Abstract Non-Technical Summary Electric vehicle (EV) adoption is not determined by technology alone. It also depends on how governments, industries, infrastructure, and public support develop together, while overcoming resistance from established fossil-fuel and automotive interests. Comparing California, Texas, and Michigan, we show why some states have progressed much faster than others. As responsibility for transport decarbonization increasingly shifts to state governments in the United States, our findings highlight the need for policies tailored to local economic, political, and industrial conditions rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. Technical Summary Although socio-technical feedback studies have recently raised increasing interest in understanding the acceleration of sustainability transitions, limited studies can explain why these feedback loops differ across places. Thus, they provide limited explanations for why different places manifest different paces of low-carbon transitions. To address this gap, we develop a framework that links feedback loops with contextual moderators to reflect place-specific feedback dynamics. We identify five reinforcing loops: industrial transformation, technological change, infrastructure investment, behavior change, and environmental legitimacy, with two balancing loops rooted in fossil-fuel resistance and legacy automotive lock-ins. Additionally, we argue that state-level governance capacity and policy orientation perform as contextual moderators shaping the strength and interactions of these feedback loops. We apply our framework to a comparative case study of EV transitions in California, Texas, and Michigan to demonstrate how these feedback dynamics, together with their divergent contextual moderators, impact their different paces of EV transitions. Studying state-level EV transitions in the United States is particularly timely and policy-relevant, considering recent federal rollbacks. Social Media Summary Why do some U.S. states lead in EV transitions? Place-specific governance shapes the pace of change.
Abstract Non-Technical Summary Digital Product Passports (DPPs) could help make products easier to repair, refurbish, and recycle by improving access to information about their materials and life cycle. This study examines their potential across major European product groups, including heat pumps, solar panels, printers, ICT equipment, and batteries. For the EU27, we estimate that DPP-enabled improvements could raise circularity from 14.8% to 45.0%, with substantial material and economic savings. The results provide a practical baseline for assessing how digital tools may support the European transition towards a more circular economy. Technical Summary DPPs are expected to support circular economy strategies by improving information availability across product value chains. Building on the CE-RISE project, we assess their potential contribution to recycling- and refurbishment-related circularity for heat pumps, photovoltaic panels, printers, ICT equipment, and batteries. The analysis combines production and trade statistics, a PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review, and evidence-informed scenario parameterisation. We construct material-flow and circularity indicators for Europe over 2010–2023, distinguish the EU27 from non-EU Europe (Switzerland, Norway, and Türkiye), and quantify a DPP scenario with sensitivity intervals. For the EU27 in 2023, baseline circularity is estimated at 14.8%, compared with 45.0% under the DPP scenario (95% sensitivity interval: 28.6–61.4). This corresponds to potential savings of 2.5 Mt of materials and EUR 27.9 billion (bn), with sensitivity intervals of 1.1–3.8 Mt and EUR 12.7–43.1 bn. We additionally estimate refurbishment-related employment exposure using Eurostat production value per employee in NACE J. The results establish an evidence-informed baseline for evaluating DPP-enabled circularity gains and future policy impacts. Social Media Summary DPPs could raise EU27 circularity from 14.8% to 45.0%, with major material and economic savings.
Abstract Non-Technical Summary EU building policy faces interlinked challenges: issues like the housing crisis and energy poverty persist, while buildings contribute significantly to global resource consumption and related environmental impacts. Resolving these issues may require more than improvements in efficiency and clean technology. Sufficiency offers a complementary strategy – reducing the resource consumption of buildings to what is really needed while ensuring decent living standards for all. Yet, the role of sufficiency in EU building policies remains underexplored. This study assesses how sufficiency is integrated into EU policies, identifying key gaps and opportunities for strengthening it in the building sector. Technical Summary Buildings are responsible for a large share of the EU’s resource consumption and environmental impacts, while access to living space is highly unequal. Technological innovation alone may not adequately address this social-ecological challenge; however, sufficiency offers a complementary solution. Most research on sufficiency policy for buildings examines national or subnational policies, leaving the EU level underexplored, while studies on policy mixes rarely assess the built environment in an EU context. Our study addresses these gaps by providing, to the best of our knowledge, the first investigation into how sufficiency is integrated into EU policies for the built environment. We use content analysis, applying a conceptual framework for sufficiency with four dimensions: reduced consumption, environmental sustainability, behavioural and lifestyle change, and equitable welfare. The findings indicate that the EU policy mix for buildings incorporates measures in all four sufficiency dimensions, although the social aspects are acknowledged to a lesser extent. Most measures remain technical, but some exceptions align more with existing suggestions for sufficiency policy. Still, we spot significant gaps in the policy mix. This highlights the potential for the EU to adopt sufficiency principles by strengthening existing measures and combining them with more ambitious approaches. Social Media Summary An analysis of EU building policies through the lens of sufficiency: balancing environmental goals and societal needs.
Abstract Non-technical summary This commentary responds to the argument advanced by Geels that technical innovations are more likely than social innovations to accelerate sustainability action and transformative change. Drawing on a comparison between sustainability transition and transformation theories, the article argues that these conceptualizations come with different strengths and limitations, and therefore, they should be considered distinct analytical traditions serving different purposes but also having the capacity to complement each other. In terms of implications, the comparison suggests that responding to sustainability challenges requires sustained societal commitment to advancing both technical and social innovations, rather than an overreliance on technological acceleration alone. Technical summary This commentary responds to Geels’s argument that technical innovations are more likely than social innovations to accelerate change toward more sustainable practices, and that socio-technical transition theory is more compatible for analyzing such change than transformation approaches. It argues that sustainability transitions and sustainability transformations are distinct analytical traditions with different purposes. First, theoretical focus: transition scholarship foregrounds innovation dynamics, sectoral reconfiguration, and governance, whereas transformation scholarship foregrounds deeper system-wide change and the conditions under which societies reorganize. Second, spatial–temporal orientation: transitions research excels at reconstructing how change unfolds over time, while transformation research typically adopts a prospective, cross-scale orientation linking change to wider systemic challenges. Third, approaches to sustainability change differ: transitions research explains mechanisms but offers less guidance for judging whether outcomes are sufficient, whereas transformation research more readily invokes sustainability reference frames to evaluate adequacy. These differences can be complementary if terminology, analytical reference points, and the aims of the analysis are explicit. The commentary concludes that clearer evaluative criteria are needed to connect debates about acceleration to adequacy relative to sustainability goals, and that effective responses require sustained societal investment in both technical and social innovation. Social media summary Sustainability transitions and transformations are different but complementary ways to understanding systems’ change.
Abstract Non-Technical Summary European climate plans call for a doubling of onshore wind capacity by 2030, yet over the last 15 years growth has largely stagnated – contradicting technology diffusion theories that predict smooth acceleration until a substantial share of the market is reached. We show that early slowdowns in large countries were associated with the withdrawal or weakening of policy support, while reinstating support and higher electricity prices drove reaccelerations. Despite these pulses, the average deployment pace remained steady and below the first peak rate. Current targets aim for historical peak speeds, but forecasts revert to long-run rates, suggesting persistent limits that only sustained policy effort can overcome. Technical Summary Mainstream theories predict S-shaped technology growth with a single peak followed by slowdown, but recent literature has observed low-carbon technologies often departing from this pattern. We systematically show that over four decades, onshore wind trajectories in 16 of the 18 largest European Union countries have strongly deviated from S-curve expectations. Initial acceleration ended at just 2% of capacity potential (Interquartile range: 1–4%) or 4% of electricity (IQR: 1.5–6%), coinciding with the withdrawal or weakening of policy support. In 14 countries, the first slowdown was followed by secondary and sometimes tertiary reacceleration, forming distinct growth pulses, with peak growth rates at subsequent pulses statistically similar to the first. Pre-2021 reacceleration closely followed the reinstating or introduction of support schemes, while several post-2020 pulses were likely driven by better market conditions. Over the full period, the cruising speed – average additions after the first peak – was about one-quarter below the peak rate. National 2030 targets require growth close to historical peaks, yet the latest forecasts converge on the cruising speed. Germany is the sole outlier, consistent with unprecedented institutional reforms beyond financial incentives. Our multi-segment growth model, combined with growth metrics and policy mapping, can be extended to other policy-driven technologies. Social Media Summary Policy-driven technologies grow in pulses, not S-curves. Despite higher 2030 targets, EU wind expands at unchanged speed.
