Measurable impacts of South Africa's just energy transition partnership on poverty reduction and economic opportunities in marginalized communities

1 Introduction

South Africa's commitment to a Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) marks a significant shift from a mostly coal-dependent energy system to a low-carbon economy. Policymakers and academics both have underlined recently the possibility of renewable-energy projects to create significant employment and reduce poverty in underdeveloped areas (Chidzungu and Wafer, 2024; Cole et al., 2023). For example, solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind initiatives are projected to create as many as 43,000 and 28,900 jobs, respectively, by 2030. Meanwhile, one study estimated that over 50,000 renewable-energy

jobs would exist by 2020 (Chidzungu and Wafer, 2024; Cole et al., 2023). Short-term contracts, low wages, poor governance, and a spatial mismatch between coal-region job losses and renewable-energy hubs often compromise these gains, though (Nkoana, 2018; Chidzungu and Wafer, 2024; Cole et al., 2023). Simultaneously, modeled scenarios imply that poverty could drop from 49% in 2010 to 18% by 2050 under an optimal decarbonisation path (Altieri et al., 2016). Baseline studies, however, show that 37% of coal-host communities already live below the poverty line and that 38% of off-grid homes suffer from energy poverty (Cole et al., 2023; Lesala et al., 2024). Against this background of both promise and difficulty, a methodical synthesis of empirical data is desperately needed to clarify the measurable socioeconomic effects of South Africa's JETP on poverty reduction and economic possibilities within marginalized populations. This paper is part of a broader project on “Operationalising a Just Transition in Africa,” collaboratively undertaken by the Centre for the Advancement of Scholarship at the University of Pretoria, the African Research Impact Network and South SouthNorth, which is funded by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). The project aims to support a body of evidence outlining the operationalization of just transition considerations into renewable energy expansion at national, regional, and Continental levels.

Essential terms and concepts used in this review are defined as follows. The JETP is a collaborative framework initially between South Africa, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union designed to finance and guide South Africa's shift from coal-based energy toward renewable sources in a manner that is socially equitable and minimizes adverse effects on vulnerable communities (Chidzungu and Wafer, 2024). Reducing poverty is the quantifiable drop in the percentage of households or people living below a set poverty line (Cole et al., 2023). From 49 to 18% between 2010 and 2025 in modeled scenarios, poverty reduction is operationalized in this review using indicators including changes in the percentage of households earning below the national poverty threshold (Chidzungu and Wafer, 2024). Economic opportunities that is, direct jobs (such as construction, operation, and maintenance of renewable energy facilities), indirect opportunities (such as supply chain linkages, local procurement), and induced benefits that is, increased disposable income leading to new small businesses result from energy-transition activities. Marginalized communities, defined by high unemployment up to 39% in some coal-host areas and increased levels of energy poverty, 38% in off-grid settings, are groups or localities disproportionately impacted by historical energy-sector decisions (Chidzungu and Wafer, 2024).

The research on South Africa's energy transition is still fragmented even with many case studies and modeling activities. Quantitative models by (Altieri et al. 2016) and (Bohlmann et al. 2023) project notable macroeconomic and employment shifts; yet, empirical studies of on-the-ground impacts often report temporary, low-paid jobs with limited opportunity for upskilling among the local population. Further limiting local benefits are governance issues, including weak community trusts, unequal access to training, and foreign-dependent supply chains (Netshiozwi, 2022; Chetty et al., 2023). Furthermore, current studies hardly triangulate poverty indicators, employment statistics, and qualitative community perspectives in a single framework, so challenging the validity of JETP-linked interventions. As long as evidence remains dispersed across methodological approaches ranging from computable general equilibrium models to stakeholder interviews, policymakers lack a cohesive, evidence-based roadmap for maximizing poverty-reduction outcomes associated with the just transition. A systematic review is useful to identify knowledge gaps, reconcile divergent findings, and highlight best practices for ensuring that JETP funding translates into durable socio-economic gains. This systematic review seeks to answer:

What are the measurable impacts of South Africa's Just Energy Transition Partnership on poverty reduction and economic opportunities in marginalized communities?

First, this systematic review aims to synthesize current evidence and offer a consolidated overview of empirical findings, both quantitative and qualitative, relating to how JETP-associated projects affect poverty measurements, such as changes in the percentage of households below the poverty line and energy-poverty indices. Moreover, economic opportunities (such as job creation numbers, skill-development outcomes) across coal-host, rural, and urban marginalized settings; second, to identify knowledge gaps and inconsistencies by highlighting where the literature diverges such as between optimistic modeling projections of net job gains and on-the-ground reports of net job losses in coal regions and pinpoint areas where empirical evidence is scant (for example long-term income trajectories, and gender-differentiated impacts); and third, to inform policy and practice by offering evidence-based recommendations for policymakers, funders, and community stakeholders to enhance the design, governance, and implementation of JETP initiatives ensuring that issues like temporary contracts, governance failures, or spatial mismatches between job losses and gains do not undermine poverty-alleviation goals.

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework, we executed a multi-stage methodology, and after screening, 25 studies were retained for full-text analysis. Using a structured protocol elaborated in section 2, we extracted key variables from each study, including location, research methodology, employment metrics, poverty indicators, and renewable energy characteristics. Each study was appraised for methodological rigor and relevance, separating more speculative projections from strong empirical data. This systematic review aims to clarify the effects of South Africa's JETP on poverty and livelihoods, identify ongoing obstacles to equitable outcomes, and map a path forward for research, policy, and practice by aggregating empirical findings across various methodological approaches and geographic settings.

2 Methodology

This article utilized the PRISMA methodology in order to carry out a systematic literature review. We used the PRISMA checklist for systematic reviews to document the review process and report information on the criteria used and decisions made to increase transparency and replicability (see Figure 1). In this section, we described how we screened and identified the relevant literature. The process consisted of multiple clearly defined phases, which involved implementing standardized methods to thoroughly identify all relevant papers.

2.1 Search strategies

In this study, four search strategies were used. Firstly, to identify empirical studies on the measurable impacts of South Africa's Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) on poverty reduction and economic opportunities in marginalized communities, we constructed a Boolean search string combining synonyms and related concepts for the population, intervention, and outcomes of interest. We used terms “South Africa^*” AND (“Just Energy Transition^*” OR “JETP” OR “renewable energy” OR “green jobs”) AND (“poverty” OR “energy poverty” OR “income” OR “economic opportunit^*” OR “employment”) AND (“communit^*” OR “marginalized” OR “coal communit^*” OR “off-grid” OR “urban township^*”) to search for studies. Secondly, to narrow the search results, we focused on papers published from 2014 onwards, and we used “South Africa” in the location category. For the topic “measurable impacts of South Africa's Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) on poverty reduction and economic opportunities in marginalized communities,” we included the databases “ProQuest Central,” “Sabinet African Journals” and Scopus database, to select relevant studies. Third, we screened the titles and abstracts to determine their appropriateness to the topic. Fourth, full texts were read to assess the relevance of the content.

Studies were excluded if they focused exclusively on technical, environmental, or policy frameworks without reporting empirical outcomes related to poverty reduction or economic opportunity. Non-empirical sources, including literature reviews, commentaries, editorials, and opinion pieces, were excluded to avoid duplication of secondary interpretations. Additional exclusions were applied where studies lacked sufficient methodological transparency to assess findings, or where reported outcomes related to international energy transition initiatives without direct relevance to South African communities. While Just Energy Transition Partnerships are a global policy framework, this review was deliberately scoped to South Africa to enable context-specific analysis of employment and poverty outcomes.

2.2 Eligibility criteria

We adopted the following set of eligibility criteria. A study was included if it met all the following eligibility criteria:

Field of study: We included all articles that focus on South Africa's Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) or related renewable-energy transition initiatives and their measurable socioeconomic impacts, specifically on poverty reduction and economic opportunities within marginalized communities such as coal-host towns and rural off-grid settlements. We excluded studies that examine energy transitions outside of South Africa or that address only technical or environmental outcomes without linking to poverty or livelihoods. However, papers that discuss JETP-funded projects in collaboration with government agencies, private developers, or civil-society organizations, so long as they report on socioeconomic outcomes, were eligible. Type of article: We included only peer-reviewed journal articles, excluding books, conference proceedings, and book reviews. Topic: Papers included in the review investigated the relationship between JETP-linked interventions such as solar PV, wind farms, decommissioning of coal infrastructure, skills-training programs and at least one of the following outcomes: (1) poverty-reduction indicators (changes in household income distribution, shifts in percentage of households below the poverty line, energy-poverty metrics) or (2) economic-opportunity metrics (job creation numbers, skill development outcomes, local procurement impacts). Studies that focused solely on policy design, regulatory frameworks, or purely technical assessments of renewable-energy projects without an empirical or qualitative linkage to socioeconomic outcomes were excluded. Study design: Our review encompasses both empirical and theoretical studies but places emphasis on primary-research articles. Eligible study designs include quantitative analyses such as computable general equilibrium models, econometric impact assessments, statistical surveys. Qualitative investigations such as semi-structured interviews, focus groups, case studies, and mixed-methods approaches that combine quantitative and qualitative data. Commentaries, opinion pieces, and purely literature-review articles were excluded unless they reanalyse primary datasets relevant to our question. Language: Only articles written in English were deemed eligible, a common practice in systematic reviews due to the practical challenges associated with translation. Relevance: We included the articles that featured one or more of the keywords “Just Energy Transition Partnership,” “JETP,” “South Africa,” “renewable energy,” “poverty reduction,” “economic opportunities,” “marginalized communities,” “coal-host communities,” “energy poverty,” “job creation,” or “livelihoods” in either the title or the abstract. Studies that do not explicitly mention at least one of these concepts but address JETP-linked socioeconomic outcomes in the full text were also considered, provided they were identified through full-text screening. Publication year: Studies searched and included were conducted within the last 12 years, that is, after January 1, 2014. This was done to ensure the relevance and currency of findings. Publication type: We only included studies found in the ProQuest Central, Sabinet African Journals, and Scopus databases.

2.3 Screening

We screened papers that met these criteria:

Study Location: Does the study focus on South African communities or regions?

Intervention Focus: Does the study examine South Africa's Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) or associated renewable-energy transition initiatives?

Population/Community Setting: Does the study include marginalized populations as a significant component of its analysis?

Outcome Focus: Does the study report on at least one of the following socioeconomic outcomes tied to JETP or renewable-energy projects: (1) poverty-reduction indicators or (2) economic-opportunity metrics?

Study Design: Is the study primary research (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods)?

Evidence Base: Does the study present original empirical data rather than solely commentary or opinion?

Scope of Analysis: Is the linkage between JETP and socioeconomic outcomes a primary focus of the study, not merely mentioned peripherally?

2.4 Results of the systematic review

The systematic review process began with the identification of 3,421 papers from selected databases, including ProQuest Central, Sabinet African Journals, and Scopus. A Rigorous Screening Process then eliminated duplicate records (411), papers deemed ineligible by automation tools (2,108), and other records excluded for various reasons (902), leaving 107 papers for further evaluation. Follow-up title and abstract screening resulted in the exclusion of 47 papers that did not meet the inclusion criteria, leaving 64 full-text reports for retrieval. However, four reports could not be accessed, reducing the number of full texts assessed to 60. Further review of these full texts led to the exclusion of 35 studies that did not meet the research criteria. Ultimately, 25 papers satisfied all inclusion requirements and were included in the final systematic review. This process is visually represented in Figure 1, the PRISMA flow chart, ensuring transparency and reproducibility. The PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1) summarizes this process.

3 Findings of the systematic review: economic opportunity creation

3.1 Renewable energy job opportunities

Across the 25 studies, renewable energy job opportunities emerged as the most frequently discussed category, with 14 studies examining employment prospects in solar, wind, green hydrogen, biogas, and energy efficiency sectors (Table 1) (Chidzungu and Wafer, 2024; Bohlmann et al., 2023; Musyoki and Tinarwo, 2015; Hartzenburg, 2015). Though most are temporary and connected to building phases, Chidzungu and Wafer, 2024 project up to 43,000 solar photovoltaic and 28,900 wind jobs by 2030; women remain mostly excluded from upskilling opportunities. (Musyoki and Tinarwo 2015) document biogas initiatives that not only create environmental jobs but also promote social inclusion among rural women. (Hartzenburg 2015) reports that industrial energy efficiency measures generated or maintained 5,704 jobs while delivering R1.1 billion in savings.

Table 1. Economic opportunity creation.

3.2 Skills training or reskilling

Four studies (Chidzungu and Wafer, 2024; Mohlakoana et al., 2023; Nel et al., 2023; Taylor, 2023) showcase skills training or reskilling initiatives. While (Taylor 2023) notes that gendered labor systems exclude many women from these programs, (Chidzungu and Wafer 2024) note ongoing skills gaps as coal-community workers usually lack access to targeted retraining. (Mohlakoana et al. 2023) emphasize the importance of clear job definitions and skill development paths in the energy sector to ensure that workers displaced from coal can transition successfully. (Nel et al. 2023) model scenarios indicating that 85,000 coal jobs may be lost, while 72,000 green jobs could emerge, stressing that without robust reskilling, local coal workers will be unable to seize these new opportunities.

3.3 Community development or livelihood projects

Community development and livelihood projects are the focus of six studies (Tladi et al., 2022; Glen et al., 2019; Gina and Mutambara, 2024; Phogole et al., 2022; Bongoza et al., 2019; Monare, 2019). Early-stage Komati plans, according to (Tladi et al. 2022), show worry about job losses and poor community involvement. By contrast, (Glen et al. 2019) show that the Expanded Public Works Program created 4.2 million jobs including tourism routes, so helping some of the most underprivileged areas. In Soweto, (Gina and Mutambara 2024) propose community solar projects meant to reduce poverty and boost business resilience. Clean energy appliances are used in coal-using homes, according to (Phogole et al. 2022), who note limited income effects but a clear inclination for electricity over traditional fuels. While (Monare 2019) shows that social capital and participation are vital for maintaining early-stage community solar schemes in urban environments, Bongoza et al., 2019 report that village-level solar installations improved both comfort and educational outcomes.

3.4 Energy access or clean-energy appliances

Energy access and the distribution of clean-energy appliances are examined in six studies (Lesala et al., 2024; Kimemia and Annegarn, 2014; Naidoo, 2020; Phogole et al., 2022; Netshiozwi, 2022; Taylor, 2023). (Lesala et al. 2024) find that 38 per cent of off-grid households experience energy poverty and show that older residents relying on social grants fare better. (Kimemia and Annegarn 2014) demonstrate that expanded access to liquefied petroleum gas reduces household energy expenditures and improves overall wellbeing. (Naidoo 2020) documents that solar water heaters in low-income urban areas lead to monetary savings and more productive use of time. (Phogole et al. 2022) confirm a preference for electricity, but note negligible changes in income. (Netshiozwi 2022) describes a failed solar home system programme plagued by governance issues, illustrating the potential for poverty and environmental benefits if managed properly. (Taylor 2023) also underscores that unequal access to clean-energy appliances exacerbates existing gender and class disparities.

3.5 Economic diversification or local manufacturing

Five studies (Chetty et al., 2023; Semelane et al., 2021; Swilling et al., 2022; Gina and Mutambara, 2024; Mohlakoana et al., 2024) feature local manufacturing efforts and economic diversification. While (Semelane et al. 2021) find that solar-PV manufacturing in coal-phase-out areas is unfeasible without significant subsidies, (Chetty et al. 2023) find that foreign reliance in the wind sector supply chain limits local job creation. Presenting a value chain framework, (Swilling et al. 2022) imply that institutional transformation is absolutely necessary to release local development. (Gina and Mutambara 2024) suggest that solar panel assembly in Soweto could improve business resilience; (Mohlakoana et al. 2024) underline that clear skill requirements and definitions of decent work are necessary to ensure that the energy workforce benefits from diversification.

3.6 Policy or institutional change

Policy or institutional change is discussed in four studies: (Mirzania et al. 2023), (Hägele et al. 2022), (Swilling et al. 2022), and (Mohlakoana et al. 2024). While (Hägele et al. 2022) look on how coherent policy frameworks related to Sustainable Development Goals are essential for addressing job losses and inequality as coal is phased out, (Mirzania et al. 2023) contend that community empowerment and the realignment of the energy complex are necessary to translate policy into practice. Emphasizing the need of institutional change to help local actors to profit from new value chains, (Swilling et al. 2022) Policy preferences should, according to (Mohlakoana et al. 2024), concentrate on defining good work and matching skill development with industry needs.

3.7 Compensation or social protection

Examined in a single study (Mohlakoana et al., 2023), compensation or social protection policies reveal that coal-dependent communities prefer direct compensation; however, general mistrust of the government compromises adoption. This study underlines how open and well-targeted social protection has to be to lessen the negative effects of retrenchment in the coal-sector.

3.8 Beneficiary groups

Most studies (24) focused on local or host communities including coal-host towns, low-income rural villages, and urban townships (Table 2) (Chidzungu and Wafer, 2024; Cole et al., 2023; Naidoo, 2020). Four studies in particular within this group specifically addressed gender dynamics: (Taylor 2023) emphasizes unfair labor outcomes for women in solar-plant projects, (Bongoza et al. 2019) find that rural village women benefit from solar education interventions, (Chidzungu and Wafer 2024) note that women are routinely excluded from upskill, and (Phogole et al. 2022) observe that clean-energy appliance programs often fail to address women's particular needs. Two studies, (Mohlakoana et al. 2023) and (Lesala et al. 2024) look at young participation and show that although younger adults still encounter obstacles, they are more open to reskilling projects.

Table 2. Poverty reduction mechanisms.

Eight studies examined coal workers or coal-host communities (Nkoana, 2018; Tladi et al., 2022; Nel et al., 2023; Cole et al., 2023; Kimemia and Annegarn, 2014; Netshiozwi, 2022; Mohlakoana et al., 2023; Semelane et al., 2021), frequently assessing retraining schemes and social support mechanisms for workers impacted by mine or power-station closures. National workforce considerations were explored in four studies (Altieri et al., 2016; Bohlmann et al., 2023; Mirzania et al., 2023; Hägele et al., 2022), which model broader labor market trends, policy impacts, and long-term employment trajectories. Only one study (Maphosa et al., 2018) focused on small businesses, investigating how LED lighting and clean stoves can lower operating costs and encourage sectoral growth in urban microenterprises.

3.9 Implementation status

Nine studies documented projects or programmes that were implemented fully or partially (Lesala et al., 2024; Musyoki and Tinarwo, 2015; Hartzenburg, 2015; Kimemia and Annegarn, 2014; Naidoo, 2020; Glen et al., 2019; Maphosa et al., 2018; Phogole et al., 2022; Bongoza et al., 2019). For instance, (Lesala et al. 2024) report partial success of off-grid energy programmes, while (Musyoki and Tinarwo 2015) illustrate biogas initiatives delivering genuine poverty and environmental benefits. (Hartzenburg 2015) documents 5,704 energy-efficiency jobs created or preserved. (Kimemia and Annegarn 2014) demonstrate improved wellbeing from access to LPG, and (Naidoo 2020) shows tangible savings through the use of solar water heaters. (Glen et al. 2019) detail how the Expanded Public Works Programme generated 4.2 million jobs, (Maphosa et al. 2018) illustrate cost savings for small businesses, and (Phogole et al. 2022) and (Bongoza et al. 2019) confirm that appliance implementation led to modest social and educational gains.

Two studies described ongoing implementation (Cole et al., 2023; Swilling et al., 2022), wherein pilot or scaling efforts were underway but not yet complete. (Cole et al. 2023) report over 50,000 renewable-energy jobs in 2020 but note a 39 per cent unemployment rate in host communities. (Swilling et al. 2022) propose institutional frameworks that are still awaiting rollout. Six studies analyzed planned, proposed, conceptual, or early-stage projects (Nel et al., 2023; Monare, 2019; Gina and Mutambara, 2024; Semelane et al., 2021; Mohlakoana et al., 2024; Mirzania et al., 2023), offering frameworks or feasibility assessments rather than realized impacts. (Nel et al. 2023) model an 85,000-job coal loss offset by 72,000 green jobs if properly managed, and (Monare 2019) underscores the critical role of trust for early-stage community solar.

Four studies remained at the policy stage, focusing on legislative design and high-level analyses (Hägele et al., 2022; Mohlakoana et al., 2024; Chetty et al., 2023; Mirzania et al., 2023). (Hägele et al. 2022) examine policy coherence with the Sustainable Development Goals, while (Mohlakoana et al. 2024) advocate for more precise definitions of decent work. (Chetty et al. 2023) highlight how foreign dependence limits local manufacturing, and (Mirzania et al. 2023) emphasize community empowerment. Three studies noted limited or fragmented implementation (Nkoana, 2018; Netshiozwi, 2022; Semelane et al., 2021). (Nkoana 2018) finds that construction jobs are short-term and governance gaps hinder the achievement of deeper local benefits; (Netshiozwi 2022) describes a failed solar home-system programme due to governance issues; and (Semelane et al. 2021) demonstrate that solar-PV manufacturing is unfeasible without subsidies. Two studies outlined initiatives that ultimately failed or were deemed not feasible (Netshiozwi, 2022; Semelane et al., 2021). Finally, three studies presented modeled scenarios or theoretical frameworks (Altieri et al., 2016; Bohlmann et al., 2023; Swilling et al., 2022), simulating potential job creation, poverty reduction, or institutional reform pathways rather than reporting empirical results.

3.10 Key quantitative findings

Several studies provide concrete estimates for job creation. (Chidzungu and Wafer 2024) project up to 43,000 solar PV and 28,900 wind jobs by 2030, primarily in temporary construction roles that offer limited long-term prospects. (Cole et al. 2023) report over 50,000 renewable energy jobs in 2020, yet document a 39 per cent unemployment rate in coal-host communities. (Nel et al. 2023) model scenarios where 85,000 coal jobs could be lost, offset by 72,000 green energy jobs, but note net job losses in Mpumalanga unless carefully managed. (Glen et al. 2019) attribute the creation of 4.2 million positions, including tourism pathways for the poorest communities, to the Expanded Public Works Programme. (Hartzenburg 2015) quantifies 5,704 industrial energy efficiency jobs created or preserved, generating R1.1 billion in savings.

Unemployment metrics are presented in several studies: (Cole et al. 2023) indicate 39 per cent unemployment in host communities, while (Altieri et al. 2016) project a national reduction from 25 percent to 12 percent between 2010 and 2050 under an optimal transition. Economic impacts include R100 billion invested in self-generation projects (Cole et al., 2023) and R1.1 billion saved through energy-efficiency measures (Hartzenburg, 2015).

Energy poverty indicators are reported in (Lesala et al. 2024), which indicate 38 per cent energy poverty among off-grid households. The exclusion of women from upskilling or benefit accrual is documented by (Chidzungu and Wafer 2024) and (Taylor 2023), highlighting persistent gender disparities. Governance shortcomings, such as fragmented procurement and foreign dependence, restrict local benefits in at least three studies (Nkoana, 2018; Chetty et al., 2023; Netshiozwi, 2022). Finally, most jobs created are characterized as temporary or low-paid, and some studies (Nel et al., 2023; Taylor, 2023) indicate net job losses in coal regions despite overall green job growth.

4 Poverty reduction mechanisms

4.1 Direct benefits

Only three out of the 25 studies report any direct benefit associated with the interventions. Twenty-two studies make no mention of direct poverty or energy poverty reductions resulting from implemented projects. Two studies (Cole et al., 2023; Lesala et al., 2024) report baseline measures, including a 39 per cent unemployment rate in coal-host communities and a 38 per cent energy poverty rate among off-grid households, without attributing any subsequent change to specific interventions. By contrast, (Altieri et al. 2016) model a direct intervention effect, projecting a decline in national unemployment from 25 per cent to 12 per cent and a reduction in poverty rates from 49 per cent to 18 per cent by 2050 under an optimal transition scenario.

4.2 Indirect benefits

Several studies document indirect benefits that, while not explicitly linked to poverty-reduction targets, demonstrate positive spillover effects. Four studies quantify various forms of savings: (Kimemia and Annegarn 2014) find that expanded access to liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) lowers household energy expenditures; (Naidoo 2020) reports monetary savings from solar water heaters in low-income urban areas; (Maphosa et al. 2018) show reduced operational costs for small businesses through clean stoves and LED lighting; and (Hartzenburg 2015) calculates R1.1 billion in savings from energy-efficiency measures that also preserved or created 5,704 jobs. Three studies highlight broader socio-economic improvements: (Musyoki and Tinarwo 2015) document enhanced social inclusion among rural women through biogas projects; (Bongoza et al. 2019) observe that solar installations improve educational outcomes and comfort in village settings; and (Gina and Mutambara 2024) propose that community solar in a place like Soweto can reduce poverty and strengthen business resilience.

(Glen et al. 2019) and (Altieri et al. 2016) identify benefits in employment and sectoral growth, noting, respectively, that 4.2 million jobs were created under the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) and that significant industrial or tertiary-sector growth is projected in modeled scenarios. Three studies address the potential for poverty reduction: (Altieri et al. 2016) model a significant drop in poverty; (Bohlmann et al. 2023) suggest that improperly managed transitions could actually shrink the Mpumalanga economy; and (Gina and Mutambara 2024) argue that renewable energy could mitigate poverty in Soweto. Empowerment outcomes appear in two studies: (Mirzania et al. 2023) emphasize the need for community empowerment in policy realignment, while (Monare 2019) underscores that participation and social capital are essential to sustaining early-stage community solar projects.

(Musyoki and Tinarwo 2015) link environmental health and food security to biogas uptake among the rural poor. (Mohlakoana et al. 2023) note improvements in services and skills through reskilling programmes, while (Taylor 2023) highlights the importance of gender-sensitive interventions for equitable outcomes. (Bohlmann et al. 2023) discuss the potential for economic renewal under a managed transition; (Hägele et al. 2022) explore alignment with Sustainable Development Goals; and (Swilling et al. 2022) outline local development benefits from value-chain frameworks. (Semelane et al. 2021) present alternative opportunities when solar-PV manufacturing is subsidized, while (Lesala et al. 2024) show reduced vulnerability among older social-grant recipients in off-grid settings. (Netshiozwi 2022) cautions that solar home systems can yield benefits if governance improves, whereas (Phogole et al. 2022) report no significant change in income despite appliance adoption. (Tladi et al. 2022) document job-security concerns in early-stage coal transitions, and (Taylor 2023) finds that justice for the poor is not being delivered. (Bongoza et al. 2019) describe how the EPWP shielded ultra-poor households during COVID-19, while (Monare 2019) identifies potential for sustainability in participatory community projects.

4.3 Community response

Of the included studies, nine report explicitly positive community responses to interventions. (Musyoki and Tinarwo 2015) find that rural women involved in biogas initiatives experience enhanced well-being; (Bongoza et al. 2019) describe village residents welcoming improved educational outcomes and comfort from solar installations; (Gina and Mutambara 2024) note support from Soweto entrepreneurs for community solar proposals; (Naidoo 2020) records that households appreciate cost savings and increased productive time from solar water heaters; (Maphosa et al. 2018) show that small businesses value reduced energy costs from clean stoves and LED lighting; (Kimemia and Annegarn 2014) observe improved wellbeing among rural LPG beneficiaries; (Lesala et al. 2024) report that older off-grid residents feel more secure with incremental energy access.

(Monare 2019) highlights positive stakeholder engagement in early-stage urban solar schemes, while (Glen et al. 2019) document enthusiastic uptake of EPWP jobs in tourism pathways. Five studies identify concerns, negative sentiments, or governance failures: (Nkoana 2018) finds that local youth receive only temporary, low-paid construction jobs with little oversight; (Chetty et al. 2023) report that foreign dependence limits local wind-sector benefits; (Netshiozwi 2022) details a failed solar home-system programme due to governance lapses; Tladi et al. (2022) note community apprehension over job loss and exclusion from decision-making in Komati; and (Phogole et al. 2022) describe limited community gains from clean-energy appliances. One study reports an explicitly negative response. (Taylor 2023) highlights community frustration over the lack of justice and gender equity in solar-plant projects, while (Cole et al. 2023) present a mixed response, acknowledging both the over 50,000 renewable-energy jobs created in 2020 and the persistent 39 per cent unemployment rate in host communities. Thirteen studies make no reference to community perceptions or responses.

4.4 Implementation effectiveness

Implementation effectiveness presents a recurring challenge. Several studies (Nkoana, 2018; Chidzungu and Wafer, 2024) report that local communities primarily access temporary, low-paid positions with limited opportunities for skills development or long-term employment. Governance failures, such as inadequate monitoring of community trusts and the exclusion of vulnerable groups from decision-making, diminish outcomes (Nkoana, 2018; Chetty et al., 2023; Netshiozwi, 2022). Conversely, small-scale successes emerge where interventions align with local needs and adopt participatory approaches: (Musyoki and Tinarwo 2015) observe improved livelihoods and social inclusion among rural women in biogas projects, and (Bongoza et al. 2019) document village-level solar installations that enhance comfort and educational outcomes. Nevertheless, most interventions remain limited in scale; none demonstrate large-scale replication or systemic poverty reduction across the coal belt or broader rural regions.

4.5 Social equity considerations

Social equity is a central concern within the reviewed literature. Multiple studies (Taylor, 2023; Lesala et al., 2024; Chidzungu and Wafer, 2024) report that women, youth, and other vulnerable groups are often excluded from new economic opportunities, with gender disparities particularly pronounced in access to both jobs and energy services. (Lesala et al. 2024) find that female-headed and lower-income households bear the brunt of energy poverty, while (Taylor 2023) argues that the transition fails to deliver justice for the poor or promote gender equality. Trust in institutions is low: (Mohlakoana et al. 2023) report that affected workers and communities prefer independent actors to administer just-transition funds, reflecting skepticism toward state-led processes. Spatial mismatches, where jobs are lost in coal regions but new opportunities arise in distant renewable energy hubs, exacerbate existing inequalities (Cole et al., 2023; Nel et al., 2023). The literature underscores that, unless social equity is explicitly addressed through targeted skills development, participatory governance, and gender-sensitive interventions, the just energy transition risks reproducing or deepening patterns of marginalization.

5 Interpreting the socioeconomic implications of JETP outcomes

Taken together, the findings suggest that South Africa's Just Energy Transition Partnership has thus far functioned more effectively as a vehicle for economic reallocation than as a mechanism for direct poverty reduction in marginalized communities. While numerous studies report employment creation and economic activity linked to renewable energy deployment, these opportunities are overwhelmingly characterized by short-term, construction- phase jobs, limited skills transfer, and weak local absorption, particularly in coal-host regions where job losses are concentrated. The predominance of indirect benefits, such as reduced energy expenditure, time savings, or improved household resilience, indicates that transition interventions often mitigate vulnerability rather than generate sustained income gains. This helps explain why baseline poverty and unemployment indicators remain largely unchanged across most empirical studies, despite optimistic national-level modeling. Governance failures, including fragmented procurement, weak community trusts, foreign-dependent supply chains, and limited participatory decision-making, emerge as a central mediating factor shaping these outcomes, constraining the translation of investment into durable local development. The evidence further reveals that without spatially targeted employment strategies, gender-sensitive skills pathways, and institutional mechanisms to anchor value chains locally, the energy transition risks reproducing existing inequalities rather than delivering a substantively “just” transition. In this sense, the findings underscore a critical disconnect between the normative ambitions of the JETP and its current implementation on the ground.

6 Conclusion

This systematic review highlights that while South Africa's JETP holds considerable promise for catalyzing economic opportunities and reducing poverty in marginalized communities, empirical evidence of direct, large-scale poverty alleviation remains limited (Cole et al., 2023; Lesala et al., 2024). Modeled scenarios suggest that under an optimal decarbonisation pathway, national poverty rates could decline from 49 per cent in 2010 to 18 per cent by 2050 (Altieri et al., 2016; Bohlmann et al., 2023). However, baseline assessments indicate that 37 per cent of coal-host communities already live below the poverty line, and 38 per cent of off-grid households endure energy poverty (Cole et al., 2023; Lesala et al., 2024). Empirical studies of on-the-ground interventions frequently report that renewable energy jobs are predominantly temporary, low-paid, and concentrated in construction phases, with limited upskilling for local residents (Chidzungu and Wafer, 2024; Nkoana, 2018; Taylor, 2023). Moreover, spatial mismatches between areas of coal-sector job losses and new renewable energy hubs often generate net job losses in traditional mining regions (Nel et al., 2023; Cole et al., 2023).

Governance shortcomings, including weak community trusts, fragmented procurement processes, and foreign-dependent supply chains, further constrain local economic benefits (Nkoana, 2018; Chetty et al., 2023; Netshiozwi, 2022). Concerns regarding social equity are widespread, with several studies documenting the exclusion of women, youth, and other vulnerable groups from meaningful participation in skills training programmes and decision-making forums (Chidzungu and Wafer, 2024; Taylor, 2023; Lesala et al., 2024). While small-scale successes exist, such as biogas initiatives that enhance rural women's livelihoods (Musyoki and Tinarwo, 2015), solar installations that improve comfort and education in villages (Bongoza et al., 2019), and Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) projects that generated 4.2 million jobs (Glen et al., 2019), these remain exceptions rather than the norm. Crucially, most interventions have not demonstrated sustainable, community-wide poverty reduction, and governance failures frequently undermine potential gains (Chidzungu and Wafer, 2024; Netshiozwi, 2022).

7 Recommendations

Building on the synthesized evidence, this review proposes a set of evidence-based recommendations aimed at enhancing the socioeconomic impact of Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) initiatives in marginalized communities.

First, governance structures and community participation should be strengthened to ensure that transition finance translates into locally meaningful benefits. Transparent community trusts with clearly defined accountability mechanisms should be established so that a significant share of JETP funds reaches local stakeholders. Inclusive participatory platforms should be instituted at the project inception stage, with deliberate inclusion of women, youth, and other vulnerable groups in decision-making processes to address persistent social equity gaps. In addition, local oversight committees comprising civil society representatives, traditional leaders, and local government officials should be created to monitor procurement processes, hiring practices, and revenue allocation.

Second, skills development initiatives must be more closely aligned with local labor-market needs. Targeted reskilling programmes for coal-sector workers should be designed to match the technical requirements of renewable energy projects, with clear and realistic pathways from training to employment. Gender-sensitive components should be embedded across all training curricula to address structural barriers that currently exclude women and other marginalized groups. Engagement with local training institutions, community colleges, and non-governmental organizations is also necessary to deliver decentralized, low-cost training modules that reduce travel time and accommodation costs for participants.

Third, policies should promote local economic diversification and value-chain development in coal-affected regions. Renewable energy contracts should prioritize local procurement quotas for equipment, materials, and services to stimulate emerging supply chains. The incubation of small businesses, particularly those led by women and youth, should be supported through access to concessional finance, business planning assistance, and market linkages. Furthermore, feasibility studies for regionally anchored manufacturing activities, such as solar photovoltaic assembly and component fabrication, should be supported through subsidized infrastructure and targeted tax incentives to reduce dependency on imports.

Fourth, spatially targeted employment strategies are needed to address geographic mismatches between job losses and job creation. Conditional placement schemes should be introduced to link new renewable energy projects in urban hubs with employment quotas for displaced coal workers in adjacent coal districts, thereby minimizing spatial disparities. Coordination with municipal development agencies is also required to map high-unemployment areas and to direct social enterprise initiatives toward these communities, ensuring that investment flows align with local labor surpluses.

Finally, monitoring, evaluation, and impact measurement frameworks should be enhanced to improve accountability and learning. A centralized JETP impact database should be established to aggregate disaggregated data on job types, including temporary and permanent positions, wages, gender composition, and upskilling outcomes, thereby supporting evidence-based decision-making. Mixed-methods evaluation frameworks that combine quantitative poverty indicators with qualitative community interviews should be adopted to capture both direct and indirect benefits and to track changes in social equity over time. Longitudinal studies should also be conducted in representative coal-host and off-grid communities to assess changes in household income distribution, energy poverty status, and livelihood diversification before and after interventions.

Correction note

A correction has been made to this article. Details can be found at: 10.3389/fsuep.2026.1890934.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not 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.

Footnotes

Edited by: Yongda He, Shanxi University of Finance and Economics, China

Reviewed by: Crenguţa-Ileana Sinisi, University POLITEHNICA Bucharest, Romania

Upenyu Sakarombe, Zimbabwe Ezekiel Guti University, Zimbabwe