just transition pathway

By Caroline A. van der Weerdt, Antonio De Carluccio, Anouck Guillou and Julia C. Broderick-Hale.

How can research and innovation projects that aim to support major societal transitions, such as cleaner energy, more sustainable food systems, smarter mobility, and better digital services progress from being pilot projects to affecting systemic change? How can they move from being focused on the solution to attending to the wider system in which the solution must land, examining benefits, costs, decision-making processes and which policies, behaviours, infrastructures and power relations need to change? How do these questions relate to a just transition pathway and how can researchers operationalise the underlying principles?

A just transition pathway is a structured, forward-looking process for connecting practical innovations to wider systemic change. It combines system analysis, stakeholder engagement, scenario development, evidence gathering, and policy translation. Its purpose is not only to ask what transition is needed, but also how that transition can be fair, inclusive and workable. Here we propose a nine-step process to develop such a pathway. The pathway is also illustrated in the figure below.

The nine steps

1. Start with the current trend

Begin by describing what is likely to happen if nothing fundamentally changes. This “trend pathway” creates a shared baseline. It helps identify dominant assumptions, structural barriers and lock-in effects in the current system.

2. Consult stakeholders

Bring in people who understand the system from different angles. This may include perspectives on innovation, policy and consumer behaviour. The aim is not only to gather input, but also to challenge the baseline narrative.

3. Develop alternative pathways

Create several plausible routes towards the desired transition. These are not predictions. They are structured stories that help people explore different combinations of policy, innovation, behaviour and governance. For example, one pathway may emphasise market-led innovation. Another may focus on stronger regulation. A third may prioritise collaboration and co-creation.

4. Test the pathways with evidence

Use economic modelling, assessment or other forms of evidence to explore the likely effects of each pathway. This step helps make ambitions more realistic. It can also show unintended consequences, such as costs being shifted to vulnerable groups.

5. Validate the findings

Return to stakeholders and ask whether the emerging pathways make sense. Are the targets feasible? Are the assumptions credible? What social, economic or political impacts may have been missed?

6. Define what “just” means in this context

Justice is not an add-on at the end. It must shape the pathway itself. Consider at least three questions:

1. Are benefits and burdens fairly distributed?
2. Are affected groups included in decision-making?
3. Are vulnerable or marginalised groups recognised and taken seriously?

This may reveal inequities such as unequal access to digital tools, power imbalances, and potential burdens on lower-income consumers.

7. Translate the pathway into actions

A pathway only becomes useful when it leads to concrete action. Identify a small number of practical interventions that can guide policymakers, funders, practitioners and innovators.

Examples of “just pathway actions” include differentiated reduction targets, better measurement, support for small producers, targeted training and subsidies, consumer incentives, legal reform, and stronger roles for community actors.

8. Reconnect the pathway to pilots and solutions

Organise a “bridging” opportunity (eg., a workshop) to align pilot teams, solution developers and system experts. Ask how each innovation contributes to the pathway, where it may create risks, and what support is needed for fair scaling.

This step is crucial. It prevents the pathway from remaining an abstract framework and helps innovators adjust their work to real systemic conditions.

9. Translate insights into policy and practice

Finally, turn the pathway into outputs that can influence decision-making. These may include policy briefs, practical recommendations, funding criteria or implementation guidance. The goal is to connect pilot-level learning to broader system change.

Why does this matter?

A just transition pathway helps researchers and innovators avoid three common traps:

1. The first is overstated ambition: promising systemic impact without a clear route to achieve it.
2. The second is technological determinism: assuming that a technical solution will automatically create social change.
3. The third is contextual isolation: developing pilots without enough attention to the wider policy, behavioural and institutional environment.

By using a just transition pathway, researchers can make these tensions visible and workable. The process creates a shared space where different actors can explore trade-offs, test assumptions and design more inclusive routes to impact. Lastly, it also changes the role of research. Instead of only producing knowledge about a problem, researchers help create the conditions for fair and systemic change.

Conclusion

We developed the nine steps as part of a Horizon Europe project, which focused on reducing food loss and waste. Do these steps resonate with you? Are there steps would you add, remove or adapt? Do you have other ways of bridging the gap between systemic theory and actual practice in (pilot) projects? How do you make justice principles practical in research and innovation projects?

To find out more:

Van der Weerdt, C. A., De Carluccio, A., Guillou, A. and Broderick-Hale, J. C. (2025). Bridging the disconnect between practice and system: The “Just Transition Pathway” as a tool for steering practical solutions towards more systemic impact. Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO; Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek) and Safe Food Advocacy Europe (SAFE): The Hague, Netherlands. (Online – open access): https://repository.tno.nl/SingleDoc?docId=85549

More information about the project can be found at: ZeroW – Innovations for Zero Food Loss and Waste.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement: Microsoft 365 Copilot Premium (including the Create feature for image generation) was used for both the paper on which this i2Insights contribution is based (November-December 2025) and for this contribution (August 2026). For the full paper, the AI was used to enhance the readability of the manuscript. For this contribution, the AI was used to summarise the nine steps in the full paper, with the main author then adjusting and adding to the generated text to match the original reasoning of all authors. The AI was also used to suggest and provide a design for a figure to comprehensively display the content of the nine-step process (from system understanding to practical action) in the original full paper. AI was not used to adapt the figure for this contribution. (For i2Insights policy on artificial intelligence please see https://i2insights.org/contributing-to-i2insights/guidelines-for-authors/#artificial-intelligence.)

Biography: Caroline van der Weerdt MSc has a background in social marketing and specialises in technology adoption and systemic change. Since joining TNO (Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek / Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research), an independent organisation for applied research, in 2008, she has focused on understanding how people, relationships, and sources of value influence the adoption of digital technologies, and on helping different stakeholders find common ground to make change work in practice. Working in international contexts, she leads research and innovation projects that support sustainable transformation in sectors such as food and energy. She is based in Groningen, the Netherlands.

Biography: Antonio De Carluccio MSc is a Policy and Project Officer at SAFE – Safe Food Advocacy Europe, based in Brussels, Belgium. He specialises in European Union (EU) advocacy, coalition-building and European projects. He contributes to EU-funded projects and campaigns aimed at strengthening consumer protection and advancing more sustainable and resilient food systems. Drawing on his experience in policy research and writing, he translates evidence into practical recommendations that support effective policymaking.

Biography: Anouck Guillou MSc is a Policy and Project Officer at SAFE – Safe Food Advocacy Europe, based in Brussels, Belgium. Her work focuses on advancing sustainable food systems through evidence-based policymaking at the European level. Her main areas of interest include food loss and waste prevention and the integration and implementation of research into European Union (EU) policies to improve consumer protection and support the transition towards more sustainable food systems.

Biography: Julia Broderick-Hale MSc was a researcher at TNO (Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek / Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research), an independent organisation for applied research, when this work was undertaken. She is now an independent researcher. She specialises in applied cognitive psychology, with professional experience across the non-profit and public sectors. Her work explores how understanding human cognition and behaviour can inform efforts to build a more resilient and sustainable society. She is based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.