Initial findings from new InfluenceMap research indicate that corporate communications around the term "just transition" are generally misaligned with international framework definitions from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and International Labour Organization (ILO). This suggests that influential companies and industry groups may be risking both the energy transition1 and its just implementation. Looking at climate-related communications by entities within the LobbyMap database from 2022 through 2024, InfluenceMap finds that the majority of engagement with the term is either vague or counter to the energy transition, such that:
11% of communications used just transition language to argue for an extended role for fossil fuels in the energy mix;
20% of communications involved some detailed engagement, with support for the steps required to meaningfully implement a just transition.
Though the just transition is increasingly becoming a focus within climate and energy policy discussions—including at COP30’s Thematic Days dedicated to justice—it is receiving alarmingly low levels of government investment, with recent ActionAid research finding that only 2.8% of multilateral climate mitigation funding has been directed toward supporting a just transition.
At a critical time, widespread nonspecific corporate reference to the just transition, combined with some incumbent industries’ use of the term to promote fossil fuel use, could dilute its meaning. This risk is apparent: the International Gas Union (IGU), which claims to represent 90% of the global gas market, stated in a September 2021 press release that “natural gas is and will continue to be the catalyst for and foundation of a more sustainable global energy system, energizing a just transition.” Prior InfluenceMap research reveals IGU’s explicit strategy to deploy pro-fossil gas narratives globally—it is possible that similar fossil fuel industry efforts to adopt just transition language to delay climate action are already underway. In aggregate, most use of “Just Transition” in current corporate communications may be distracting from efforts to protect and promote workers' and communities' interests in the rapid transition away from fossil fuels.
InfluenceMap will release more detailed analysis and findings from a larger dataset of engagement with the term “just transition” across 2018–2024 in the coming months.
InfluenceMap will release more detailed analysis and findings from a larger dataset of engagement with the term “just transition” across 2018–2024 in the coming months.
InfluenceMap examined corporate and industry engagement with the term “just transition” in the context of the energy transition by conducting a narrative analysis of the website communications of over 300 companies and industry groups globally in the LobbyMap database that used the term. All mentions of the term “just transition” on websites over the 2018–2024 period were compiled using a data scraper that picked up 3,549 potential evidence pieces. These were subsequently coded based on assigned narrative codes that InfluenceMap developed using definitions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Labour Organization (ILO). Any non-English evidence that was picked up was excluded from the final analysis, as were any irrelevant instances of engagement.2 Entities tended to use multiple of these narratives, highlighting the inconsistent nature of corporate engagement with the term “just transition.” The analysis below summarizes preliminary findings from the 2022–2024 data, but InfluenceMap’s forthcoming briefing will cover the entire dataset.
The table below describes the narrative codes that InfluenceMap developed for this analysis.3
| Narrative Code | Definition | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Promoting Fossil Fuels | Leveraging Just Transition language to advocate for the continued use of fossil fuels, in contrast to IPCC/ILO definitions | “A Just Transition: Governments need to accelerate construction of the low-carbon energy system while, at the same time, ensuring adequate oil and gas investments to secure energy supplies through the transition” - Shell, 2024 Energy Security Scenarios report |
| Name Dropping | Mentioning the Just Transition in passing, without the entity clarifying its understanding of the concept | “Ensuring that there is a Just Transition is paramount.” - AngloAmerican, 2023 report |
| Broad Reference | Referencing the Just Transition either in policy or operations, without clear details on the timelines and actions for both energy transition and social protection aspects | “We believe the transition to a low-carbon future needs to be just.” - Uniper, “Just Transition” webpage |
| Supporting Complementary Measures | Expressing a detailed understanding of the Just Transition, with clear support both for an urgent transition away from fossil fuels in the energy mix and complementary regulatory or operational measures to ensure social protections | “Ingka Group urges all governments to… set targets and timelines for the phase-out of fossil fuels in line with 1.5°C, supported by national plans and policies to ensure a just transition for affected workers and communities. Wealthier countries have the responsibility to be first movers and support other countries in their efforts.” - IKEA, November 2023 press release |
Analyzing the 1,532 evidence pieces from 2022–2024 out of the wider dataset, InfluenceMap finds the following broad patterns (see Figure 1 below for a visualization):
The majority of company and industry group communications that referenced “just transition” (approximately 69% of the resulting dataset) did not meaningfully engage with the term, landing in either the Name Dropping (29%) or Broad Reference (40%) categories. The energy sector appears to lead this overreliance on high-level language, accounting for over a fifth of engagement across both categories. The lack of practical and technical details on what is required for a just transition, especially from the sector at the center of the energy transition, risks undermining stakeholder understanding of the term.
20% of the dataset consisted of communication that engaged with the term “just transition” in a meaningful way, expressing clear urgency to both transition away from fossil fuels in line with IPCC timelines and ensure social protections for vulnerable workers and communities. Further inspection of this data highlights reasons for caution. First, companies that have discussed “just transition” in a meaningful way do not always communicate consistently on the topic. For example, companies may engage with the term infrequently or deploy it on separate occasions alongside narratives that promote fossil fuels. Second, the LobbyMap platform finds that some of these companies otherwise advocate against science-aligned policy pathways to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. These tensions may suggest that such companies have a stake in the benefits of a just transition for their employees and businesses, yet treat it as a secondary priority to promoting their immediate interests in fossil fuels. InfluenceMap will investigate this dynamic in future research on the topic.
11% of the dataset leverages the term “just transition” to advocate for continued or expanded use of fossil fuels. InfluenceMap finds that the energy and utilities sectors are the most prominent in this category. In their discussion of a just transition, these entities employ a series of sub-narratives closely tied to the fossil fuel playbook (outlined in InfluenceMap’s July 2024 report on the oil & gas industry’s historical use of narratives since 1967). According to the dataset, the most common sub-narratives within this category attempt to label fossil fuels as a “just transition” fuel and emphasize that fossil fuels are necessary for energy security and affordability.
Overall, these trends indicate a lack of robust corporate and industry engagement with the just transition. As governments, unions, and NGOs work to outline the details of a just transition—including at COP30—they should further interrogate high-level corporate references to a just transition that lack detail, as well as efforts by obstructive industry actors to co-opt just transition language to slow the energy transition and promote fossil fuels.
1 InfluenceMap assessed corporate and industry engagement on the term “just transition” within the context of the energy transition. Engagement with the term strictly within the context of food systems or circular economy, for example, was excluded from the final analysis.
2 Using two rounds of analysis on corporate websites at the end of 2023 and 2024, respectively, InfluenceMap examined the use of the term “just transition” across webpages and the resources held there, including sustainability reports and posted press releases. In some cases, webpages that were in the first round (2023) no longer existed by the second round (2024), perhaps reflecting recent corporate retreat from DEI/justice-related statements in their public communications. (InfluenceMap plans to fully investigate this potential trend in further analysis of this dataset). As such, the 2023 and 2024 metrics may represent webpages that were historically on company and industry association websites, but were taken down or changed in 2025 to no longer reference the just transition.
