Achieving climate justice: addressing disparities and enhancing equity in global climate policies

Highlights

• Explores colonial legacies shaping modern climate governance.
• Stresses community-led approaches for inclusive climate policymaking.
• Presents examples of localized, adaptive climate strategies.
• Advocates cross-sector collaboration for equitable climate solutions.
• Calls for equity to uplift marginalized communities and enhance resilience.

1 Introduction

Global climate policy increasingly embraces climate justice as a framework for achieving fairness and equity when addressing the diverse impacts of climate change. This perspective recognizes that while vulnerable communities often contribute little to global emissions, they disproportionately bear the adverse consequences of climate change (Diezmartínez and Gianotti, 2022; Perkiss, 2024). Viewing climate change as fundamentally a social and ethical challenge, rather than solely an environmental issue, compels a critical examination of entrenched disparities and power imbalances within existing governance structures (Han and Ahn, 2020; Round and Visseren-Hamakers, 2022).

Historically, climate policies have frequently marginalized socio-economically disadvantaged groups, deepening environmental injustices in regions, especially developing nations, with limited capacity for adaptation (Gallagher and Holloway, 2022). The local impacts of climate change, such as the degradation of agricultural lands and resources, underscore the need for a nuanced understanding of justice that accounts for varied vulnerabilities (Iglesias et al., 2011; Schlosberg and Collins, 2014). Although international frameworks are gradually acknowledging climate justice, prevailing policy approaches have tended to prioritize economic efficiency and technological solutions, often sidelining the participation and needs of those most affected (Tutak et al., 2021; Bulkeley and Betsill, 2013; Munenzon, 2024). This shortfall underscores the importance of transformative, participatory governance that incorporates local knowledge and community-based strategies (Khanal et al., 2024a; Dobai and Riemer, 2023).

Climate justice integrates environmental sustainability, human rights, and social equity by illustrating that climate change is not solely an environmental issue but also a social justice challenge, as marginalized communities, including racial and ethnic minorities, low-income groups, and Indigenous populations suffer disproportionately despite their minimal contribution to its causes (Shonkoff et al., 2011; Hayes et al., 2018). Studies show these groups face greater exposure to extreme weather, pollution, and systemic inequities in healthcare and economic opportunities (Joseph and Doon, 2023; Berberian et al., 2022), underscoring the need for policies that extend beyond greenhouse gas mitigation to ensure equitable resource distribution and community participation (Wild et al., 2025). Furthermore, by revealing that those least responsible for emissions bear the greatest burdens (Sasser, 2023; Bulkeley et al., 2013) and highlighting local disparities observed in contexts such as Nigeria (Oramah and Olsen, 2021) alongside the heightened vulnerabilities of Indigenous peoples, racial minorities, women, and impoverished communities (Sasser, 2023; Arifin et al., 2023), a climate justice framework offers a path to redress historical injustices while building resilient, inclusive societies.

Achieving effective climate justice also demands comprehensive systemic reforms that consider the intersectionality of social, economic, and environmental challenges. For example, the convergence of gender-based inequalities, which limit women's access to resources and decision-making opportunities (Khanal et al., 2023), with the threats faced by indigenous communities regarding their traditional lands (Mattar et al., 2021) necessitates policy responses that foster both climate mitigation and social equity (Zavala et al., 2024; Upadhyay and Bastola, 2024). Moreover, integrating underexplored dimensions such as mental health, reproductive justice, and health vulnerabilities (Sasser, 2023; Dunk et al., 2016; Polonik et al., 2023), alongside addressing global power imbalances and the links between biodiversity conservation and ecosystem resilience (Meshkani, 2024; Vasiliev, 2022; Malherbe and Oladejo, 2024), is essential for crafting policies that are both just and effective.

In light of these challenges, this paper critically examines gaps in the climate justice discourse by exploring how systemic disparities, rooted in historical injustices and socio-economic imbalances, can be remedied within policy frameworks. While existing literature calls for equity, it rarely analyzes the interplay of distributive, procedural, and recognition-based justice (Perkiss, 2024; Pollex, 2024; Haque, 2024) or robustly integrates the voices of marginalized communities. In the realm of climate justice, the concepts of equity, distributive justice, procedural justice, and recognition-based justice are pivotal for addressing disparities in global climate policies, as they provide the ethical foundation and frameworks for equitable environmental governance. Equity entails the fair allocation of resources and responsibilities among diverse populations, ensuring that marginalized communities disproportionately affected by climate change have equal access to the benefits of climate actions (Arifin et al., 2023; Oramah and Olsen, 2021). Distributive justice focuses on the equitable sharing of the benefits and burdens of climate change mitigation and adaptation, redressing historical injustices, particularly in low-income communities (Nguyễn, 2023; Babatunde, 2020). Procedural justice emphasizes the need for inclusive decision-making processes that actively involve affected communities through transparent and participatory approaches (Barkai and Winkler, 2024; Chen et al., 2024), while recognition-based justice demands the acknowledgment and respect of diverse identities and experiences, integrating indigenous rights and local knowledge systems into global strategies (Imam and Tijjani, 2024; Sengupta, 2023). Incorporating these four dimensions into climate policy frameworks is essential for advancing a just transition that addresses the uneven impacts of climate change and promotes fairness, inclusivity, and respect across all communities (Pratt, 2022, 2023).

Accordingly, this study aims to address pressing disparities in global climate policies by advancing equity and achieving climate justice through active engagement with historically marginalized groups. Specifically, the research objectives are: (1) to explore the multifaceted dimensions of climate justice and identify key disparities within current policy frameworks by examining the gap between political rhetoric and the lived realities of diverse communities; (2) to propose targeted, inclusive policy modifications that redress historical injustices and ensure effective, just climate governance; and (3) to analyze successful illustrations of community-led initiatives, offering practical, evidence-based frameworks for bottom-up systemic change.

Following this introduction, the paper proceeds through six interconnected sections. Section 2, “Methodology,” describes the systematic review protocol adopted from Haldar et al. (2023), detailing the search strategy in Web of Science and Google Scholar (Section 2.1), the screening and eligibility process that narrowed 1,124 records to 94 studies (Section 2.2), and the manual, hybrid deductive-inductive data extraction and thematic synthesis conducted in Microsoft Excel (Section 2.3). Section 3, “Dimensions of climate justice,” synthesizes how distributive, procedural, and recognition-based justice are articulated in the literature and bridges theory and practice through illustrative case examples. Section 4, “Climate policy inequities,” critically evaluates empirical evidence on how global frameworks and local policies perpetuate or mitigate inequities, exposing gaps in resource allocation, decision-making, and recognition of marginalized communities. Section 5, “Challenges and strategic pathways,” identifies systemic barriers such as colonial legacies and sectoral silos and offers actionable recommendations for inclusive policy design, community engagement, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Finally, Section 6, “Conclusion,” synthesizes the key findings, reflects on the gap between political rhetoric and lived experiences, and charts a clear roadmap for future research and policy innovation toward resilient, sustainable, and equitable climate governance.

2 Methodology

This section details the systematic literature review approach adopted, drawing on the protocol of Haldar et al. (2023) to investigate how distributive, procedural, and recognition-based justice principles have been integrated into global climate policies. The sub-sections are organized as follows: Section 2.1 describes the search strategy; Section 2.2 outlines the screening and eligibility process; Section 2.3 presents data extraction and thematic synthesis. Figure 1 illustrates the full review process.

2.1 Search strategy

Informed by the systematic review protocol of Haldar et al. (2023), comprehensive searches were conducted in Web of Science and Google Scholar to capture peer-reviewed literature examining how distributive, procedural, and recognition justice have been integrated into global climate policy. The search string combined core justice terms, “climate justice,” “social equity,” and “global climate polic^*” with equity-related concepts such as “colonial legacies,” “participatory governance,” and “community engagement.” To focus on high-quality evidence, the query was limited to articles and reviews published in English between 2000 and 2024 and confined the subject areas to Social Sciences, Environmental Studies, and Political Science. The full search expression was: (TITLE-ABS-KEY(“climate justice” OR “social equity” OR “global climate polic^*”)) AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY(“colonial legacies” OR “participatory governance” OR “community engagement”)) AND (LIMIT-TO(DOCTYPE, “ar”) OR LIMIT-TO(DOCTYPE, “re”)) AND (LIMIT-TO(LANGUAGE, “English”)) AND (PUBYEAR > 1999 AND PUBYEAR < 2025). This strategy yielded 672 records from Web of Science and 452 records from Google Scholar, for a total of 1,124 titles and abstracts that formed the initial corpus for screening (see Figure 1 for an overview of the review workflow).

2.2 Screening and eligibility

Following the four-phase screening protocol of Haldar et al. (2023), the 1,124 records were first deduplicated, removing 104 repeats to yield 1,020 unique entries. A title, abstract, and keyword screening was then conducted to identify studies explicitly engaging with distributive, procedural, or recognition justice in global climate policy. This step excluded 720 articles that did not meet the focus criteria, leaving 300 for in-depth review. During the full text eligibility assessment, each of the 300 articles was evaluated for empirical or theoretical treatment of at least one justice dimension. Of these, 206 lacked a clear justice framing and were excluded, resulting in 94 studies that satisfied all inclusion criteria. Figure 1 provides a visual overview of this entire screening and eligibility workflow.

2.3 Data extraction and thematic synthesis

Following full-text screening, the final sample of 94 studies was subjected to detailed data extraction. I pilot-tested the extraction template on 10 randomly selected articles to refine variable definitions and ensure clarity before processing the entire dataset. Extraction was managed in Microsoft Excel and captured the following information from each study:

• Bibliographic details (author, year, journal).
• Justice dimension(s) addressed (distributive, procedural, recognition).
• Policy instrument or mechanism (e.g., carbon markets, adaptation finance, local CAPs, UNFCCC protocols).
• Geographic scope (global, regional, national, local case study).
• Stakeholder groups (governments, NGOs, Indigenous peoples, women's groups, private sector).
• Equity outcomes or indicators (resource allocation, participation rates, benefit-sharing, health impacts).
• Conceptual framing (decolonial, rights-based, capabilities, etc.).
• Methodological approach (case study, modeling, discourse analysis, normative review).

A hybrid deductive-inductive thematic synthesis was manually conducted in Microsoft Excel. Deductive codes for the three justice pillars were defined a priori based on the conceptual framework in Figure 2. Inductive sub-themes emerged through a line-by-line review of extracted text passages.

The synthesis proceeded in six iterative steps:

• Imported the extraction sheet into Excel and applied deductive justice-pillar codes to relevant entries.
• Reviewed each article's text excerpts to identify emergent themes.
• Assigned inductive codes to these passages and recorded definitions alongside deductive codes.
• Grouped fine-grained codes into descriptive themes (e.g., “funding equity,” “participatory governance,” “Indigenous knowledge integration,” “colonial barriers,” “sectoral silos”).
• Refined descriptive themes into higher-order analytical themes (e.g., “from tokenism to co-decision,” “finance as power redistribution,” “integrated health-equity governance”).
• Mapped the final analytical themes back onto distributive, procedural, and recognition justice to verify alignment with the framework illustrated in Figure 2.

This iterative process generated the thematic structure presented in Section 3 and underpinned the analyses of policy inequities in Section 4 and the strategic pathways in Section 5.

3 Dimensions of climate justice

Drawing on the triumvirate of justice tenets originally articulated in the energy justice literature by McCauley et al. (2013), this section explores the three key dimensions of climate justice: distributive, procedural, and recognition-based justice, to illuminate how equitable climate policy can be achieved. Distributive justice focuses on the fair allocation of benefits and burdens across society, ensuring that no group disproportionately bears the costs of mitigation or adaptation. Procedural justice underscores the necessity of inclusive and transparent decision-making processes, giving all stakeholders a voice in designing and implementing climate policies. Recognition-based justice calls for the acknowledgment and respect of marginalized communities, affirming their cultural identities and historical experiences within policy frameworks. The framework depicted in Figure 2 builds on McCauley et al. (2013) triumvirate model by mapping these three justice dimensions onto both local and national governance structures. This structured approach guides policymakers and stakeholders in bridging the gap between theoretical principles and concrete, actionable strategies. Applying this model helps ensure that climate governance is both effective and inclusively designed to meet the needs of all communities.

3.1 Distributive justice

Distributive justice is a core principle in climate justice, concerned with the equitable allocation of both the benefits and burdens associated with climate change and related policies (Furlan and Mariano, 2023). This concept recognizes that communities experience different levels of exposure to climate hazards, necessitating a resource-allocation framework that accounts for these disparities (Schapper, 2018). Fundamental questions arise regarding who is entitled to protection from climate impacts, who should bear the responsibility for mitigation, and how the rights to emit greenhouse gases should be allocated (Feng, 2024). The literature further warns that an overemphasis on economic efficiency in climate policies can risk marginalizing vulnerable populations, thereby perpetuating existing inequalities (Okereke and Coventry, 2016; Michael et al., 2018).

Building on this foundation, several studies have underscored that the equitable distribution of climate resources must consider the varying exposure of different communities to climate risks. Scholars such as Swanson (2021) and Khanal et al. (2024b) emphasize the need to account for these differences, while Sušanj et al. (2019) raise key issues regarding the responsibilities for climate protection and mitigation. Moreover, research by Lioubimtseva (2022) and Salle et al. (2021) indicates that prioritizing resource allocation based solely on economic performance can exacerbate vulnerabilities and limit resilience among already marginalized groups. Consequently, there is a growing consensus that climate adaptation strategies should be guided by principles of equity, ensuring that funding and resources are allocated based on vulnerability rather than merely on economic efficiency measurements (Wells et al., 2021).

The climate finance landscape further illustrates significant gaps in the distribution of adaptation resources. Initiatives like REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) have prompted concerns over the inequitable allocation of funds, particularly between developed and developing nations (Skutsch et al., 2014; Gakou-Kakeu et al., 2024). Research suggests that without specific attention to distributive equity, benefits may disproportionately favor affluent entities, often sidelining the local communities crucial for effective implementation (Isyaku et al., 2017). For instance, Palomo et al. (2019) have shown that adaptation measures such as infrastructure enhancements are frequently concentrated in wealthier urban areas, leaving rural or low-income communities underfunded, a pattern that can intensify existing vulnerabilities (Barrett, 2014). Thus, experts argue that climate adaptation strategies must rigorously incorporate equity principles to ensure resources are allocated based on vulnerability, a point further emphasized by Wong (2016). Table 1 provides an overview of these key aspects and concerns related to distributive justice in climate policy.

Table 1. Key aspects of distributive justice in climate policy.

3.2 Procedural justice

Procedural justice is critical for advancing climate justice, as it emphasizes that the fairness of decision-making processes is as important as the outcomes themselves (Brandstedt and Brülde, 2019; Brabec and Chilton, 2015). Inclusive participation in these processes ensures that the voices of all stakeholders, particularly marginalized and vulnerable communities, are heard and valued (Ahmad et al., 2022). Research has demonstrated that when community members actively engage in decision-making, they foster a sense of ownership and responsibility, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of climate policies. Moreover, the inclusion of local knowledge during the planning and execution stages enriches climate interventions and leads to outcomes that are both contextually relevant and operationally effective (Restrepo-Mieth et al., 2023; Bailey and Darkal, 2017).

In addition to promoting inclusivity, procedural justice fundamentally influences how resources are allocated for climate adaptation. Studies indicate that decision-making processes lacking broad stakeholder input often result in resource allocations that favor economically viable or strategically important areas, leaving high-risk communities underserved (Scandrett, 2016; Hughes, 2015). For example, infrastructure improvements and technological implementations are frequently concentrated in wealthier urban contexts, while rural or impoverished regions receive insufficient support (Diezmartínez and Gianotti, 2022). This uneven distribution exacerbates existing vulnerabilities among marginalized populations (Radonic and Zúñiga-Terán, 2023). As such, ensuring that decision-making processes incorporate diverse perspectives is crucial for realigning resource flows based on vulnerability rather than purely on efficiency metrics, a shift essential for achieving just climate adaptations (Hughes, 2013; Stamenkovic et al., 2018).

Furthermore, embedding procedural justice in climate governance is instrumental in addressing systemic inequalities that historically leave marginalized groups underserved. Actively including these communities in policy-making processes allows for the incorporation of localized, context-specific knowledge that can transform urban climate strategies into more equitable frameworks (Hügel and Davies, 2020). Community-based participatory approaches have proven particularly effective in areas where socioeconomic disadvantages intensify climate risks, ensuring that local concerns and priorities shape the final policy outcomes (Restrepo-Mieth et al., 2023; Schapper, 2018). Ultimately, by foregrounding procedural justice within climate governance, policymakers can foster long-lasting resilience built on collective action (Vaghri, 2018). Table 2 highlights key aspects and concerns related to procedural justice in climate policy.

Table 2. Key elements of procedural justice in climate policy.

3.3 Justice as recognition

Justice as recognition is a critical concept in advancing climate justice by emphasizing the need to acknowledge and respect marginalized and oppressed groups within climate strategies (Nursey-Bray and Palmer, 2018). This recognition is essential for ensuring that the experiences, rights, and needs of vulnerable populations, such as Indigenous peoples, racial minorities, and low-income groups, are considered during the formulation of climate policies. Historically, these communities have been systematically excluded from decision-making processes surrounding climate change (Kinay et al., 2023), leading to policies that often overlook their unique vulnerabilities and fail to incorporate their traditional knowledge and practices. For example, Indigenous knowledge provides valuable insights into sustainable practices developed over generations (Bodmer et al., 2018). By fostering an environment where marginalized groups are recognized and their rights are upheld, more inclusive and effective climate policies can be devised that address the multifaceted impacts of climate change (Schramm et al., 2020), while also enhancing accountability and reflecting the realities and aspirations of these communities (Benjaminsen et al., 2021).

Acknowledgment of marginalized voices enhances the legitimacy of climate policies and contributes to the development of more equitable and sustainable outcomes. Research indicates that recognizing the interests and rights of vulnerable communities fosters collaboration, builds resilience, and empowers individuals to advocate for their own needs (Jodoin et al., 2020; Schlosberg and Collins, 2014). A notable example is the REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) program in Tanzania, which underscores the importance of recognizing local communities' land rights and livelihoods in creating effective climate interventions (Parsons, 2018). By incorporating the perspectives of marginalized populations into decision-making processes, policymakers can better align climate actions with social justice principles to ensure that interventions benefit those most affected by climate change (Tilahun et al., 2017). This inclusive approach leads to solutions that are effective and culturally relevant and enjoy the support of those directly impacted (Parsons, 2018).

The concept of intersectionality further enriches the discussion of justice as recognition by examining how overlapping social identities such as race, gender, socioeconomic status, and geography contribute to unique vulnerabilities in the context of climate change (Brandão et al., 2019). For instance, women in marginalized communities often face heightened risks due to cultural norms that limit their access to resources, decision-making power, and essential information (Cottrell, 2024), while individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may encounter limited access to adaptive resources, increasing their susceptibility to climate impacts (Razgour et al., 2019). Understanding these intersecting factors is crucial for developing comprehensive and tailored climate strategies (Nadeau and Urban, 2019). Ultimately, recognizing and integrating the diverse experiences of marginalized groups into climate policymaking is vital for dismantling systemic inequalities and advancing justice as recognition (Galway and Beery, 2022). Such an approach sets the stage for a more just and equitable future, where all communities are empowered to effectively respond to the challenges posed by climate change (Kantos et al., 2023). Table 3 highlights the key aspects and concerns related to justice as recognition in climate policy.

Table 3. Key components of justice as recognition in climate policy.

3.4 Bridging climate justice theory and practice

Understanding the multifaceted impacts of climate change on marginalized communities requires a critical analysis of real-world examples through the lens of the three main dimensions of climate justice, distributive, procedural, and recognition-based justice, as outlined in Figure 2. Each dimension reveals distinct aspects of inequity and resilience in climate governance, emphasizing how theory can be translated into actionable strategies.

For instance, community-based participatory climate action in disadvantaged regions, as detailed by Hutton and Menne (2014), powerfully demonstrates recognition-based justice. By leveraging local and Indigenous knowledge, these initiatives transform communities from passive recipients of policy to active architects of their resilience. Similarly, the REDD+ program in Tanzania (Limaye et al., 2019) addresses recognition-based concerns by acknowledging local land rights and integrates procedural justice through its inclusive, transparent decision-making processes. This dual focus ensures that climate interventions are both context-sensitive and systematically fair.

In stark contrast, studies from the United States reveal significant shortcomings in distributive justice. Analyses by Bezgrebelna et al. (2021) indicate that climate-sensitive events impose multi-billion-dollar burdens on the health sector, disproportionately affecting low-income and marginalized groups, a disparity further underscored by Fox et al. (2019) and systematic reviews by Chua et al. (2019). These findings suggest that the uneven distribution of economic and health impacts is a critical failure of climate policy. Additionally, investigations into the influence of cultural norms and resource accessibility (Yang et al., 2018) further emphasize the necessity for recognition-based justice by illustrating how local contexts shape adaptive responses.

Procedural justice, which is concerned with fairness in how decisions are made and whose voices are included, is vividly illustrated across multiple scales. For example, Caggiano et al. (2023) demonstrate how U.S. cities have revamped their Climate Action Plans (CAPs) by engaging diverse communities, including local environmental justice groups, to ensure that policies address the real needs of all residents. Globally, the negotiation processes at the 2015 Paris Climate Summit serve as an exemplar of procedural fairness, where inclusive dialogue and balanced power dynamics (Walker, 2018; Schapper, 2018) legitimized the collective decision-making process. Local adaptation strategies in Nigeria (Oramah and Olsen, 2021) and the design of carbon market projects (Mathur et al., 2013) further illustrate how embedding community perspectives into decision-making can operationalize procedural justice.

Critically comparing these examples within the overarching climate justice framework reveals that no single strategy can address the complexities of climate injustice on its own. Instead, a comprehensive approach is required, one that ensures equitable outcomes (distributive justice), supports inclusive and transparent decision-making (procedural justice), and celebrates the unique cultural and local contributions to adaptation (recognition-based justice). Table 4 below consolidates these illustrative examples, explicitly linking each case to its corresponding climate justice dimension(s) to highlight the multidimensional nature of vulnerability and resilience.

Table 4. Illustrative examples of climate vulnerability and resilience aligned with the climate justice framework.

4 Climate policy inequities

This section critically examines how climate change disproportionately impacts marginalized communities while revealing systemic shortcomings in current policy frameworks. Drawing on the theoretical constructs from Section 3, this study investigates empirical evidence and real-world examples to expose the intricate interplay between historical injustices, socioeconomic vulnerabilities, and policy effectiveness. In doing so, it highlights how both local and global climate policies have often failed to address the unique challenges faced by women, Indigenous peoples, low-income groups, and other vulnerable populations, thereby neglecting to reflect the lived experiences of those most affected by climate change.

4.1 Disparities in climate vulnerability

Climate change exacerbates preexisting social, economic, and environmental inequities, resulting in pronounced disparities in vulnerability and health outcomes among marginalized groups. This subsection examines these disparities through two complementary lenses. First, it explores how entrenched structural inequalities heighten risks for specific demographics, such as women in developing regions, who often depend on natural resources for their livelihoods and therefore bear a disproportionate burden during severe climate events (Brika et al., 2024; Chersich and Wright, 2019). Similarly, people of color, low-income individuals, and Indigenous communities are frequently located in areas particularly prone to hazards like flooding, heatwaves, and food insecurity (Haigh et al., 2023). In support of these observations, Table 5 collates diverse risk factors across different regions, emphasizing the need for policies that address the unique environmental and socioeconomic challenges these populations face.

Table 5. Vulnerability of specific demographics to climate change.

Beyond direct physical risks, climate change further compromises community wellbeing by eroding the fundamental determinants of health. Vulnerable populations increasingly suffer from reduced access to clean air, potable water, nutritious food, and secure housing, conditions that drive up the prevalence of respiratory and heat-related illnesses (Arimi et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020). Disruptions in healthcare services during extreme weather events intensify these challenges, while the psychological stresses linked to displacement and economic instability contribute to significant mental health burdens (Blane and Basu, 2022; White et al., 2023). An intersectional perspective further reveals that individuals facing compounding disadvantages, for example, those with low-income status combined with minority identity, are subjected to layered vulnerabilities, calling for tailored adaptation and mitigation strategies. Table 5 synthesizes research on the compounded risks faced by specific demographics, demonstrating how multiple social, economic, and environmental factors interact to intensify climate vulnerability.

4.2 Policy frameworks for achieving climate justice

Achieving climate justice necessitates the development of comprehensive, equitable policy frameworks that address the diverse needs and vulnerabilities of affected communities. Such frameworks must be underpinned by the principles of fairness, inclusivity, and accountability to ensure that support reaches those most at risk. This subsection reviews key global instruments and local-to-national initiatives, highlighting their strengths and limitations in addressing climate inequities.

4.2.1 Global policy instruments

Since its establishment in 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has served as a critical platform for international collaboration aimed at mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and bolstering adaptive capacity among vulnerable groups (Okereke and Coventry, 2016). With its foundation in the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), the UNFCCC underscores the greater historical accountability of developed nations, mandating more substantial corrective measures (Mele et al., 2021). Annual Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings complement the convention by functioning as dynamic forums for negotiating global climate agreements and mobilizing equity-focused actions (Obergassel et al., 2022).

Subsequent frameworks have sought to build on this foundation. The Kyoto Protocol (1997) mandated legally binding emission reduction targets for industrialized countries; however, its limited scope due to non-participation by major emitters and its lack of obligations for developing nations restricted its overall impact (Magnúsdóttir and Kronsell, 2024; Frenova, 2021). In contrast, the Paris Agreement of 2015 represents a decisive shift toward inclusivity by encouraging all nations to submit nationally determined contributions (NDCs) tailored to their specific circumstances and capabilities (Charlery and Trærup, 2018). By committing to limit global warming to well below 2 °C and ideally under 1.5 °C, the Paris framework prioritizes both adaptive capacity and support mechanisms, such as technology transfer and capacity building, that are vital for safeguarding vulnerable populations (Ogle et al., 2015; Debie et al., 2022). Supplementary Table S1 encapsulates the key features and equity contributions of these international policy instruments.

4.2.2 Local and national climate plans

Embedding social equity into every level of climate action is essential for achieving lasting climate justice. A comprehensive framework illustrated in Figure 3 integrates core equity principles with environmental sustainability to address the needs of marginalized and vulnerable communities. This model emphasizes distributive justice (the fair allocation of resources and responsibilities), procedural justice (transparent and participatory decision-making processes), and recognition justice (acknowledging the unique experiences of historically marginalized groups). Together, these interlocking principles ensure that both the benefits and burdens of climate action are shared equitably across society.

In practice, this framework offers strategic guidance for municipalities and governments in translating equity into actionable policies. It advocates for participatory governance through public consultations, stakeholder workshops, and community planning sessions that actively involve women, Indigenous peoples, and low-income groups. Despite challenges such as limited resources, fragmented policy execution, and systemic barriers (including colonial legacies and entrenched sectoral silos), strategies like adaptive management and strategic planning present viable pathways forward.

At the local level in North America, for instance, municipalities are increasingly incorporating these equity considerations into their Climate Action Plans (CAPs). Lioubimtseva et al. (2024) document a growing institutional commitment in Michigan to operationalizing equity theories, although research by Davoudi et al. (2013) reveals persistent challenges associated with resource constraints and execution. MacKinnon and Derickson (2012) stress the importance of amplifying marginalized voices, and studies by Pratt (2022), Tausch et al. (2011), and Cheng (2016) underscore how robust community engagement enhances both the effectiveness and public support for these initiatives. Equity-focused urban planning, as noted by Bulkeley et al. (2013), not only builds urban resilience but also advances social justice for at-risk communities. Supplementary Table S2 synthesizes the various approaches, illustrative examples, and implementation challenges documented in the literature for integrating social equity into local and national climate plans.

On a national and regional scale, climate plans across Asia, Africa, and Europe are increasingly designed to align adaptation strategies with broader social justice and developmental goals. Tompkins et al. (2018) illustrate how these plans effectively allocate resources while ensuring comprehensive policy coordination, and Lecoutere et al. (2023) emphasize the critical role of gender and other equity considerations in national policies, particularly in sectors such as agriculture. Systematic reviews by Ford et al. (2014) uniformly suggest that inclusive governance strategies are paramount for ensuring that marginalized communities receive the essential support they need during climate disruptions.

5 Challenges and strategic pathways

Section 4 delves into the complex challenges that impair the realization of climate justice and outlines strategic pathways to overcome these obstacles. Building on the insights from the previous sections, this part identifies systemic barriers, including entrenched power imbalances, fragmented governance, and inadequate resource allocation, that limit the effectiveness of current climate policies in addressing the needs of vulnerable communities. It also highlights the pressing need for more inclusive, adaptive, and interdisciplinary approaches that can bridge the gap between political rhetoric and lived experiences. By proposing actionable strategies and recommendations, this section aims to chart a clear roadmap for future research and policy development, ultimately fostering resilient and equitable climate governance.

5.1 Challenges and barriers to climate justice

Achieving climate justice requires confronting a range of obstacles embedded in existing governance structures. This section highlights key issues that hinder equitable climate action, most notably, the enduring colonial legacy in climate governance and the fragmented, siloed nature of sector-specific approaches that limit interdisciplinary collaboration. By critically examining these challenges, the study charts the steps needed to develop more inclusive and effective climate policies that address the complex impacts of climate change on vulnerable communities. Subsequent subsections explore the implications of colonial practices and sector silos, emphasizing the importance of collaboration to advance both social and environmental justice.

5.1.1 Colonial legacy in climate governance

The lingering impact of colonialism continues to shape contemporary climate governance by reinforcing persistent inequalities and establishing systemic barriers to effective climate action. Historical injustices, such as the dispossession of land and the exploitation of Indigenous peoples, have molded governance structures that frequently sideline the rights and knowledge of marginalized communities. This systemic exclusion from decision-making processes not only perpetuates existing vulnerabilities but also limits the capacity of these groups to influence policies affecting their lives (Baniya and Aryal, 2022). Moreover, the divergence between historical and current climate policies often mirrors a continuation of colonial practices, wherein affluent nations impose mitigation strategies on developing countries without considering local contexts or needs (Wagner et al., 2021).

To address these deep-rooted grievances, integrating justice principles into climate governance is essential. Contemporary policy frameworks tend to favor economic efficiency and industrial interests over social equity, resulting in measures that benefit well-resourced regions at the expense of marginalized populations. This imbalance underscores the urgent need to re-evaluate and redesign governance mechanisms to establish inclusive frameworks, ones that acknowledge historical injustices and promote equitable resource distribution (Adelle and Russel, 2013).

Ensuring a more equitable system also requires the meaningful incorporation of Indigenous knowledge and community perspectives into policy design and implementation. Engaging local communities enhances the legitimacy of climate strategies and enriches the decision-making process with diverse, context-specific insights, leading to more effective solutions. Ultimately, by prioritizing inclusion and recognizing the rights and experiences of historically marginalized groups, climate governance can evolve into a system that is more responsive and representative. Overcoming the colonial legacies in climate governance will thus depend on collaborative efforts among local communities, Indigenous groups, policymakers, and scientists all working together to build resilience against the impacts of climate change (Wohlgezogen et al., 2020).

5.1.2 Sector silos

The persistence of sector silos in climate governance significantly undermines efforts to achieve health equity. Fragmented, compartmentalized approaches often result in public health considerations being sidelined in climate initiatives. Structural and cultural barriers hinder the effective integration of health equity into climate action, which in turn narrows municipal planning to a limited focus on mitigation while neglecting crucial links between environmental policies and health outcomes (McPherson et al., 2016; Zimmermann et al., 2023). This disjointed approach leads to an uneven spread of resources, further perpetuating disparities among vulnerable populations.

Interdisciplinary cooperation is essential to breaking down these silos. Effective climate action requires coordinated efforts across sectors such as public health, urban planning, environmental protection, and social services (Aziz and Anjum, 2024). Intersectoral strategies can address the social determinants of health, thereby mitigating the adverse impacts of climate change (Ndumbe-Eyoh and Moffatt, 2013; Nair et al., 2023). However, current framework deficiencies often result in fragmented policy responses, leaving issues like heat-related illnesses and poor air quality inadequately addressed (Qamar, 2023). Advocacy coalitions play a critical role in bridging these gaps by fostering interdisciplinary partnerships that recognize the interconnectedness of climate, health, and social justice (Diezmartínez and Gianotti, 2022; Thorndike et al., 2023). Such collaborative frameworks are imperative for developing comprehensive climate action plans that effectively support marginalized communities and promote health equity.

5.2 Strategies for enhancing equity in climate policies

Achieving climate justice demands a comprehensive approach that embeds equity into every facet of policy development and implementation. This section outlines key strategies for advancing equity in climate policies, focusing on inclusive policy design, robust community engagement, and outlining future directions for research and policymaking. By prioritizing these strategies, the approach ensures that the response to climate change effectively addresses the needs of marginalized populations while promoting fairness and inclusivity across all levels of governance.

5.2.1 Recommendations for inclusive policy design

Embedding diverse voices in policy-making is essential for developing climate policies that truly address community needs. Actively engaging historically marginalized groups such as women, Indigenous peoples, and low-income communities ensures that their unique experiences shape climate initiatives. Fox et al. (2019) found that such meaningful participation enhances the relevance of policies, while Lâm et al. (2024) demonstrated that aligning strategies with real-world challenges increases overall policy effectiveness. Integrating gender perspectives is equally important; Lesnikowski et al. (2020) highlight the crucial role women play in managing natural resources and building resilience, even though their contributions are often overlooked in formal policy frameworks. Incorporating local knowledge into decision-making further ensures that policies are context-sensitive and culturally appropriate, ultimately strengthening adaptation efforts and promoting social equity.

The integration of participatory governance frameworks in climate policy design is essential for fostering inclusivity and responsiveness to the needs of marginalized populations. Rilling and Tosun (2021) support this idea by emphasizing that open dialogue and shared decision-making empower communities to shape their climate futures more actively (Faber, 2025). This sentiment is echoed by Heijden (2021), who argues that robust community engagement fosters trust among stakeholders, enhancing the responsiveness of climate policies to local needs (Vihma and Hukkinen, 2024). Moreover, the findings of Cintron-Rodriguez et al. (2021) affirm that equitable and empowering participatory policy design strategies are critical to accelerating just climate action, underscoring the importance of active community involvement in decision-making processes (Ganesh and Smith, 2018). Together, these strategies serve as a roadmap for enhancing equity in climate policy through inclusion, the integration of diverse expertise, and genuine participatory processes.

5.2.2 Leveraging community engagement

Local empowerment is essential for building resilient, equitable climate action. Involving historically marginalized groups such as women, Indigenous peoples, and low-income communities in policymaking ensures that their unique experiences and local knowledge are incorporated into climate strategies (Rhodes et al., 2021). Meaningful participation has been shown to foster a sense of ownership among these communities (Selvey et al., 2022). Furthermore, community-based participatory approaches enable affected individuals to clearly articulate their specific needs and develop tailored solutions (Heijden, 2021).

Organizations also play a pivotal role in bridging gaps between communities and policymakers. Non-governmental organizations and grassroots groups can facilitate engagement, resource sharing, and advocacy, thereby amplifying the voices of marginalized populations (Ganesh and Smith, 2018). Participatory governance frameworks that adopt co-design principles help policymakers work directly with community members to develop culturally appropriate and context-sensitive strategies (Entradas et al., 2019). Collaborative planning efforts driven by such frameworks have been found to build public trust and create more effective adaptive strategies (Awuor et al., 2023). Finally, interdisciplinary collaboration among scientists, policymakers, and local partners contributes to enhanced resilience and sustainable climate action (James et al., 2021; Tiwana et al., 2024).

5.2.3 Future directions for research and policy

Looking ahead, there is an urgent need to adopt multidisciplinary approaches that bring together insights from fields such as public health, sociology, environmental science, and economics to advance climate justice. Holz et al. (2023) emphasize that this integration is essential for capturing the full complexity of climate challenges, especially those that affect marginalized communities. In addition, Holz et al. (2023) show that embedding equity considerations into Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) leads to more just climate responses. Policymakers must therefore foster cross-sector collaboration to improve outcomes for vulnerable populations. It is also critical to understand the generational aspects of resource allocation and burdens, a point highlighted by Ly and Cope (2023), to promote social sustainability.

Future research should focus on evaluating and learning from successful models of participatory governance and community engagement within climate policy frameworks. Clark and Miles (2021) argue that such evidence-based assessments can guide other regions in replicating effective practices. Kaida et al. (2023) stress that ongoing evaluation of global frameworks, like the Paris Agreement, is necessary to ensure equity remains at the heart of climate action. Continuous reflection on policy outcomes advised by Arries (2023), ensures that strategies adapt to serve diverse communities better, while Coley et al. (2022) call for transformative changes to achieve just outcomes. Policymakers should also regularly assess the effectiveness of climate agreements in addressing equity, as noted by Sasser (2023), and explore innovative mechanisms to overcome barriers, such as providing financial support for vulnerable groups and establishing robust accountability measures (Kashwan, 2021). Table 6 summarizes these key future directions, underscoring the importance of collaboration, rigorous evaluation, and ongoing adaptation for achieving equitable climate outcomes.

Table 6. Future directions for research and policy in climate justice.

6 Conclusion

This study investigated the multifaceted dimensions of climate justice, highlighting the critical gap between political rhetoric and the lived experiences of marginalized communities, such as women, Indigenous peoples, and low-income groups, that disproportionately bear the impacts of climate change despite their minimal contribution to its causes. By synthesizing a rich body of literature on distributive, procedural, and recognition-based justice, this review advances our understanding of how historical injustices and entrenched socio-economic imbalances continue to shape policy frameworks. Notably, the study reveals that conventional policy approaches often fail to capture the nuanced realities of vulnerable populations, underscoring the need for more robust evaluative criteria that can guide the development of inclusive, equitable climate policies.

The analysis makes several significant contributions to the literature. First, it bridges the gap between theoretical constructs of justice and real-world policy outcomes, demonstrating that meaningful change requires adaptive policy designs and active community participation. The empirical review of community-led initiatives serves as a compelling illustration of how bottom-up approaches can effectively redress systemic inequities and catalyze transformative change. Moreover, this study articulates the interplay of political rhetoric and actual governance practices, providing concrete evidence that symbolic commitments without tangible action only exacerbate existing disparities. In doing so, the paper enriches the discourse by offering a more integrated, evidence-based framework for assessing and enhancing climate justice within global and local policy contexts.

Looking forward, the findings of this review underscore that achieving climate justice demands a continuous and adaptive integration of social equity into policymaking. Policymakers must embrace interdisciplinary collaboration and develop innovative strategies that incorporate marginalized voices not merely as beneficiaries, but as active partners in decision-making. By offering targeted, inclusive policy modifications and highlighting successful models of community empowerment, this study lays a solid foundation for future research and policy development. Ultimately, the added knowledge from this review illuminates the shortcomings of current strategies and charts a clear pathway toward resilient, sustainable, and equitable climate governance.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsuep.2025.1592249/full#supplementary-material

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source