As climate action efforts intensify, a new study is urging policymakers to look beyond carbon targets and renewable energy expansion to what it describes as 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 at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, 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 decarbonisation, 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. It calls for climate policies that protect vulnerable communities, create inclusive economic opportunities and address historical environmental harms.
However, the researchers say 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 indicate that both countries reference 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, limited attention is given to how impacts may differ across gender, ethnic or socioeconomic groups.
Procedural justice receives uneven treatment. The study notes that Kenya demonstrates relatively stronger stakeholder engagement, whereas Ghana’s planning process appears more influenced by international actors. In both cases, 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 most significant gaps, the study says, emerge in recognition and restorative justice. The ETIPs do not explicitly address the differentiated needs of women, persons with disabilities, indigenous communities or other marginalised 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 merely technical exercises but deeply political processes shaped by competing interests, ideas and power dynamics, from fossil fuel lobbies and international donors to domestic political actors and local communities.
The authors argue that ignoring these political economy realities undermines both the feasibility and fairness of transition efforts.
They call for a shift in approach, recommending that transition plans incorporate robust impact assessments that examine benefits and risks across different social groups. Broader consultations should be institutionalised to ensure meaningful participation from national to local levels.
The study also advocates gender-responsive budgeting, integration of indigenous knowledge systems, accessible grievance mechanisms and compensation frameworks for climate-affected communities to be embedded from the planning stage.
By: Abena Serwaa Gyamfi
