The Just Transition at the UNFCCC: Power and Discourse in COP Negotiations

Abstract

The ‘just transition’ is a conceptually plural and politically contested term, yet UNFCCC decisions can stabilise which meanings travel as global policy precedent. This study examines how, under enduring power asymmetries, less-powerful actors contest dominant climate policy framings and secure institutional recognition for counter-narratives during COP negotiations and which interpretations become institutionalised in UNFCCC texts. Drawing on organisational theory, the article integrates sensemaking with a critical discourse perspective to specify the mechanisms through which meaning shifts are produced in real time, through conflictual cycles of sensegiving and sensebreaking, the policing of what counts as ‘within mandate’, and the strategic mobilisation of discursive resources. Empirically, the analysis focuses on negotiations surrounding the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP), using observation and critical discursive analysis of evolving negotiation texts. The findings show how Global South coalitions advanced a justice-centred framing of just transition, linking it to equity, development priorities, and differentiated responsibilities, while more powerful actors sought to contain the concept within narrower, labour-centred and operationally limited formulations. The negotiated outcome institutionalised a more justice-oriented meaning in authoritative UNFCCC language while leaving implementation commitments constrained, illustrating how institutional traction can occur without integrated action. The article contributes to climate governance scholarship by explaining how negotiated meanings are produced and stabilised under asymmetrical power, and to organisational theory by extending sensemaking and discursive strategy concepts to multilateral negotiation arenas where texts function as instruments of governance and power.