A groundbreaking study published in Nature Sustainability sheds new light on the academic landscape surrounding global sustainability efforts, revealing critical gaps and biases that could hinder transformative change. Conducted by the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB) in collaboration with the University of Zürich and a global team of researchers, this extensive bibliometric analysis dives deep into four million scholarly publications to assess which actions and actors are most emphasized in driving sustainability transformations. The findings point to a pressing need to rethink the focus and inclusivity of sustainability research to effectively confront the intertwined crises of climate change and biodiversity loss.
The urgency for systemic, transformative change has never been greater. Experts widely agree that incremental steps are insufficient to combat the accelerating death of ecosystems and the intensifying impacts of climate disruption. The scientific community has long argued for fundamental shifts in society’s structures, viewpoints, and governance practices to foster a world where humans and nature coexist and thrive sustainably. To that end, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) recently outlined a framework encompassing five broad strategies and 22 related actions spanning multiple societal sectors—a blueprint for the pursuit of genuine sustainability transformation in 2024 and beyond.
Despite this comprehensive guidance, what remains largely unexplored until now is how academic research prioritizes and assigns agency over these transformative actions. Which strategies receive scholarly attention, and which societal actors—be they governments, businesses, civil organizations, or individuals—are framed as responsible for implementing these changes? By meticulously mapping the landscape of global sustainability research, the ICTA-UAB-led study reveals stark disparities. Technological innovations and solutions dominate the scholarly discourse, overshadowing equally vital topics such as economic restructuring and governance reforms—areas crucial for enabling systemic change that disrupts entrenched unsustainable practices.
Even more revealing is how the research community narrativizes accountability. While private sector actors and knowledge producers—scientists, communicators, and educators—figure prominently, civil society’s role remains profoundly underexplored. This underrepresentation signals a major blind spot given civil society’s potential to mobilize grassroots movements, advocate for equitable policies, and hold powerful institutions accountable. The public sector, likewise, receives limited focus amidst the deluge of research spotlighting corporate and technological interventions. Financial actors, such as investors and banks, who wield significant influence over environmental outcomes through funding decisions, also face conspicuous neglect in scholarly narratives, despite their capacity to catalyze or obstruct transformative sustainability efforts.
A particularly disconcerting trend identified by the study is the disproportionate emphasis placed on individual behavioral change. Research focusing on simple personal actions—like recycling habits—far outnumbers investigations into structural reforms in economic models or governance systems. This skew towards individual responsibility reflects a long-standing rhetorical strategy deployed by certain industries, notably fossil fuel companies, to deflect blame away from systemic contributors like regulatory frameworks and corporate practices. By shifting the burden onto individual citizens, these narratives obfuscate the collective action and policy transformations urgently required to reverse environmental degradation.
Victoria Reyes-García, the study’s lead author and ICREA researcher at ICTA-UAB, emphasizes that the current research panorama risks perpetuating a limited and potentially misleading understanding of how deep and lasting sustainability transformations can be achieved. “Our findings reveal how large-scale academic inquiry can unintentionally reinforce biased perspectives that overlook powerful actors, especially those within civil society, that are essential for driving meaningful change,” she notes. This highlights the importance of expanding the scope of sustainability research to include diverse knowledge systems and inclusive policy discussions that transcend conventional technological optimism.
The study’s authors advocate for a paradigm shift in sustainability scholarship toward pluralistic approaches that integrate social, economic, political, and ecological dimensions holistically. This entails broadening the research agenda to encompass underrepresented strategies, such as economic transformation and governance innovation, and to scrutinize the roles and responsibilities of a wider array of sectors, including public institutions and grassroots movements. Advanced bibliometric tools enabled the researchers to systematically dissect the vast corpus of scientific literature, but the need now is to translate these insights into more inclusive, coordinated, and systemic research frameworks and policy interventions.
From a methodological standpoint, the study employs sophisticated data mining and network analysis techniques to interrogate millions of academic documents. By categorizing and connecting discussions on transformative actions with identified actors across numerous disciplines, the research uncovers hidden patterns in sustainability discourse. These empirical insights provide a vital evidence base for restructuring and prioritizing future research agendas, ensuring that critical blind spots do not persist in shaping climate and biodiversity policy. The emphasis on integrative, systemic approaches underscores the complex, interdependent nature of sustainability challenges that demand comprehensive understanding beyond isolated technological or behavioral solutions.
Moreover, the research calls into question the prevailing narratives in environmental policy debates and highlights how academic work can inadvertently reinforce existing power dynamics by marginalizing certain stakeholders and strategies. This is a critical concern as global sustainability agendas increasingly seek to be inclusive and just, tackling entrenched social inequities alongside ecological crises. The interplay between knowledge production and political decision-making thus emerges as pivotal: without rigorous, multidimensional scholarship that captures diverse actor roles and systemic transformations, policy efforts risk remaining superficial and insufficient.
The reflections from this study urge academics, policymakers, and practitioners alike to reconsider how sustainability knowledge is constructed and disseminated. Enhancing collaborations that transcend disciplinary boundaries and integrating perspectives from underrepresented social sectors, especially civil society, can enrich understanding and bolster transformative change. Aligning research priorities with multi-actor participatory governance models and equitable economic reforms is key to unlocking the systemic shifts envisaged by international sustainability frameworks.
In conclusion, this comprehensive bibliometric study functions as both a diagnostic and a call-to-action. It uncovers fundamental biases in the current academic treatment of sustainability transformations and points toward more engaged, diversified approaches to knowledge production. As humanity confronts the twin existential threats of climate breakdown and biodiversity collapse, recalibrating the research lens to focus on a wider array of actions and accountable actors is not just scholarly good practice—it is a crucial step for achieving genuine global sustainability.
Subject of Research: Actions and actors driving transformative change for global sustainability
Article Title: Actions and actors driving transformative change for global sustainability
News Publication Date: 27-Feb-2026
Web References: 10.1038/s41893-026-01783-1
Keywords: Sustainability, Climate change, Climate change adaptation, Climate change mitigation, Anthropogenic climate change, Abrupt climate change, Climate policy, Environmental issues
