IST2027 track proposal

The sustainability transitions field has advanced understanding of socio-technical change in
various contexts; yet its foundational concepts, theories, methodologies, and empirical
references remain disproportionately shaped by Euro-American epistemologies, institutions,
and experiences [1]. Despite growing calls for attention to Global South contexts, the field
often applies Northern theories to Southern realities, seldom engaging with Southern
intellectual traditions, ontologies, and alternative visions of transformation [2-4]. We use the
term Global South aware that it is a plural and contested category [5], for which Global Majority
may be more fitting. We understand the South as an epistemic position, not simply a
geographical one: the knowledge and experiences excluded from what is recognised as
credible [6]. Souths therefore also exist within the North, among Indigenous peoples, racialised
urban communities, and informal economies.
Core transition frameworks, such as the multi-level perspective, transition management, and
technological innovation systems, were developed in industrialised Northern contexts. They
assume that the state can steer change, that stable systems can be challenged by small-scale
innovations, that innovation is driven by technology and markets, and that sustainability goals
are already “globally agreed” [7,8]. In many Southern contexts, these conditions hold only
partially [9], and transitions also unfold amid persistent inequalities, widespread informality,
and unmet basic needs [10].

This reflects a deeper problem of “cognitive injustice” [6]: these frameworks carry particular
worldviews, and their scholarly dominance risks perpetuating colonial hierarchies of
knowledge. Southern urbanism, post-development, ecosocial and decolonial perspectives,
Latin American STS [11,12], and Southern political economy and territorial theory question
these assumptions. Indigenous knowledge systems, Buen Vivir, Ubuntu, Ukama, Swaraj,
conviviality, and ecological civilisations broaden our imaginaries of collective life beyond
individualist, human-centred, and growth-based notions of wellbeing. These contributions
question transition as a universal trajectory, directing attention to multiple pathways, historical
injustices, territorial struggles, and the enactment of multiple worlds [13-16].
This track seeks to move beyond calls for “including the Global South” towards centring
Southern methodologies, theories and frameworks as sources of conceptual innovation. In the
spirit of the conference theme, “Building Bridges”, we see centering Southern theories as the
precondition for a genuine bridge, since a bridge between unequal parties keeps the existing
hierarchy in place. Where different ontologies are at stake, the question is what can move
between them, on whose terms, and whether those terms can change. We invite contributions
that examine these conditions of exchange rather than fitting one framework into another,
fostering dialogue across scholarship and practice.
The track explores questions such as:
● What does it mean to privilege Southern theories in sustainability transitions
research?
● How can concepts from the epistemologies of the South and Indigenous traditions
challenge and reshape transition theories and notions of sustainability?
● How can Southern theories explain how entrenched political-economic interests
shape public institutions and constrain sustainability transitions, and under what
conditions can these constraints be overcome?
● How can Southern theories help transition research confront coloniality, extractivism,
racial capitalism, and injustice?
● What intellectual approaches embody Southern epistemologies and decolonial
research practices?
● What allows knowledge to move between worlds with incompatible ontologies, and
why does recognition so often fail despite genuine efforts?
We particularly welcome contributions that a) explore the historical evolution of these
concepts; b) show how they are enacted in practice and what they make visible; c) build
conceptual bridges between Southern and Northern frameworks. The track combines paper
sessions with a closing open dialogue to set a research agenda for pluriversal transitions.

Track convenors:
● Carla Douglas González, University of Sussex, United Kingdom
● Mariana G. Lyra, LUT University, Finland
● Patience Mguni, University of Copenhagen (UCPH), Denmark
● Mapula Tshangela, Centre for Sustainability Transitions, Stellenbosch University,
South Africa
● Bipashyee Ghosh, University College London, United Kingdom
● Rebeca Roysen, University of the Itajai Valley, Brazil
● Sumit Kumar, Monash University, Australia
● Katharina Schiller, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT),
Mexico
● Ying-Syuan (Elaine) Huang, Erasmus School of Philosophy, Erasmus University
Rotterdam, Netherlands
● Belinda Li, Simon Fraser University, Canada
● Eduardo Urias, Athena Institute, VU Amsterdam, Netherlands
● Armando Kokitsu, Independent Researcher, Brazil
● Amanda-Leigh O’Connell, University of Johannesburg, South Africa
● Diego Hernando Florez Ayala, Universidade do Vale do Itaja, Brazil
● Abhilasha Singh, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi
● Kanika Balani, University of Sussex, United Kingdom
● Giulia Mininni, University of Manchester, United Kingdom
References:
1. Mbeva, K., Okereke, C., & Makomere, R. (2025). Who shapes the just transition?
Examining intellectual hegemony in climate research. Environmental Research
Letters, 20(11), 113004.
2. Ghosh, B., Ramos-Mejía, M., Carvalho Machado, R., Yuana, S.L., & Schiller, K.
(2021). Decolonising transitions in the Global South: Towards more epistemic
diversity in transitions research. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,
41, 106–109.
3. Chilisa, B. (2017). Decolonising transdisciplinary research approaches: an African
perspective for enhancing knowledge integration in sustainability science.
Sustainability Science, 12(5), 813–827.
4. Swilling, M. (2026). The Age of Sustainability: Just Transitions in a Complex World
(2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003626169
5. Waisbich, L. T., Roychoudhury, S., & Haug, S. (2021). Beyond the single story:
‘Global South’ polyphonies. Third World Quarterly, 42(9), 2086–2095.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2021.1948832
6. Santos, B. d. S. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide.
Paradigm Publishers.
7. Hansen, U. E., Nygaard, I., Romijn, H., Wieczorek, A., Kamp, L. M., & Klerkx, L.
(2018). Sustainability transitions in developing countries: Stocktaking, new
contributions and a research agenda. Environmental Science & Policy, 84, 198–203.
8. Wieczorek, A. J. (2018). Sustainability transitions in developing countries: Major
insights and their implications for research and policy. Environmental Science &
Policy, 84, 204–216.
9. Santos, M. (1979). The Shared Space: The Two Circuits of the Urban Economy in
Underdeveloped Countries. Methuen.
10. Ramos-Mejía, M., Franco-Garcia, M. L., & Jauregui-Becker, J. M. (2018).
Sustainability transitions in the developing world: Challenges of socio-technical
transformations unfolding in contexts of poverty. Environmental Science & Policy, 84,
217–223.
11. Dagnino, R. (2014). Tecnologia Social: contribuições conceituais e metodológicas.
EDUEPB.
12. Thomas, H., & Fressoli, M. (2011). [incompleta: pedirle la referencia a Eduardo]
13. Roysen, R., Pereira Prado, M. M., Bruehwiler, N., Kos, L., & Koehrsen, J. (2026).
Transitions towards the pluriverse: Place, difference, alliances and autonomy in two
Latin American ecovillages. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-
026-01831-x
14. Arora, S., Ghosh, B., & Stirling, A. (2026). Decolonising innovation in sustainability
transitions for pluriversal justice and wellbeing. Environmental Innovation and
Societal Transitions, 58, 101064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2025.101064
15. Terry, N., Castro, A., Chibwe, B., Karuri-Sebina, G., Savu, C., & Pereira, L. (2024).
Inviting a decolonial praxis for future imaginaries of nature: Introducing the Entangled
Time Tree. Environmental Science & Policy, 151, 103615.
16. Swilling, M., et al. (2024). Radical incrementalism in action through institutional
works: Case studies of embedded research in South Africa. Canadian Journal of
Action Research, 25(2). https://doi.org/10.33524/cjar.v25i2.76

Accordion Content

Accordion Content

Accordion Content

Sustainability transitions depend on materialities, a set of elements that make socio-
technical change possible. In the social and political dimension, regulations, documents,

meeting rooms, printers and screens, amongst others, often go unnoticed, yet policy
could not be made without them. In the technological dimension this dependence is
perhaps more evident, since every technology requires materials, and many of them
come from mining, such as lithium, cobalt, copper and rare earth elements.
With some notable exceptions (Lagunas, Chambers, Hajer, & Almeida, 2027; Marí n &
Goya, 2021; Sefa-Nyarko, 2026; B. K. Sovacool, Hook, Martiskainen, Brock, & Turnheim,
2020; Unger, Everingham, & Bond, 2025), the sustainability transitions community has
yet to reflect in depth on these minerals. Many socio-technical transitions, such as the
energy transition, do not take place in a vacuum space, nor do they exist solely in
discourses, norms, regulations or laws. They rest upon processes of mineral extraction,
and without these processes, the transitions can not be materialize.
Neighbouring fields have advanced the understanding of the socio-technical processes
that accompany the extraction, refining and global trade of minerals. These include, to
mention only a few, studies on value chains and economic geography (Arias-Loyola,
Vergara-Perucich, & Encinas, 2025; Bridge & Faigen, 2022; Jamett et al., 2026; Obaya,
Ló pez, & Pascuini, 2021), studies on extractivisms (Barandiará n, 2019; Riofrancos,
2023; Voskoboynik & Andreucci, 2022), research on mineral demand (Må nberger &
Stenqvist, 2018; B. Sovacool et al., 2020), the political ecology of energy transitions
(Dorn & Gundermann, 2022; Jerez, Garcé s, & Torres, 2021; B. K. Sovacool, 2021) and

STS research on how mineral extraction is measured (Herrera-Leó n et al., 2026; Ojeda-
Pereira, Herrera-Leó n, Campos-Medina, & Có rdova, 2026; Ojeda-Pereira, Herrera-Leó n,

Lufin, & Campos-Medina, 2026).
The track starts from the diagnosis that the connection between mining and
sustainability transitions research is still a “bridge” that needs to be designed and built.
It also responds to calls to extend transitions research towards questions of ethics,
power and the geography (Kö hler et al., 2019). We therefore invite participants to
reflect on the status, the multiple forms, the points of contact and the narratives through
which mining can become a central object of analysis for sustainability transitions

researchers. We particularly welcome contributions that examine dynamics in the
Global South, partly because of the high concentration of mining activity in Latin
America and Africa. Nevertheless, the call is thematically broad and welcomes full
papers and speed talks that offer theoretical, empirical and methodological advances
on the following topics:
1. International and national policies on mining and sustainability
2. Global relations of production and value
3. Mineral markets, supply and demand
4. Mining governance and regulation at national and subnational scales
5. Citizen participation, conflicts and local tensions around mining
6. Innovation and socio-technical change in mining industries
7. Socioenvironmental implications of mineral extraction.

Track conveners
Ivá n Ojeda-Pereira, Department of Social Sciences, LUT School of Engineerign Sciences,
LUT University, Finland. . Will definitely attend conference.
Sebastiá n Herrera-Leó n, Institute of Engineering Sciences, Universidad de O’higgins,
Chile. . Will definitely attend conference.

References
Arias-Loyola, M., Vergara-Perucich, F., & Encinas, F. (2025). Bargaining the dark side? Fragmented
extractivist governance under hybrid political arrangements in the Chilean copper and lithium
industries. Journal of Economic Geography. Retrieved from
https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbaf036
Barandiará n, J. (2019). Lithium and development imaginaries in Chile, Argentina and Bolivia. World
Development, 113, 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.09.019
Bridge, G., & Faigen, E. (2022). Towards the lithium-ion battery production network: Thinking beyond
mineral supply chains. Energy Research & Social Science, 89, 102659.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102659
Dorn, F. M., & Gundermann, H. (2022). Mining companies, indigenous communities, and the state: The
political ecology of lithium in Chile (Salar de Atacama) and Argentina (Salar de Olaroz-Cauchari.
Journal of Political Ecology, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.2458/jpe.5014
Herrera-Leó n, S., Moura-Romero, C., Ojeda-Pereira, I., Rojas-Có rdova, C., Campos-Medina, F., Cruz-Rojas,
C., … Garcé s-Millas, I. (2026). Transició n socioté cnica en la extracció n de Litio en Chile:
Repensando la medició n de la sustentabilidad. In Ediciones Científicas Universidad Católica del
Norte. Ediciones Cientí ficas Universidad Cató lica del Norte.
https://doi.org/10.22199/ATE240017-02
Jamett, N., Herrera-Leó n, S., Miranda-Gonzalez, P. A., Tapia-Ubeda, F. J., Calisaya-Azpilcueta, D., Kraslawski,
A., & Bernal, P. (2026). A review on designing and managing lithium-ion batteries supply chains.
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 28(6), 179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-026-
03527-3
Jerez, B., Garcé s, I., & Torres, R. (2021). Lithium extractivism and water injustices in the Salar de Atacama,
Chile: The colonial shadow of green electromobility. Political Geography, 87, 102382.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2021.102382
Kö hler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., … Wells, P. (2019). An agenda for
sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental
Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004
Lagunas, D., Chambers, J., Hajer, M., & Almeida, D. V. (2027). Securing extractive futures: Unpacking the
EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 62, 101200.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2026.101200
Må nberger, A., & Stenqvist, B. (2018). Global metal flows in the renewable energy transition: Exploring
the effects of substitutes, technological mix and development. Energy Policy, 119, 226–241.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.056
Marí n, A., & Goya, D. (2021). Mining—The dark side of the energy transition. Environmental Innovation
and Societal Transitions, 41, 86–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.09.011
Obaya, M., Ló pez, A., & Pascuini, P. (2021). Curb your enthusiasm. Challenges to the development of
lithium-based linkages in Argentina. Resources Policy, 70, 101912.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101912
Ojeda-Pereira, I., Herrera-Leó n, S., Campos-Medina, F., & Có rdova, C. R. (2026). From fragmented to
integrated sustainability in lithium extraction? Political measurements and critical minerals in
times of sociotechnical transition in Chile. Sustainability Science.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-026-01835-7
Ojeda-Pereira, I., Herrera-Leó n, S., Lufin, M., & Campos-Medina, F. (2026, August 29). Sociotechnical
Transition and Uncertainty in the Lithium Mining Industry: Technologies, Politics and
Transparency. SocArXiv. Retrieved from https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/d2hpe_v3/
Riofrancos, T. (2023). The Security–Sustainability Nexus: Lithium Onshoring in the Global North. Global
Environmental Politics, 23(1), 20–41. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00668
Sefa-Nyarko, C. (2026). Time on hold: Justice, governance, and the politics of transitions in critical mineral
frontiers. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 60, 101119.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2026.101119
Sovacool, B., Ali, S. H., Bazilian, M., Radley, B., Nemery, B., Okatz, J., & Mulvaney, D. (2020). Sustainable
minerals and metals for a low-carbon future. Science, 367(6473), 30–33.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz6003

Sovacool, B. K. (2021). Who are the victims of low-carbon transitions? Towards a political ecology of
climate change mitigation. Energy Research & Social Science, 73, 101916.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.101916
Sovacool, B. K., Hook, A., Martiskainen, M., Brock, A., & Turnheim, B. (2020). The decarbonisation divide:
Contextualizing landscapes of low-carbon exploitation and toxicity in Africa. Global
Environmental Change, 60, 102028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.102028
Unger, C. J., Everingham, J.-A., & Bond, C. J. (2025). Getting it right: Regulating mine rehabilitation and
closure in Australia for the green energy transition and critical minerals boom. Environmental
Innovation and Societal Transitions, 56, 101004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2025.101004
Voskoboynik, D. M., & Andreucci, D. (2022). Greening extractivism: Environmental discourses and
resource governance in the ‘Lithium Triangle’. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space,
5(2), 787–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/25148486211006345

Accordion Content

Accordion Content

Accordion Content

Accordion Content

Accordion Content

Accordion Content

Accordion Content

Accordion Content

Accordion Content

Accordion Content

Accordion Content

Accordion Content

Accordion Content

Accordion Content

Accordion Content