This presentation arises from the agreements reached between the institutions that make up this Working Group on the socio-environmental crisis at the Forum "Just Transitions in Tension. Dilemmas and Possible Horizons in Contexts of Crisis of the Commons", developed at the X Latin American and Caribbean Conference of Social Sciences: Horizons and Transformations for Equality. Democracies, Resistances, Communities, Rights and Peace.

In this phase, we aim to consolidate the work carried out in previous periods and strengthen ourselves as an interinstitutional, intercultural, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary network at the Latin American and Caribbean level. Our goal is to continue advancing the production of knowledge about the socio-environmental crisis and to strengthen our connections through projects and/or activities with workers' organizations (unions and popular movements), environmental organizations, civil society in general, responsible businesses, and government entities. Our objective is to develop proposals for a just transition toward integral ecology.

The institutions that make up this Working Group take as a critical reference point and guiding principle the ideas expressed by Pope Francis, primarily in his encyclicals. These ideas have also inspired other international, regional, and national organizations, giving rise to the question of how to rebuild what we share in common.

The ecological crisis of our Common Home manifests itself in two aspects: the environmental and the social. The social crisis is primarily correlated with the transformations that quality production and work have been undergoing for decades (ILO, 2019). And, as a result of the logic of plunder and waste, it manifests itself in the form of unemployment and structural informality in Latin America and the Caribbean (CUDA, 2020).

The environmental crisis manifests itself as climate change and energy crisis, putting life on the planet at risk of extinction due to unsustainable interventions on ecosystems, and whose matrix lies in the dominant and globalized technocratic paradigm to sustain extraordinary profit rates (Dussel, 2003).

There is ample evidence of the risk of civilizational collapse (UNDP, 2020), as well as numerous recommendations from the UN 2030 Agenda and the ILO regarding the importance of decent work and addressing the socio-environmental crisis with an emphasis on inequalities. However, a conservative backlash, articulated by the far right in the region, is willing to deny the socio-environmental crisis, blame the most vulnerable sectors for social inequalities, and disseminate hate speech.

In this context, Pope Francis's encyclicals Laudato Si' (2015), Fratelli Tutti (2020), and Dilexit nos (2024), along with the contributions of Enrique Dussel, have emphasized the three ruptures that constitute the crisis of the commons: the rupture of the bond with others, the rupture of the bond with nature, and the rupture of the bond with interiority. Dussel points to the technocratic paradigm as a rationality that tends to reify relationships.

One of the key tools for rebuilding relationships is social dialogue, as a concrete expression of the democratic politics needed to overcome polarized tensions. Our starting point is a critical reception of this international agenda and opening it up to dialogue with social actors and their experiences.

As a tool for social dialogue, the just transition is an internationally recognized approach whose potential lies in understanding that the current scenario requires a balance between the organization of production and work, forms of consumption, environmental impact, and technological change.

The notion of a just transition emerged from the US labor movement in the 1970s in response to the layoffs of workers during the phase-out of polluting industries to contribute to environmental improvement. The first mention of a just transition as a planned policy is attributed to US labor leader Tony Mazzocchi, who called for a fund that would offer opportunities and financial support for higher education to workers who lost their jobs due to environmental protection policies (ILO, 2018).

The term "Just Transition" continued to be used in various documents by regional trade union organizations until June 2010, when the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) included it as a strategy for sustainable development. A significant step forward was the inclusion of the concept in the final agreement of the United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Cancún in December 2010 (UNFCCC, 2010). Finally, the concept was recognized in the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2015) as a strategy for transitioning to sustainable development.

The just transition approach implies that environmental and labor priorities are based on shared interests and the transitional approach is based on cooperation between companies, states and trade unions at a negotiating table (ILO, 2018).

Just transition policies refer to measures aimed at transforming the economic structure into one that is carbon-neutral (or low-carbon), environmentally friendly, and socially inclusive through decent work. To avert climate disaster and foster a sustainable and inclusive economic recovery, multi-sectoral and democratic policy instruments are essential.

These policy instruments and social dialogues provide a perspective that allows us to consider, in a situated manner, the processes of inclusion and decarbonization based on existing experiences in Latin America and the Caribbean. Thus, the concept of a "just transition" must be properly contextualized according to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (Rio Declaration, 1992), taking into account the ecological debt. The industrialized countries of the Global North and their corporations have generated the majority of cumulative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions since the Industrial Revolution, profiting from the intensive use of fossil fuels and the exploitation of raw materials and biodiversity in the Global South.

A just transition must necessarily include the category of "socio-environmental justice." This means that countries in the Global North must commit to undertaking the greatest mitigation efforts and financing the necessary adaptations in countries of the Global South, without generating more debt for them (Conferences and Councils of Catholic Bishops of Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean and Asia, 2025). In the context of a just transition, ecological debt is not only a moral claim but also an approach to guide climate policies based on criteria of reparation and compensation for losses and damages.

Latin America and the Caribbean face a significant challenge regarding their productive profile. The question arises as to whether it is possible to move beyond a purely extractive model or one dependent on low-value raw materials and shift towards higher value-added chains within this framework of a just transition (ECLAC, 2023). Many Latin American countries possess reserves of key minerals and other natural resources essential for this transition, but this also creates tensions about avoiding a return to "green" extractivism. For example, there are risks associated with pressures on water resources, electricity generation for data centers, mining in relation to the production of electric vehicles and batteries, and conflicts with local communities.

The importance of the concept of just transition lies in the fact that a time-honored debate is taking place around it, which involves discussing the social relations of production and consumption in the current phase of capitalism (Alvarez Newman and Gil Espinosa, 2023).

Faced with such magnitude, there seems to be an unusual consensus. Various actors, such as international and national organizations, academia, socio-environmental movements, and even corporations, are using the concept of a just transition. In response, Edgardo Lander (2023) warns against the conceptual frauds emanating from the centers of power that are shaping the crisis and that, at the same time, are seeking solutions that maintain the status quo or prevent any alteration of power relations. This conceptual framework, which he calls corporate-colonial, is presented as a solution to the crisis within a dominant framework.

To put it simply, we can identify two main positions regarding the concept of just transitions. The technocratic perspective encompasses a set of proposals primarily from business corporations and some of the countries that bear a high responsibility for emissions.

These corporations, along with some international organizations, have shaped a hegemonic narrative on climate change where solutions remain within the sphere of the market under the guise of the green economy. Sustainability reports from these companies include categories such as green economy, decarbonization, and energy transition, which fail to adequately account for the dynamics of capital. Rather, these narratives tend to reduce the discussion to quantitative indicators, which are largely unmet, such as the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the use of reusable inputs, and the treatment of water and waste.

On the other hand, this concept is used critically from what we call a socio-environmental perspective. That is, perspectives that focus beyond the market and propose a profound structural change in the mode of production and consumption, where environmental justice and social justice are addressed as part of the same phenomenon (Svampa, 2023). This position is supported by a variety of narratives from labor and environmental activism, social movements and other non-governmental organizations, academics, and sectors of the church.

The social face of the collapse is found in the configuration of the new social question, a moment when the working class, in addition to being exploited, began to be discarded and excluded from the labor market (Castel, 1995; Rosanvallon, 1996). The breakdown of the Fordist regulatory apparatus opened a process of business modernization (Figari, 2001) that modified the pre-existing socio-labor order, shaping the phenomenon of flexibilization (Sennett, 2000).

Flexibility has become a corporate truth in the business world. We define it as a mechanism that organizes labor practices by readjusting organizational, technological, and legal instruments to promote the reduction of labor costs and greater productive use of the workforce (Alvarez Newman, 2018). Neoliberalism, in its eagerness to eliminate all limitations or regulations on capital accumulation, has exacerbated the socio-environmental problem.

As a Working Group, we consider the debate over meaning and the development of a narrative that synthesizes all critical positions surrounding a just transition to be of vital importance. Our working hypothesis is as follows: “From the perspective of just transitions, the multiple contradictions expressed in the current polycrisis of capitalism are overdetermined by practices of exploitation, plunder, and the disposal of bodies and nature. These practices are rooted in processes of capital valorization sustained by a technocratic rationality.”

The use of the term polycrisis has proliferated recently, also with many different meanings. Adam Tooze (2022), who popularized it especially after his writings for the World Economic Forum, posits that it is a set of distinct crises that interact in such a way that they and/or their effects tend to reinforce each other. Pandemics, energy disruptions, financial fragility, climate change, and geopolitical tensions interact, forming a web of crises that, instead of occurring in isolation, are interconnected, making the global system fragile and unpredictable.

One of the most interesting aspects of this term is that it highlights the diversity of tensions without a single dominant contradiction, attempting to escape what the author calls "capitalocentrism" (Tooze, 2022). In other words, in addition to the problem of the dynamics of capital accumulation, there are many other dimensions and dynamics at play.

Again, this concept should be approached with caution. While it is useful for avoiding monocausal explanations and promoting interconnected analyses, the Working Group advocates for a situated analysis from and for Latin America and the Caribbean. Our hypothesis yields four dimensions for rethinking the polycrisis: the classic capital-labor contradiction; coloniality in social relations of production and consumption; the environmental crisis; and gender inequalities.

Within the context of the polycrisis, the technocratic paradigm emerges as an epistemic framework that presents false solutions (Pope Francis, 2015). This paradigm is a dominant and one-dimensional ideology that considers the progress of technoscience, driven by economic gain, to be the key to solving the main problems of humanity and the environment (Alvarez Newman and Gil Espinosa, 2024). In other words, as long as there is profitability, there will be possible technological solutions.

In the face of the technocratic paradigm, questions arise regarding the possibility of carrying out the necessary socio-environmental reforms toward an integral ecology. We know what doesn't work and what is wrong, but there is no clarity on how to navigate the times ahead (García Linera, 2022). It becomes necessary to construct narratives about our future from a popular perspective.

To this end, our Working Group emphasizes social dialogue as a tool for political construction and a just transition. In this edition of the Working Group, we will work jointly with the Pontifical Commission for Latin America (PCAL) on the Building Bridges Program. This initiative seeks to promote social dialogue to build bridges of inclusion, reconciliation, and fraternity in academic spaces and with unions, social movements, responsible businesses, and government entities.

This initiative reflects the commitment of over 200 rectors of public and private universities in Latin America and the Caribbean who participated in the meeting held on September 21, 2023, with Pope Francis to rebuild our common home. "Recovering and organizing hope" was one of the key themes of that meeting, in relation to the challenges facing the university system in the context of the socio-environmental crisis.

Our work plan will be directly related to the following guidelines:

Continue the production of knowledge regarding the just transition, with special emphasis on the notions of polycrisis, technocratic paradigm and integral ecology.

Connecting with just transition experiences towards integral ecology from third sector organizations, responsible companies and government entities.

To propose alternative public policies, together with the actors, capable of contributing to overcoming the socio-environmental crisis.