Valuing the wider benefits of net zero
Conceptual foundations of new assessment frameworks in the United Kingdom
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 13066174 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Joshua Lait (0009-0004-1217-6561, University of Sussex, corresponding author), Timothy J Foxon (0000-0002-3095-5989, University of Sussex), Carly Mclachlan (Tyndall Centre), Andrew Sudmant (0000-0001-8650-8419, University of Edinburgh) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 131 |
| Pages | 104516-104516 |
| Publication date | 2025-12-29 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Energy Research & Social Science (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2214-6296 • E-ISSN: 2214-6326 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.erss.2025.104516 |
| OpenAlex | W7117455007 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 33 |
Highlighting the wider economic, social, and environmental benefits of climate change mitigation can strengthen the investment case for action, support policy coordination, and enhance political feasibility. In the United Kingdom (UK), new assessment frameworks and tools are emerging to better recognise these co-benefits in national net-zero pathways, municipal policy processes, and public procurement. Yet limited attention has been paid to how the conceptual foundations of these tools may reinforce – or challenge – market-led logics in energy policy. The values embedded within assessment frameworks shape policymaking by determining how benefits are prioritised and valued. Drawing on a review of 28 assessment frameworks and 27 expert interviews, this paper examines how co-benefit appraisal practices are shaping the governance of the UK's transition to net zero. First, we show that the dominant approach, quantitative economic valuation, tends to support and legitimise a market-based view of this transition. Second, frameworks can treat coordination primarily as a pragmatic policy problem rather than a conceptual issue relating to the need for holistic governance models which are aligned with human and planetary limits. Third, while policymakers combine assessment methods to produce evidence relevant to different audiences, this pragmatic view of political feasibility can obscure the political question of whose values and interests should influence policy design and evaluation. We argue that applying multiple methods through a well-being economic paradigm reframes co-benefit assessment as a moral and political practice which can identify socially just and ecologically responsible forms of energy system change
Conceptual framework · Corporate governance · Energy policy · Energy transition · Impact assessment · Investment (military · Policy analysis · Politics · Public policy · Climate Change Policy and Economics · Social Acceptance of Renewable Energy · Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
Keep it complex
Climate policy co-benefits
Revisiting the social cost of carbon
Co-benefits of addressing climate change can motivate action around the world
Measuring the Co-Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation
The (Co)Benefits Portal—an evidence-based and climate policy-relevant tool for decision-making
Beyond cost and carbon
Increasing wellbeing through energy demand reduction for net zero
The acceleration of low-carbon transitions
Welfare, development, and cost-efficiency
Much broader than health
Balancing energy transition
Climate policy as social policy? A comprehensive assessment of the economic impact of climate action in the UK
Integrative environmental governance
Human well‐being and climate change mitigation
The science and politics of co-benefits in climate policy
Coping with decarbonisation
Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects
A good life for all within planetary boundaries
Evaluation, Policy Learning and Evidence-Based Policy Making
The Economic Effects of Climate Change
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |