Despite the ethical stance of new energy proponents, solar installations can, like any large-scale investments, be drivers of violent socio-political and socio-economic conflict in fragile contexts. This poses risks both to people and to successful implementation of a green transition. We first review how “green” energy investments can turn “red” through their entanglement in the political economy of conflict. We then empirically analyze the conflict impact of solar projects using a geospatial panel dataset. Employing propensity score panel matching in a subnational research design, we show that commercial-scale solar projects in the 104 countries characterized as fragile contexts at some point between 1994–2020, on average, cause an increase in deaths from conflict in the year following the project start in their local project area. Conflict escalation is driven by sentiment towards elites, underlining the propensity of these projects to undermine social cohesion. Given the ethical deficiency of outcomes that further burden the already poor and vulnerable, these results call for greater accountability for conflict risk assessment and mitigation by green financiers, the companies they fund, green energy advocates, and policy makers together embedded in a too narrow view of the ethical landscape of the green transition.
Geopolitical shocks complicate climate governance and may heighten climate vulnerability, but the magnitude, channels, and the offsetting role of green policy remain unclear. In this context, this study uses panel data for 41 countries from 1995 to 2021 and uses the European Green Deal (EGD) as a policy example to examine how policy intervention shapes the relationship between geopolitical risk and climate vulnerability, employing a two-way fixed-effects model. The main findings are: (1) geopolitical risk exacerbates climate vulnerability, primarily through negative impacts on food, water, health, and ecosystems; (2) the green transition and green investment effectively mitigate the adverse impact of geopolitical risk on climate vulnerability; and (3) by reinforcing these transition and investment channels, the EGD further reduces climate vulnerability associated with geopolitical conflicts. Based on these findings, policy should speed the green transition, mobilize private capital, and strengthen regional coordination to reduce the impact of geopolitical conflicts and enhance climate resilience.
The organization of aggregated scientific and innovative capabilities into “Science Cities” (SCs) has emerged as a prominent feature of innovation policy in the knowledge-based economy. Yet, as an intellectual project, SC research remains fragmented, with its conceptual evolution deeply intertwined with broader societal shifts and its rising prominence as a growth strategy in diverse regional contexts. This fragmentation underscores the value of a comprehensive examination of its research trends and global landscape. Accordingly, this paper employs an evolutionary approach to analyze SCs, aiming to explore the dynamic interplay between practical developments and theoretical advancements in macro-level contexts. This is achieved through a bibliometric analysis of 1585 articles from the Web of Science (WoS) database, using VOSviewer and CiteSpace software, to map key thematic shifts and geographic trends. These findings are then complemented by a systematic review of 35 pivotal articles, which focuses on the evolving relationship between SC practice and theory across three distinct phases. Our analysis seeks to trace the evolution of SCs from practice-driven initiatives to complex innovation ecosystems, in order to offer insights into their development and suggest potential avenues for future research.
The development of the Common European Energy Data Space (CEEDS) emerges as a pillar to enable secure, interoperable, trusted, and resilient data exchange among stakeholders of the European energy system. We study the potentials for the CEEDS from an energy infrastructure perspective. We focus on the improvement of operational processes, reducing barriers to entry and to data exchanges, utilising AI-driven analytics, new cross-sectoral processes, and flexibility. Recent innovative projects and solutions implemented, show promising and relevant potential for the implementation of the CEEDS in the energy sector. However, there are still not enough empirical analyses of the impact of real-life energy data space initiatives, which are essential for implementing these large-scale solutions.
Evaluation is central to science, technology, and innovation (STI) systems, shaping the allocation of recognition, resources, and career opportunities. A widely held assumption is that evaluation processes, such as awards, grants, and fellowships, approximate underlying merit, although in a somewhat biased and/or noisy manner. This Research Brief challenges that assumption. Drawing on social choice theory and insights from the political economy of science, it argues that collective evaluation of complex, multidimensional research outputs cannot reliably produce stable or coherent rankings of “quality.” Instead, outcomes emerge from structurally constrained aggregation processes, committee dynamics, and strategic considerations. Awards and similar recognitions should therefore be understood as low-resolution, path-dependent signals that reflect a combination of quality, visibility, institutional positioning, and political alignment. The Brief outlines implications for how evaluation outcomes are interpreted, how researchers respond to them, and how STI systems might be designed to mitigate distortions.
