Quantifying Social Justice in Energy Transition: A Policy-Driven Assessment Framework for China

Abstract

Addressing climate change and promoting social justice are crucial sustainable development goals. However, the quantitative assessment of how energy transition policies impact social justice remains a significant challenge. To address this gap, we develop a novel Energy Transition Social Justice Framework (ETSJF) that integrates four dimensions (energy supply, energy demand, procedural justice, and distributive justice) and three perspectives (individual, group-organizational, and society). The ETSJF index is constructed to measure the progress of social justice in China’s energy transition from 2010 to 2021. The index exhibits a robust growth trend, increasing from 269 in 2010 to 965 in 2021, with an average annual growth rate of 12.9%. The years 2014 and 2020–2021 mark turning points, coinciding with the implementation of transformative policy initiatives and China’s carbon neutrality pledge. Employing multi-source data analysis, we evaluate the impact of energy transition policies on social justice using the Energy Transition Policy Impact Intensity (ETPII). Our analysis reveals that energy transition policies significantly positively impact overall social justice (ETPII: 1.133), with variations across dimensions. Energy supply shows the most potent effects (ETPII: 1.203), while procedural justice exhibits the weakest impact (ETPII: 0.804). These findings offer policy implications for achieving a just and inclusive energy transition. The proposed ETSJF and ETPII enable the systematic monitoring of social justice progress and offer methodological tools for policymakers to optimize energy transition policies through data-driven decision-making.

1. Introduction

Addressing climate change (SDG13) and promoting social equity (SDG10/SDG11/SDG16) are core issues in the United Nations “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” [1]. Since the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015, countries have continuously strengthened energy transition policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, address climate change, and adapt to its impacts [2]. While the global energy transition creates development opportunities, it also brings complex challenges, such as employment replacement in fossil fuel industries, intensified energy poverty risks, and imbalanced transition costs and benefits distribution among different social groups [3]. Promoting energy justice transition represents a shared goal and vision among researchers and practitioners for future developments in the energy system that are technologically innovative but also equitable, egalitarian, fair, and inclusive [4,5].

As the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, China plays a crucial role in global climate governance and energy transition. Its mitigation targets and actions significantly impact global trajectories and sustainability [6]. In recent years, energy transition has become an important strategic direction for China. The Chinese government has clearly stated its “dual carbon” goals of reaching a carbon peak before 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality before 2060. It has subsequently issued a series of policies, including the “Renewable Energy Law” and the “14th Five-Year Modern Energy System Planning” to promote renewable energy development, improve energy efficiency, and reduce fossil fuel dependence [7]. Energy transition must be centered on justice and produce just social outcomes [8]. However, considering China’s continuous rapid economic growth, large population base, coal-dominated energy structure, and aggressive low-carbon transition goals, achieving both emission reduction and social justice within this complex governance context is a tremendous challenge [6]. Social justice issues in China’s energy transition not only affect China’s sustainable development but also have important implications for global climate governance and just transition processes.

Just energy transition can be understood as a fair and balanced process toward a post-carbon society [9]. Scholars have conducted in-depth discussions on energy justice and energy transition in energy systems in recent years. Some studies focus on constructing multi-dimensional conceptual frameworks for energy justice and identifying key principles for just transition. For example, Sovacool proposed ten principles of energy justice that policymakers should follow [10]. McCauley et al. summarized the core principles of the energy justice framework, including distributional justice, recognition justice, procedural justice, and cosmopolitan justice [11]. Heffron further pointed out that distributive, procedural, restorative, recognition, and cosmopolitan justice are the five core forms of justice for moving energy justice from theory to practice while providing a comprehensive action framework for just energy transition [8]. Other studies have conducted quantitative analyses around just energy transition. Bartiaux et al. examined the relationship between different social groups’ access to affordable energy services and capability deprivation by analyzing standardized survey data in Belgium, providing a quantitative assessment of energy justice dimensions [12]. However, such quantitative studies still lack the integration of multi-source data.

Regarding the relationship between energy transition policies and social justice, existing research mainly includes two categories: First, qualitative effect assessments of specific policies. For example, Hoicka et al. believe that the successful implementation of RECs and achieving just energy transition requires combining technical solutions with more open decision-making processes [13]. Heffron and McCauley point out that current just transition policies are inadequate in plans for phasing out fossil fuel industries in stages, requiring more proactive policies and the redistribution of funds to achieve a just transition to a low-carbon economy [4]. Second is the quantitative research on policy implementation’s impact on energy justice. For example, Ivanova and Middlemiss compared the differences between disabled households and other households in the EU in terms of energy use, income, poverty risk, and energy poverty [14]. Carley and Konisky reviewed research on the potential adverse impacts of energy transition on specific communities and socioeconomic groups, emphasizing the need to further understand the equity and justice dimensions of energy transition [15]. Sabato and Fronteddu, through a comprehensive assessment of the European Green Deal, found that this policy framework provides a feasible pathway for achieving just transition through policy coordination and funding mechanisms [16]. These studies have confirmed that implementing energy transition policies helps improve social justice levels during transition. Additionally, some studies have pointed out that policymakers often lack a systematic consideration of social justice impacts when formulating energy transition policies, and also lack practical tools for assessing social justice levels [3,17,18]. Incorporating social justice into energy transition policy formulation and assessment processes is crucial for coordinating interest groups and achieving fair distribution. It is also an inherent requirement for advancing sustainable development goals.

Overall, the existing research in just energy transition has four areas that need further exploration. First, there are relatively few quantitative assessments of just energy transition. Attempts to operationalize the core principles of just energy transition into measurable indicators and conduct quantitative assessments remain relatively scarce; yet such quantitative evaluation is crucial for accurately diagnosing social justice issues in energy transition and scientifically formulating countermeasures. Second, the dynamic perspective needs strengthening. Energy transition is a dynamic development process, and transition policies are continuously adjusted and optimized; research analyzing the evolution of Energy Transition Policy Intensity and its impacts from a dynamic perspective needs strengthening. Third, incorporating policy into just energy transition assessment still needs development. Energy transition policies affect different dimensions of social justice through complex mechanisms; assessing the impact of energy transition policies on different dimensions of social justice helps identify key impact pathways and optimize policy design and implementation plans. Fourth, there is insufficient quantitative research on social justice issues in energy transition in countries like China. Further in-depth research is needed to develop just energy transition pathways that align with national conditions, particularly for emerging economies, like China, facing complex socioeconomic challenges during energy transition.

In response to these research gaps, this study develops a comprehensive quantitative assessment framework for just energy transition, integrating theoretical and practical perspectives. Using China as a case study, we quantitatively assess the dynamic evolution of social justice throughout the energy transition process and analyze the multi-dimensional impacts of energy transition policies on just transition. The core research methodology of this study involves four aspects: First, we propose an Energy Transition Policy Intensity (ETPI) model that analyzes energy transition policies in China to assess their guidance direction, support strength, and influence scope at national and regional levels. Second, after combining the literature on social justice evaluation in energy transition and consulting with five experts in related fields, we integrate the current situation of the rapid development of energy transition policies in China and construct a dynamic assessment framework for social justice in the context of energy transition (ETSJF) by integrating multi-dimensional data—such as government statistics, social media data, expert opinion data collected online, and enterprise-related data—to achieve a quantitative evaluation of social justice in energy transition. Third, this study proposes the concept of Energy Transition Policy Impact Intensity (ETPII) to quantitatively portray the degree of the effect of energy transition policies on social justice as a whole and from different dimensions and perspectives. Fourth, using the ETSJF, this study explores the dynamic change characteristics of social justice in the energy transition process in China between 2010 and 2021 and identifies and analyzes the weaknesses of social justice in the energy transition process.

This study makes three significant theoretical contributions. First, this paper innovatively constructs an Energy Transition Social Justice Framework (ETSJF), comprehensively considering multiple key principles of just energy transition, forming an evaluation system with four dimensions, three perspectives, and two levels. The ETSJF enables the quantitative assessment of social justice in energy transition, helping to diagnose development shortcomings in energy transition social justice. Second, this paper proposes the Energy Transition Policy Intensity (ETPI) measurement model and the Energy Transition Policy Impact Intensity (ETPII) index. The ETPI model quantitatively assesses Energy Transition Policy Intensity characteristics from three aspects: policy guidance direction, support strength, and influence scope, while ETPII quantitatively describes the degree of the impact of energy transition policies on overall and various dimensions of social justice. Third, using the analytical tools of the ETSJF, ETPI, and ETPII, constructed in this paper, this research collected heterogeneous multi-source data on China’s energy transition from 2010 to 2021, analyzing the dynamic development characteristics of social justice in China’s energy transition.

The practical contributions of this study are threefold: First, the integrated assessment method proposed in this paper can simultaneously quantitatively evaluate energy transition policies addressing climate change and social justice progress, providing new ideas for coordinating energy transition and socially inclusive development. Second, through the comprehensive application of the ETSJF framework, ETPIM model, and ETPII analysis tools, this paper constructs a dynamic assessment scheme for energy transition social justice based on multi-source data. Third, the research results of this paper help promote attention to social justice issues in the global energy transition process.

The subsequent sections of this paper are structured as follows: Section 2 provides a comprehensive review of the pertinent literature. Section 3 presents the research methodology, including the ETSJF, ETPI, and ETPII. Section 4 details the data sources, their salient characteristics, and the acquisition and processing methodologies utilized in this research. Section 5 presents and discusses the main results. Finally, Section 6 concludes the paper by summarizing the key findings and policy implications.

2. Literature Review

This literature review systematically synthesizes and critically evaluates the state-of-the-art research on energy transitions, social justice principles, and their intersection in the emerging field of energy justice transition. It is structured into five sub-sections, addressing (1) the urgency and complexity of the global energy transition; (2) the theoretical foundations of social justice and energy applications; (3) the integration of social justice into energy transitions; (4) the challenges and potential of harnessing data for social justice measurement; and (5) the research gaps and objectives of this study, which aims to develop a novel theoretical framework and innovative methodological approach for assessing social justice in energy transitions.

2.1. Energy Transition

The urgent need for a global energy transition has emerged as one of the most pressing challenges of our time [19]. Energy transition entails a significant shift away from conventional sources of energy to alternative ones. The modern energy transition is marked by reducing fossil fuels, predominantly from traditional fossil energy sources, such as coal and oil, to clean energy sources, including wind, solar, and natural gas [15]. According to projections for meeting the objectives of the Paris Agreement and the 2030 agenda for sustainable development, renewable energy sources must account for over 63% of the energy system by the year 2050 [20]. Achieving this goal necessitates comprehensive, low-carbon adjustments across multiple sectors and systems within countries [21].

Research on energy transitions has flourished in recent years. Scholars have conducted research based on systems thinking from different research areas and perspectives on the social, technological, institutional, and political changes in energy transition. Research on energy transition can be divided into two main categories. One category of research examines technologies, including research on transition technology pathways [22], production and conversion technologies for emerging energy sources (including solar, wind, photovoltaic, and hydrogen) [23], and new energy storage solutions [24]. These technologies are important drivers of energy transition. From a technological perspective, in addition to contributing to achieving global climate change goals, the energy transition can enhance a country’s or a region’s ability to innovate, create leadership in renewable energy technologies, and create jobs in future growth markets [25]. Another large category examines the sustainability of the energy transition, socio-economic pathways, transition policies, problems in the transition, and discusses and studies these issues from a social-development perspective. Markard discusses the key features of the initial and current phases of the energy transition [26]. Some researchers have used case reviews and case studies to research precedents, policies, and influencing factors in energy transitions in specific countries and regions [27,28,29]. Some researchers have tried exploring energy transitions from different dimensions and perspectives; for example, Miller et al. explored energy transitions from social dimensions [30]. Energy transitions are not only a transition to new and efficient energy systems but also a challenge to ensure that the environmental and social costs, risks, and benefits of such transition are appropriately and sustainably managed [31].

2.2. Social Justice and Energy Justice

Equity and justice are among human development goals and are inherent to sustainable development [32]. Colquitt and Rodell define justice as the perceived adherence to rules that reflect appropriateness in decision contexts [33]. Citizen participation, or public involvement, represents a crucial manifestation of social justice that can effectively promote fairness [34]. When individuals feel genuinely engaged in decision-making processes and believe their interests are considered, they are more likely to perceive the process as fair and demonstrate greater acceptance of energy policy and system changes [35].

The concept of social justice has been widely incorporated into diverse research fields, such as environmental science and psychological science [36,37]. Among these applications, energy justice has emerged as a key interdisciplinary field that demonstrates the productive integration of social justice principles into energy-related research and practice [3,38,39]. This integration has become particularly significant amid intensifying fossil fuel scarcity and mounting challenges in sustainable energy transition, where energy justice has gained increasing prominence in shaping energy policy and planning [40]. Energy justice is a modern offshoot of justice in environmental justice, focusing more on the entire life cycle of energy systems and energy resources [15]. It includes choosing what energy systems to build in the future, where to build them, and how to allocate their benefits, costs, and risks [41]. The core tenet of energy justice is that all individuals should have access to affordable, safe, and sustainable energy that enables them to lead decent lives, participate in energy decision-making, and have the right to effect change. Energy justice addresses the complex normative and ethical issues arising from energy production and consumption, including equitable access, the fair distribution of costs and benefits, and the right to participate in shaping the future of energy systems [30].

The concept and framework of energy justice are continuously being constructed and improved. Extensive scholarly discourse has addressed the core principles of energy justice, including developing ten fundamental principles for policymaker implementation [9,42]. Some scholars have also proposed important principles such as restorative justice in their research [43]. However, seriously speaking, energy justice has three core principles and concepts: distributional justice, procedural justice, and recognition justice [44]. As a complex multi-dimensional phenomenon, energy justice requires comprehensive measurement approaches integrating both qualitative and quantitative indicators [45]. Although current quantitative methods for measuring energy justice are still in the exploratory stage, many valuable works have been very inspiring. For example, Zhang et al. established a methodological framework based on quantitative and qualitative methods to measure and improve energy security in a broad sense [46]. Wang et al. adopted an analytical framework covering four important aspects of energy justice—availability, affordability, sustainability, and responsibility—along with eighteen specific indicators to study and evaluate the current status of energy justice in various Chinese provinces [40].

2.3. The Energy Justice Transition

In recent years, the concept of energy justice transition has received increasing attention in academic literature [32]. This transition can be considered an intersection of the energy transition, social justice, and energy justice literature, emphasizing the integral role of justice in the current energy transition. Social justice in the context of energy transition primarily involves ensuring that all groups have access to energy that is not only affordable, safe, and sustainable but also enables them to lead decent lifestyles, have the opportunity to participate in the energy decision-making process, and have the right to make changes [47]. Heffron underscores that the central focus of a “just transition” is the imperative for society to transition to a low-carbon economy equitably. It is not solely a technical and social issue [4]. Jenkins et al. outline the relationship between energy justice and social justice through the lenses of “what”, “who”, and “how”—“what” pertains to distributive justice, “who” encompasses the recognition, empowerment, and inclusion of marginalized groups, and “how” deals with procedural mechanisms to rectify existing injustices and ensure fairness in decision-making [48].

The concept of justice in energy transition is diverse and multi-layered, and academia has conducted extensive discussions around the dimensions and foundations of justice transition [3]. Drawing on the energy justice paradigm, Bartiaux et al. developed an analytical framework encompassing three fundamental dimensions: distributive, procedural, and recognition-based injustice concerning marginalized social groups [12]. Heffron and McCauley proposed the just transition framework as an integrative approach synthesizing climate, energy, and environmental justice perspectives, emphasizing balancing rapid energy transition with social equity through three key dimensions: distributional, procedural, and restorative justice [32]. McCauley et al. summarized the core principles of energy justice frameworks as distributional justice, recognition justice, procedural justice, and cosmopolitan justice [11]. Atteridge and Stramboet proposed seven core principles for achieving a just transition, highlighting the need to address economic inequalities while working towards decarbonization through inclusive planning processes [49]. Heffron pointed out that to promote energy justice from theory to practice, distributive, procedural, restorative, recognition, and cosmopolitan justice are the five core forms of justice. At the same time, these five principles provide a comprehensive action framework for just energy transition [8].

Despite the subtle differences in current scholarly discussions about the core principles of just energy transition, it is clear that integrating multiple dimensions of energy justice in the decision-making process is crucial for achieving a just energy transition [3,5].

2.4. Leveraging Multi-Source Data for Social Justice Assessment

The quantification of social justice indicators within energy transition frameworks remains one of the field’s primary methodological challenges. A groundbreaking analytical framework introduced by researchers provides methodological insights for evaluating complex, intangible social phenomena [50]. This methodological foundation enables us to systematically utilize diverse data streams to assess previously unquantified social justice dimensions. The contemporary data landscape offers rich opportunities through governmental records, digital platforms, and media analytics to enhance policy formulation and social impact assessment. By synthesizing these emerging data sources with traditional statistical measures policymakers can develop more responsive and evidence-based social justice initiatives [51].

Our analytical framework incorporates multiple data categories to create comprehensive social justice metrics. Drawing from established methodological frameworks [51,52,53], we classify our data sources into four categories: structured research data, institutional records, digital trace data, and regulatory information. Structured research data encompasses systematically collected statistical information through planned research initiatives. A prime illustration is economic performance monitoring through national accounts systems. Institutional records encompass operational data generated through organizational activities and program implementation. Digital trace data emerges organically from societal interactions, particularly through digital platforms and social networks, providing real-time insights into social dynamics. Regulatory information encompasses legislative frameworks, procedural guidelines, and compliance requirements that structure societal operations and individual behaviors.

2.5. Research Gaps and Objectives

Prior research has contributed significantly to understanding energy transitions and social justice, yet specific analytical challenges persist. This literature review reveals several key areas requiring further investigation. First, while existing frameworks address individual aspects of energy justice, the current literature lacks integrated analytical approaches that comprehensively examine distributional and procedural dimensions. Specifically, the interactions between these dimensions remain inadequately explored. Second, quantitative assessments of social justice in energy transitions face methodological limitations. Current metrics often fail to capture the complex dynamics of justice outcomes, particularly in measuring recognition justice. Third, despite the increasing availability of diverse data sources, systematic approaches for integrating designed, administrative, and digital data streams in energy justice assessment remain limited [50].

This study therefore aims to develop an analytical framework that systematically examines the interconnections between key justice dimensions. Additionally, it proposes specific metrics for quantifying social justice outcomes in energy transitions. Finally, it demonstrates the application of integrated data approaches in justice assessment.

3. Establish the ETSJF

The rapid advancement of the global energy transition has highlighted the critical need for a comprehensive framework to evaluate its social justice implications. This section establishes a dynamic framework, named the Energy Transition Social Justice Assessment Framework (ETSJF), which integrates multiple dimensions of justice considerations in the context of energy transition. To enhance the framework’s analytical capabilities, we propose two complementary tools: the Energy Transition Policy Intensity (ETPI) model to measure policy implementation intensity quantitatively and the Energy Transition Policy Impact Intensity (ETPII) index to evaluate the social justice impacts of these policies. These three interconnected components form a comprehensive analytical system for understanding and promoting just energy transition.

3.1. The Energy Transition Social Justice Assessment Framework (ETSJF)

This ETSJF consists of four dimensions, three perspectives, and two levels of indicators. Its primary objective is to assess social justice changes during the energy transition process straightforwardly and intuitively, utilizing fundamental and essential elements, and to provide a quantitative measurement method for identifying the dimensions in which the energy justice transition is lacking, thereby assisting policymakers in formulating targeted strategies.

3.1.1. Theoretical Foundations

(1)

Four dimensions

Based on the core principles of energy justice established in the literature [8,11,48], this paper proposes a novel quantitative framework (ETSJF) that encompasses four distinct but interrelated dimensions: energy supply justice, energy demand justice, procedural justice, and distributive justice. While theoretically independent, these dimensions form a dynamic system where changes in one dimension can significantly influence others, creating a comprehensive evaluation mechanism [15,33,38,54].

Energy supply justice primarily builds on recognition justice and cosmopolitan justice principles [8,30], focusing on the equitable distribution of energy production resources and development opportunities across different economic levels and regions. This dimension emphasizes both the economic foundation and clean energy transition capabilities in the supply system, while recognizing diverse stakeholder perceptions in the production process.

Energy demand justice is grounded in the recognition of justice and accessibility principles [11,30], emphasizing equitable access to energy consumption opportunities while promoting efficient and sustainable use patterns. This dimension integrates considerations of consumption equity, efficiency, environmental impact, and the social recognition of consumption behaviors. This integration addresses the equitable distribution of energy consumption opportunities and the promotion of sustainable consumption patterns.

Procedural and distributive justice serve as fundamental pillars in justice assessments [44,55]. An energy system’s or technology’s justice is determined by the distribution of its benefits and burdens across affected communities and the decision-making processes that govern this distribution [39].

Procedural justice evaluates the fairness and inclusiveness of decision-making processes in energy transitions, emphasizing transparent governance structures and effective stakeholder engagement mechanisms [3,8,11]. This dimension examines multi-stakeholder perception and the recognition of energy transition processes. It ensures that diverse stakeholder voices are heard and meaningfully incorporated into energy-related decisions through systematic participation channels and governance frameworks.

Distributive justice addresses the equitable allocation of the benefits and burdens associated with energy consumption and production across various social groups [3,8,11]. This dimension examines both immediate and long-term distribution patterns, integrating current socioeconomic concerns with future development opportunities and environmental sustainability. It encompasses the evaluation of compensation mechanisms designed to address historical inequalities while ensuring the fair distribution of transition costs and benefits across different temporal and social dimensions.

Integrating these four dimensions enables a comprehensive evaluation that captures both the technical and social aspects of energy transition justice. Energy supply justice focuses on the methods and equity of energy generation, while energy demand justice relates to the patterns and accessibility of energy use among different societal groups. These two dimensions are fundamental to understanding the energy transition process [23,40]. Complementing these, procedural justice ensures fair and transparent decision-making processes, while distributive justice addresses the equitable allocation of benefits and burdens across affected populations [39]. The dynamic interaction between these dimensions is crucial: fair procedures often lead to more equitable outcomes, while the recognition of inequitable distributions can prompt improvements in decision-making processes. Together, these four dimensions provide a robust framework for evaluating the comprehensive justice of energy transition policies and practices, addressing current challenges and future sustainability requirements.

(2)

Three Perspectives

The ETSJF conceptualizes energy transition justice through three distinct analytical perspectives: societal, group–organizational, and individual, thereby addressing the multifaceted nature of energy justice impacts. Social perspective refers to a fair and equitable division of societal resources, opportunities, and privileges [56,57]. The group and organizational perspective examines collective experiences and institutional responses to the energy transition, with organizational justice reflecting employees’ perceptions of fairness in the workplace [58,59]. Individual perspective is based on the principle that each person should be treated fairly and equally, focusing on ensuring equal opportunities and treatment [60].

Energy transition processes involve complex interactions across multiple levels [61], wherein different analytical perspectives yield distinct conclusions, illuminate various challenges, and generate diverse insights. From a social perspective, the energy system functions as a socio-technical system, encompassing technological infrastructure and human interactions [30]. Analyzing the problem from the different levels of state, society, and individuals leads to diverse perspectives on social justice [62]. The theoretical foundation for these three perspectives emphasizes the fundamental interconnections between individuals and their constituent groups, and groups and individuals often exhibit different characteristics and responses to justice issues [63,64,65].

This multi-perspective approach enables a more nuanced understanding of energy transition impacts across different societal levels. Research has shown that distinguishing between individual and group experiences allows for more positive equality claims and a broader inclusion than traditional approaches [54,55]. In our framework, groups and organizations are operationalized through social media discussions and enterprise responses, while individual perspectives are captured through residential surveys and personal impact assessments.

Integrating additional justice dimensions, specifically the conceptualization of interpersonal and informational justice aspects [26], enhances the framework’s evaluative capacity. Interpersonal justice is assessed through emotional responses to government policies, while informational justice is evaluated through social media discussions and expert opinions in news media. These components strengthen the framework’s ability to capture formal and informal justice aspects in the energy transition process.

(3)

Two Levels

The temporal dimension of the ETSJF is grounded in intergenerational justice theory for energy transitions [8], establishing a dual-level temporal analysis that evaluates both current distributions and future implications of energy justice. The temporal dimension encompasses two distinct but interconnected levels of analysis. The current level assessment examines immediate distributive and procedural justice outcomes, addressing present inequalities while establishing foundations for future improvements. The future level assessment incorporates long-term projections, recognizing that contemporary energy transition decisions create lasting intergenerational impacts. This approach aligns with Strategic Transition Management theory, which emphasizes systematic long-term planning in energy system transformation [66].

Recent climate research findings substantiate the significance of this temporal distinction. Evidence suggests that under existing climate policy commitments, individuals born in 2020 face significantly higher risks—two to seven times greater—of experiencing extreme climate events compared to those born in 1960 [67]. This stark intergenerational disparity highlights the importance of incorporating temporal considerations in energy transition justice evaluations. The framework’s integration of both current metrics and future-oriented indicators serves a dual purpose: it provides comprehensive analytical capabilities while ensuring intergenerational equity considerations in energy system transformation. This temporal approach enables the evaluation of both immediate justice outcomes and their long-term evolutionary trajectories, offering a more complete assessment of energy transition justice.

The ETSJF integrates multiple key principles of just energy transition through four dimensions, three perspectives, and two levels. It provides policymakers with a powerful tool for identifying justice gaps, tracking transition progress, and designing targeted interventions to pursue environmentally sustainable and socially equitable energy systems. This research acknowledges certain methodological constraints in conceptualizing justice dimensions within energy transitions. While our analytical framework incorporates fundamental justice dimensions derived from established theoretical foundations, we recognize that alternative justice paradigms exist beyond our current scope. This limitation reflects the theoretical trade-off between comprehensive coverage and practical measurability in justice assessment frameworks.

3.1.2. Composition Indicators

Drawing upon the theoretical foundations of energy transition justice discussed in Section 3.1.1, this study proposes the Energy Transition Social Justice Framework (ETSJF) to systematically evaluate the social justice implications of energy transition processes. The ETSJF integrates multiple dimensions of justice concerns and adopts a comprehensive perspective encompassing individual, group-organizational, and societal aspects.

The four dimensions of the framework include the Energy Supply Dimension (ESDim), Energy Demand Dimension (EDDim), Procedural Justice Dimension (PJDim), and Distributional Justice Dimension (DJDim). The three perspectives encompass the Social Perspective (SP), Group and Organizational Perspective (GOP), and Individual Perspective (IP). The framework operates on two indicator levels: current and future. Figure 1 illustrates the comprehensive structure and hierarchical arrangement of the ETSJF.

Table 1. ETSJF indicators, purpose, and brief definition.

Dimensions	Perspectives	Levels	Indicators	Brief Definition and Units	Purpose	+/−	Corr.
Energy Supply Justice	Individual	Current	GDP per capita	Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita (CNY)	Measures individual economic well-being and ability to afford energy, reflecting recognition justice	+	0.841
			Clean energy supply per capita	Clean energy supply per capita (tons of standard coal)	Assesses individual access to clean energy sources, addressing recognition and cosmopolitan justice	+	0.832
		Future	Clean energy investment per capita	Clean energy investment per capita (CNY)	Evaluates future individual access to clean energy based on current investments	+	0.683
	Social	Current	GDP	Gross Domestic Product (billion CNY)	Measures overall economic performance and energy affordability, reflecting societal energy supply justice	+	0.839
			Energy supply per GDP	Energy supply per unit of GDP (tons of standard coal/CNY)	Assesses energy efficiency and productivity, indicating societal energy supply optimization	+	0.232
		Future	Share of clean energy production	Share of clean energy production in total energy production (%)	Evaluates the societal transition towards clean energy sources in production	+	0.760
			Energy industry investment per GDP	Energy industry investment per unit GDP (CNY)	Measures the prioritization of energy sector investments in the economy, reflecting societal commitment to energy transition	−	−0.837
	Group and Organizational	Current	Social media perception	Social media perception of energy supply (Weibo)	Assesses public sentiment towards energy supply justice at the group and organizational level, capturing informal justice aspects	+	0.899
Energy Demand Justice	Individual	Current	Energy consumption per capita	Total energy consumption per capita (tons of standard coal)	Measures individual energy usage and access	+	0.838
		Future	Clean energy consumption per capita	Clean energy consumption per capita (tons of standard coal)	Assesses individual adoption of clean energy sources	+	0.834
	Social	Current	Energy GDP intensity	Energy GDP intensity	Evaluates the energy efficiency of the economy, indicating societal commitment to sustainable consumption	−	−0.735
			Clean energy GDP intensity	Clean energy GDP intensity	Assesses the societal adoption of clean energy sources in consumption, promoting sustainability	+	0.418
Energy Demand Justice	Social	Current	Carbon intensity	Carbon intensity	Measures the carbon emissions associated with economic activities, reflecting societal environmental impact	−	−0.649
		Future	Share of clean energy consumption	Share of clean energy consumption in total energy consumption (%)	Evaluates the societal transition towards clean energy sources in consumption	+	0.798
	Group and Organizational	Current	Social media perception	Social media perception of energy demand (Weibo)	Assesses public sentiment towards energy demand justice at the group and organizational level, capturing informal justice aspects	+	0.899
Procedural Justice	Individual	Current	Perception of experts’ opinions	Perception of experts’ opinions	Assesses individual trust in experts’ opinions on energy justice issues	−	−0.03
	Social	Current	Perception of news media	Perception of news media	Evaluates public trust in news media coverage of energy justice issues	+	0.908
	Group and Organizational	Current	Perception of organizations’ behavior	Perception of enterprise behavior	Assesses public perception of organizations’ actions towards promoting energy justice	+	0.706
Distribution Justice	Individual	Current	Disposable income per capita	Per capita disposable income of residents (RMB)	Measures individual financial well-being and ability to afford energy	+	0.817
			Unemployment rate	Unemployment rate of urban registered (%)	Assesses individual access to employment opportunities and financial stability	-	−0.353
		Future	Clean energy industry employment	Electricity, gas, and water production and supply industry employment (per 10,000 people)	Evaluates future individual employment opportunities in the clean energy sector	+	0.239
	Social	Current	Total health costs	Total health costs (billion CNY)	Measures the societal burden of health issues related to energy production and consumption	+	0.853
			Air Pollution	Air pollution index	Assesses the environmental and health impacts of energy production and consumption	-	−0.847
		Future	Life expectancy	Life expectancy per capita (Year)	Evaluates the long-term health and well-being of the population, influenced by energy-related factors	+	0.797
	Group and Organizational	Current	Social media perception	Social media perception index of distribution justice (Weibo)	Assesses public sentiment towards distribution justice at the group and organizational level, capturing informal justice aspects	+	0.916

, on the other hand, provides a detailed overview of the framework’s composition, indicator types, and the Pearson’s correlation coefficients between each indicator and policy intensity.

The process of selecting the indicators consisted of five steps. First, relevant indicators were preliminarily sorted based on the pertinent literature. Second, the initially screened indicators were evaluated through an expert consultation process. The expert panel included three professors from our university with expertise in energy transition and sustainability, as well as two government officials working in project-related agencies. The professors participated in a discussion session to assess and refine the indicators, while the government officials provided written suggestions and comments. During the consultation, each expert independently assessed the relevance and feasibility of each indicator based on their expertise and experience. Third, the indicators were further refined and selected based on the expert consultation and evaluations. Fourth, an investigation was conducted to determine the correlation between each indicator and policy intensity. Finally, the ETSJF indicators were ultimately determined.

Table 1 presents the complete set of indicators across all dimensions and perspectives. The energy production dimension includes indicators such as renewable energy penetration rate and energy supply stability. The energy consumption dimension encompasses factors like household energy expenditure and industrial energy efficiency. Procedural justice indicators focus on public participation rates and information transparency, while distributive justice indicators measure equity in energy access and burden distribution.

Pearson correlation coefficients were computed between each indicator and policy intensity to ensure the indicators’ responsiveness to policy changes. Coefficients between 0.10 and 0.39, 0.40 and 0.69, and >0.70 indicate weak, moderate, and strong correlations, respectively [68,69]. While most indicators exhibit strong correlations (>0.7), a few (energy supply per GDP, unemployment rate, and new energy industry employment) show weaker correlations. Nevertheless, these indicators are included in the ETSJF to ensure the comprehensive coverage of the depth, scope, and comparability aspects essential for a holistic analysis of social justice in energy transition.

The inclusion of indicators with weaker correlations is theoretically justified. For instance, energy supply per unit of GDP (−0.23) captures long-term structural changes in energy efficiency that may not immediately respond to policy changes. The unemployment rate (−0.35) and new energy industry employment (0.24) represent crucial social impact metrics that may exhibit time-lagged responses to policy interventions. Retaining these indicators ensures the framework’s comprehensive coverage of both immediate and delayed policy impacts, providing a more nuanced understanding of energy transition dynamics.

3.1.3. ETSJF Index Calculation

The ETSJF index synthesizes four critical dimensions to evaluate social justice in the context of energy transition, incorporating 25 carefully selected indicators. The calculation of the ETSJF index follows a refined five-step process, addressing normalization, scaling, and aggregation concerns to ensure robustness and relevance.

Step 1: Normalization of Indicators

Each indicator is normalized based on its value from the base year (2015). This step adjusts for scale and units:

$$G_{ij}^t={\displaystyle \frac{I_{ij}^t-I_{ij}^{2015}}{I_{ij}^{2015}}}\times 100\%$$

(1)

where $G_{ij}^t$ represents the growth rate of indicator $i$ under perspective $j$ in year $t$, $I_{ij}^t$ is the normalized value of indicator $i$ under perspective $j$ in year $t$, and $I_{ij}^{2015}$ is the normalized base year value.

For inverse indicators, the growth rate is calculated inversely to reflect a decrease as positive:

$$G_{ij}^t={\displaystyle \frac{I_{ij}^{2015}-I_{ij}^t}{I_{ij}^{2015}}}\times 100\%$$

(2)

Step 2: Index Transformation

The normalized growth rates are transformed into an index where “2015 = 100”:

$$Inde{x}_{ij}^t=100\times \left(1+G_{ij}^t\right)$$

(3)

This transformation ensures that all indicators start from a common baseline, facilitating comparability.

Step 3: Perspective Index Calculation

The index for each perspective is calculated using the geometric mean, which mitigates the effect of outlier values and differing indicator scales:

$$P_j^t=\sqrt[n]{{\prod }_{i=1}^{n}Inde{x}_{ij}^t}$$

(4)

where $P_j^t$ denotes the composite index of perspective j in year t, and n is the number of indicators within that perspective.

Step 4: Dimensional Growth Index

The growth index for each dimension is derived by geometrically averaging the indices of all perspectives within that dimension, followed by a logarithmic transformation to stabilize variance and improve interpretability:

$$D_k^t=\mathrm{l}\mathrm{n}\left({\prod }_{j=1}^3{P}_{jk}^t\right)$$

(5)

This step ensures that each dimension’s contribution is logarithmically scaled, addressing issues with skewness and zero values.

Step 5: Calculation of the ETSJF Index

Finally, the overall ETSJF index is computed by combining the indices from all dimensions, applying a logarithmic transformation to aggregate the results coherently:

$$ETSJ{F}^t=ln({\prod }_{k=1}^4{D}_k^t)$$

(6)

This formula aggregates the dimensions into a single index, providing a comprehensive measure of social justice in the context of energy transition.

This methodology addresses potential scaling and aggregation issues by standardizing indicator calculations and carefully considering the aggregation methods. Using geometric means and logarithmic transformations enhances the robustness and interpretability of the ETSJF index. This index serves as a valuable tool for policymakers and researchers, offering a nuanced measure of the effectiveness of energy transition policies in promoting social justice.

3.2. Energy Transition Policy Intensity Model (ETPI)

To systematically evaluate the relationship between energy transition policies and social justice outcomes, we propose the Energy Transition Policy Intensity (ETPI) model and the Energy Transition Policy Impact Intensity (ETPII) concept. The ETPI model measures the intensity of policy implementation, providing a quantitative foundation for understanding how energy transition policies influence social justice outcomes.

Since the 2015 Paris Agreement explicitly incorporated energy justice transition principles, many policymakers have begun integrating justice considerations into policy formulation [70,71]. While current energy transition policies may have specific limitations [4], they have demonstrated significant positive effects in accelerating a broader, just, and sustainable energy transition [13].

The ETPI model evaluates three essential components: policy influence scope (PIS), policy guidance direction (PGD), and policy support strength (PSS). For PIS categorization, we classify policies into two levels according to the Chinese government system: national policies with a weight ($w_{PIS}$) of 1.5 and industry-level policies with a weight of 2.0, reflecting their differential impacts on policy implementation.

For PGD calculation, we examine justice-related keywords in policy texts, such as “justice”, “fairness”, “equality”, and “inclusiveness”. Each identified keyword contributes a weight of 0.2, and the total PGD score for policy i is calculated as ${PGD}_i$ = 0.2 × n, where n represents the number of unique keywords present.

PSS evaluates policy stance through the relative proportion of positive to negative words in policy texts. Positive words (such as “promote”, “encourage”, “support”, and “accelerate”) indicate supportive policy positions, while negative words (such as “limit”, “restrict”, “discourage”, and “hinder”) suggest restrictive stances. The PSS is determined by the ratio of positive words to total directional words, expressed as ${PSS}_i$ = ${pos}_i$/(${pos}_i$ + ${neg}_i$), where ${pos}_i$ and neg_i represent the counts of positive and negative words, respectively.

The comprehensive annual Energy Transition Policy Intensity is then calculated by integrating these three components:

$${ETPI}_t=\sum _{i=1}^{N_t}({PSS}_i\times w_{PIS}\times (1+{PGD}_i))$$

(7)

where ${ETPI}_t$ quantifies the overall policy intensity in year t and $N_t$ represents the total number of policies issued that year, with each policy’s intensity determined by its support strength (PSS), influence scope weight ($w_{PIS}$), and guidance direction score (PGD).

Similar to established approaches in the policy evaluation literature, we employ keyword frequency analysis as an indicator to measure government attention [72]. This provides a standardized method to quantify the policy attention and commitment to justice in energy transition. A higher number of specific policy elements indicates stronger governmental commitment, potentially leading to increased public awareness in the target area. It is worth noting that this methodology has its limitations. The counting-based nature of this indicator cannot directly reflect the qualitative aspects or effectiveness of individual policies. Despite these limitations, ETPI remains a valuable proxy for government efforts to promote just energy transition.

3.3. Energy Transition Policy Impact Intensity (ETPII) Index

This study proposes the Energy Transition Policy Impact Intensity (ETPII) index to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of energy transition policies in promoting social justice. This innovative index measures the correlation between policy implementation intensity and social justice outcomes across multiple dimensions and perspectives of the ETSJF.

The theoretical foundation of the ETPII builds upon the interaction between policy interventions and social justice outcomes in energy transition. While the ETPI model quantifies policy implementation intensity, the ETPII examines explicitly how these policies translate into measurable social justice improvements. This relationship is captured through a rank correlation coefficient methodology, which evaluates the strength and direction of monotonic relationships between policy intensity and justice outcomes.

The ETPII calculation compares the annual growth rates of the ETSJF index with those of the Energy Transition Policy Intensity (ETPI) over the period 2010–2021. The mathematical formulation is expressed as:

$$ETPII=\left\{\begin{array}{c} 1+{\displaystyle \frac{6\sum _{i=1}^n{d}_i^2}{n\left(n^2-1\right)}},if m\ge n;\\ 1-{\displaystyle \frac{6\sum _{i=1}^n{d}_i^2}{n\left(n^2-1\right)}},if m<n;\end{array}\right.$$

(8)

In this formula, m represents the frequency of the ETSJF index growth rate exceeding the ETPI growth rate during the study period, while n denotes the frequency of the ETSJF index growth rate falling below the ETPI growth rate. The term di indicates the rank difference between ETSJF and ETPI growth rates for each year i. This mathematical construction enables an assessment of the relationship between policy implementation and social justice outcomes.

A value less than 1 indicates a positive correlation, suggesting that policy intensity increases effectively promote progress in social justice. Conversely, a value greater than 1 indicates a negative correlation, meaning that higher policy intensity may adversely affect social justice outcomes. By applying the ETPII, policymakers and researchers can identify the efficacy of specific policies in advancing social justice within the framework of energy transition. This index facilitates a granular analysis, allowing for the evaluation of individual dimensions and perspectives of the ETSJF index. Such detailed insights enable the identification of successful strategies and highlight areas where policies need to be adjusted or intensified.

From a methodological perspective, the ETPII enables the quantitative assessment of policy effectiveness across different justice dimensions, facilitates the temporal analysis of policy impacts, and provides a standardized metric for comparing policy outcomes. These features make it a practical tool for policy analysis in the context of energy transition. When integrated with the ETSJF and ETPI model, the ETPII helps policymakers identify effective interventions, detect areas requiring adjustments, and monitor policy effectiveness in promoting social justice. This integration systematically evaluates the relationship between policy implementation and social justice outcomes. The ETPII thus serves as an analytical tool to bridge policy implementation and justice outcomes in energy transition, supporting evidence-based policy optimization while acknowledging the complexity of social justice advancement in energy transition processes.

4. Data Characteristics, Sources, Acquisition, and Calculation

Quantifying social justice in energy transition demands a comprehensive methodological approach beyond traditional statistical measures. Drawing upon the “Science of all data” concept, we develop an integrated data system that synthesizes multiple sources to provide policymakers with robust insights into social justice developments in China’s energy transition. This section presents our data structure, acquisition methods, and analytical procedures.

4.1. Data Sources and Characteristics

Our analysis captures social justice dynamics across four dimensions (energy supply, energy demand, procedural justice, and distributive justice) and three societal levels (society, organizations, and individuals). Building on Keller et al.’s multi-dimensional approach [50,51,53], we identified six key data sources: energy transition policies, government statistics, social media data (Sina Weibo), expert opinions, corporate news, and media reports.

Table 2. Data sources and data characteristics.

Policy/ETSJF Dimensions	Data Sources	Data Characteristics
Energy Transition Policy	Government policy	Procedural Data
Energy Supply Justice Dimension	Statistics Social media	Designed Data/Administrative Data Opportunity Data
Energy Demand Justice Dimension	Statistics Social media	Designed Data/Administrative Data Opportunity Data
Procedural Justice Dimension	Expert opinion news Media news Enterprises news	Opportunity Data Opportunity Data Opportunity Data
Distributive Justice Dimension	Statistics Social media	Designed Data/Administrative Data Opportunity Data

presents the data sources and their corresponding characteristics.

For the social media analysis, we selected Sina Weibo, one of China’s largest social media platforms, to capture public perceptions. Sina Weibo, one of China’s largest and most influential social media platforms, had over 587 million registered users and 257 million daily active users as of September 2024, covering diverse demographics [73]. Weibo allows users to post short messages, share a variety of multimedia content, and interact with other users through various engagement features, thus playing a key role in the dissemination of information in modern society [74,75]. The real-time nature, interactivity, and wide reach of Weibo, along with the massive amount of opinions and rich data generated, make it an excellent social sensor for analyzing public opinion trends and emotional changes on various social issues. The processing of social media data involved natural language processing techniques, including sentiment analysis and topic modeling, supported by rigorous data cleaning protocols to ensure data quality. For expert opinion news, media news, and enterprise news, we collected and analyzed a total of 48,389 text items through targeted searches and employed content analysis techniques to extract relevant information. The data selection was guided by three principles: availability, accuracy, and authority.

4.2. Data Acquisition and Processing

This section briefly introduces the six primary data sources and the corresponding data acquisition and processing methods. These data will be used to calculate the ETSJF index presented in Section 3.1.

4.2.1. Policy Intensity Assessment

Energy transition refers to transforming the energy structure from a fossil fuel-dominated to a low-carbon or zero-carbon system based on renewable energy sources. To comprehensively analyze the evolution of China’s energy transition policies, we collected policy documents from the Chinese government’s official website (https://www.gov.cn, accessed on 16 August 2022) spanning from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2021. The selection of keywords is critical for accurately identifying energy transition policies. Based on previous research [76], we chose “energy transition”, “carbon neutral”, “carbon peaking”, “low carbon”, and “new energy” as the core keywords. These keywords are closely related to various dimensions of energy transition, covering the core aspects of emission reduction and energy structure optimization. Although there might be limitations in fully capturing specific dimensions, such as climate change adaptation and international energy cooperation, the selected keywords can effectively identify the main aspects of energy transition policies, striking a balance between comprehensiveness and feasibility. Relevant policy documents were identified using keywords, and, after eliminating duplicate texts, 654 valid policy documents were obtained.

The ETPI model, introduced in Section 3.2, was employed to quantify the intensity of China’s energy transition policies from 2000 to 2021 (Figure 2). The policy intensity exhibits an overall upward trend with fluctuations. From 2010 to 2021, the number of policies surged by 526.19%, from 24 to 263, while the policy intensity increased by 466.67%. The average annual growth rates for policy number and intensity were 47.84% and 42.42%, respectively, indicating the Chinese government’s increasing emphasis on energy transition.

Two significant growth points in policy number and intensity are evident in 2015 and 2021 (Figure 2). In 2015, China pledged to peak carbon emissions around 2030 in its submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC), outlining its 2030 action plan to reduce CO₂ emissions per unit of GDP by 60–65% compared to 2005 levels. Subsequently, in 2020, the Chinese government proposed the ambitious goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2060. These commitments have driven the surge in energy transition policies, with “carbon peaking and carbon neutrality” becoming national priorities. China’s energy transition policy landscape has rapidly changed in recent years, with policy intensity growing significantly, particularly after the carbon peaking and neutrality pledges (

Table 3. Topic classification anchor words used in CorexTopic model analysis.

Dimensions	Anchor Words
Energy Supply Justice Dimension	Energy, transition, production, supply, power generation, coal, oil, gas, carbon neutral, and carbon peaking
Distributive Justice Dimension	Employment: income, wages, jobs, employment, and wealth
	Health: health, longevity, lifespan, and life
	Environment: weather, pollution, atmosphere, and breathing
	Justice: justice, fairness, equality, happiness, joy, pleasure, gladness, and joy

). This rapid policy evolution demonstrates the Chinese government’s determination to accelerate the energy transition.

4.2.2. Statistical Data

Robust statistical indicators are necessary for a comprehensive quantitative assessment of the interplay between energy transition dynamics and social justice outcomes. To this end, we extracted and synthesized statistical data from two authoritative Chinese governmental institutions: the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) and the Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE).

The selection criteria for these indicators were anchored in established theoretical frameworks. For example, two fundamental indicators—energy intensity and carbon intensity metrics—serve distinct but complementary analytical purposes. Energy intensity functions as a critical proxy for measuring improvements in energy efficiency, while carbon intensity provides deeper insights into efficiency advancements and fundamental transformations in the energy system structure. These indicators enable a nuanced evaluation of both the distributional impacts and procedural equity dimensions within China’s energy transition landscape.

4.2.3. Social Media Data

To calculate the sentiment intensity of social media data, this study employs two complementary methods: (1) a short-text sentiment analysis method utilizing the SnowNLP approach for microblog articles (typically under 140 characters) and (2) a long-text sentiment analysis method based on the sentiment dictionary for analyzing energy transition policies, expert opinions, media news, and corporate news [77,78].

The data collection and analysis followed a systematic three-step procedure. First, we collected microblogging texts using specific keywords, including “new energy vehicles”, “energy transition”, “carbon neutrality”, “carbon peak”, “low carbon”, and “new energy”, from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2021. A total of 837,857 social media posts were collected and analyzed. Second, we applied the CorexTopic topic model [79] to establish anchor words for the energy supply justice and distributive justice dimensions, with texts tagged accordingly (anchor word sets are detailed in Table 3). Third, we calculated sentiment intensity using the SnowNLP method for the energy demand dimension and the sentiment dictionary-based method for the energy demand justice dimension. Aggregating sentiment intensity scores of all relevant texts derived the annual social media group perception intensity. The resulting group perception curves across different dimensions are presented in Figure 3a–c. This aggregated approach to social media analysis aligns with our research objective of capturing collective societal responses to energy transition policies. The large sample size and comprehensive keyword-based data collection provide broad coverage of public discussions on China’s energy transition, reflecting aggregate social media responses rather than demographic-specific patterns.

4.2.4. Experts’ Opinion Data

Experts play a vital role in shaping public opinions on policy issues through their statements and opinions in news media coverage [80,81,82,83].

To systematically analyze expert perspectives on energy transition justice, we identified 33 key experts from prominent institutions, including the China Expert Committee on Climate Change and the Expert Committee of the Carbon Neutral Industry Cooperation Center of the China Energy Research Society. The selection criteria encompassed academic reputation, media exposure frequency, and expertise relevance to energy transition. Using these experts’ names as keywords, we conducted a comprehensive search through the Baidu search engine for news articles published between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2021.

After applying rigorous filtering criteria to eliminate irrelevant and duplicate content, we obtained 534 valid news articles that explicitly present expert views on energy transition justice.

Table 4. Representative expert opinions and their institutional affiliations in energy transition.

Experts	Institutions	Release Date	Title
Junfeng Li	National Climate Change Expert Committee	21 August 2021	Doing a good job in energy transition, we have to start from three aspects
Caineng Zou	Academician, Chief Expert of New Energy of China National Petroleum Corporation	9 February 2021	The connotation and path of world energy transition and its significance to carbon neutrality
Xiangwan Du	Academician, Chairman of China Carbon Neutral 50 Forum	20 December 2020	Energy Transition Guided by Carbon Neutral Goals
Zhenhua Xie	China’s Special Envoy for Climate Change Affairs	3 December 14	Developing Circular Economy and Promoting Green Transformation
Jiankun He	National Climate Change Expert Committee	18 July 2014	Accelerating Energy Transformation is Urgent
Yihui Ding	Academician, National Climate Change Expert Committee	8 February 2012	Global Warming Has Not Entered a Stagnation Period
Jiankun He	National Climate Change Expert Committee	8 May 2010	To establish an industrial system characterized by low carbon emissions

presents the representative news articles and the institutional affiliations of the corresponding experts. Figure 3d illustrates the temporal evolution of expert sentiment intensity.

4.2.5. Enterprise-Related Data

To incorporate the corporate perspective into the energy justice transition evaluation framework this study selected the Power Construction Corporation of China (PowerChina, www.powerchina.cn, accessed on 22 August 2022), a large state-owned enterprise in the power sector, as a case study. As a key player in energy transition, PowerChina has undertaken significant strategic planning, policy research, and standards development in China’s power construction industry. It is a leader in constructing clean and low-carbon energy, water resources, and environmental projects in China and worldwide. Analyzing PowerChina’s corporate news articles can provide insights into how the company responds to national policies and the level of concern and specific actions taken by the business community regarding China’s carbon neutrality and carbon peak targets.

The analysis covered 1045 relevant news articles from PowerChina’s website (www.powerchina.cn, accessed on 22 August 2022) between September 2011 and December 2021, filtered from a total of 7603 articles using keywords like “energy transformation”, “carbon neutral”, and “new energy”. A sentiment intensity analysis was performed, and the results are shown in Figure 3e. Due to data availability limitations, 2011’s full-year sentiment was estimated from the September to December data, while 2010’s data was extrapolated from subsequent trends.

4.2.6. News Media Data

News media data were collected from two authoritative news websites in China: China News (www.chinanews.com.cn, accessed on 26 August 2022) and China.com (www.china.com.cn, accessed on 26 August 2022). China News, operated by China News Service, is one of China’s two national news agencies and is among Asia’s earliest Chinese-language online media platforms, serving as the primary content provider for Chinese news globally. China.com, managed by the China Internet Information Center (CIIC), functions as a national communication platform reaching users across more than 200 countries and regions.

Using “energy transition”, “carbon neutral”, “carbon peak”, “low carbon”, and “new energy” as search keywords, 40,252 news articles published between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2021 were collected from these platforms. After removing duplicate articles, sentiment intensity analysis was performed on the remaining articles, with the results displayed in Figure 3f showing the annual sentiment intensity trends of the news media coverage.

5. Results and Analysis

In this section, we calculate the ETSJF index of China from 2010 to 2021 and analyze the development and change of social justice in China’s energy transition in the past decade from the overall index, four dimensions, and three perspectives.

5.1. China’s ETSJF Index

5.1.1. Overall Trends

The ETSJF index of China exhibited robust and sustained growth from 2010 to 2021, with values rising substantially from 269 to 965, yielding an average annual growth rate of 12.9% (Figure 4). This growth trajectory manifested distinct temporal characteristics, initially progressing at a measured pace in the early 2010s. This gradual advancement reflected China’s preliminary efforts to integrate social justice considerations into its energy transition framework, marking a period of policy experimentation and institutional capacity building.

The year 2014 marked a pivotal turning point, characterized by an unprecedented 43.2% year-on-year increase. This acceleration coincided with the implementation of transformative policy initiatives, particularly the “Energy Development Strategy Action Plan (2014–2020)” and “Renewable Energy Development Roadmap 2050”. These comprehensive policy frameworks not only established ambitious targets for non-fossil energy development but also institutionalized social justice principles within China’s energy transition agenda, fundamentally reshaping the trajectory of sustainable development while emphasizing the equitable distribution of benefits and burdens.

The period of 2020–2021 emerged as a transformative phase in China’s energy transition journey, with 2021 witnessing a remarkable 24.3% annual increase—the most significant growth since 2014. This exceptional progress was catalyzed by China’s ambitious carbon neutrality pledge and the subsequent introduction of the “1 + N” policy framework, which represented a paradigm shift in policy approach. The framework’s comprehensive nature, incorporating both overarching strategies and sector-specific measures, facilitated a more nuanced integration of social justice considerations into climate action. This evolution in the growth pattern not only demonstrates the successful translation of policy initiatives into measurable improvements in energy transition social justice but also highlights the synergistic relationship between policy sophistication and justice outcomes, suggesting that well-designed policy frameworks can effectively advance both environmental and social objectives simultaneously.

5.1.2. Dimensional Analysis

While the overall ETSJF index in China demonstrates a remarkable upward trend, examining the heterogeneous development patterns across the four dimensions of social justice in the energy transition process is essential. This section delves into the nuanced changes in energy transition social justice from the dimensions of energy supply justice (ESDim), energy demand justice (EDDim), procedural justice (PJDim), and distributive justice (DJDim). As depicted in Figure 5, all four dimensions of the ETSJF index exhibited an overall increasing trend during the 2010–2021 period, albeit with varying degrees of fluctuations. The temporal evolution of these dimensions reflects both the achievements and challenges in China’s pursuit of energy transition justice.

To quantify the growth dynamics of the four dimensions, we calculated their average annual growth rates and conducted a one-way ANOVA and Kruskal–Wallis H test for significant differences. The results showed that the ESDim had the highest average annual growth rate of 14.2%, followed by the DJDim (13.5%), PJDim (13.2%), and EDDim (12.6%). However, the ANOVA (p-value = 0.95) and Kruskal–Wallis H test (p-value = 0.90) revealed no statistically significant difference in growth rates among the four dimensions, suggesting a balanced development approach in China’s energy transition framework. We conducted a correlation analysis using Pearson’s correlation coefficient to investigate the relationships among the four dimensions. The results showed significant positive correlations among all dimensions (p-value = 0.00) with the strongest correlation observed between the ESDim and PJDim (r = 0.93), followed by the ESDim and DJDim (r = 0.92). These strong correlations indicate a synergistic development pattern, where progress in one dimension effectively catalyzes improvements in others.

A closer examination of the dimensional trends reveals some notable patterns and turning points. The ESDim’s development trajectory is particularly instructive; the ESDim experienced a sharp decline in 2012, which might be attributed to the challenges in promoting renewable energy development and ensuring a stable energy supply during the early stages of China’s energy transition. However, the ESDim quickly recovered and maintained a steady growth trend afterward, demonstrating the effectiveness of adaptive policy responses and institutional learning.

The PJDim’s evolution reflects the growing emphasis on stakeholder engagement in China’s energy transition. The PJDim witnessed a temporary setback in 2016, which could be related to the relatively limited coverage of energy transition issues on social media platforms like Sina Weibo, potentially influencing the perceived level of procedural justice from the group perspective. Nevertheless, the PJDim resumed its growth momentum in the following years, particularly after the announcement of the “double carbon” target in 2020, which catalyzed unprecedented levels of public participation and discourse in energy transition planning.

The DJDim experienced a slight decrease in 2013 but exhibited a strong growth trend throughout the study period, especially after 2017. This robust performance reflects the successful implementation of targeted policies addressing energy poverty, regional disparities, and equitable access to clean energy resources. The EDDim’s consistent growth trajectory, as evidenced by the steady progression in Figure 5b’s heat map, demonstrates systematic improvements in energy consumption equality and efficiency measures.

In conclusion, the multi-dimensional analysis of China’s ETSJF index reveals a generally positive and balanced trend in the development of social justice in the energy transition process, with accelerated growth in recent years. The heat map visualization (Figure 5b) particularly highlights this acceleration, showing intensified improvements across all dimensions post-2019. The four dimensions of energy transition social justice have exhibited strong correlations and complementary development patterns, highlighting the effectiveness of China’s comprehensive policy efforts in promoting a just and inclusive energy transition. However, the temporary setbacks in specific dimensions and periods underscore the need for continuous policy innovation, enhanced monitoring mechanisms, and adaptive management strategies to ensure the resilience and sustainability of China’s energy transition social justice development.

5.1.3. Perspective Analysis

The ETSJF index synthesizes perspectives from three distinct stakeholder levels—social perspective (SP), group and organizational perspective (GOP), and individual perspective (IP)—revealing heterogeneous patterns in the energy transition justice perception (Figure 6). Each dimension in the ETSJF index was obtained by synthesizing these three perspectives, demonstrating significant variations in perceived social justice across different stakeholder groups during the energy transition process.

From the energy supply justice dimension, perceived social justice from the individual and social perspectives grew steadily between 2010 and 2021, where IPJ grew from 187 to 444, and SPJ grew from 317 to 555. Notably, GOPJ exhibited a distinctive growth pattern, with a significant acceleration post-2018, reaching an unprecedented level of 4027 in 2020. This dramatic increase suggests a fundamental shift in organizational stakeholders’ perception of energy supply justice, possibly attributed to the enhanced institutional frameworks and market mechanisms introduced during this period.

The energy demand dimension displayed parallel development patterns, albeit with varying magnitudes. IPJ and SPJ increased by 138 and 188, respectively, over 11 years. However, GOPJ increased from 6 in 2010 to 559 in 2021, surpassing social justice perceived from the individual perspective in 2018 and social justice perceived from the social perspective in 2021. This trajectory indicates a progressive enhancement in institutional capacity to address concerns about energy demand justice, particularly at the organizational level.

From the procedural justice dimension, a remarkable transformation occurred in perceived social justice from the individual perspective post-2020, increasing from 291 in 2020 to 1391 in 2021. This substantial improvement coincides with China’s enhanced stakeholder engagement mechanisms and transparency initiatives in energy policy implementation. From the distributive justice dimension, perceived justice from the individual perspective has increased over the last decade. However, this change is insignificant. In contrast, GOPJ and SPJ have accelerated their growth rates since 2017.

The analysis of the dimensional dynamics yields several crucial insights: First, reforms on the supply and demand sides of energy in the national energy transition process have significantly contributed to the improvement of social justice levels in the energy transition. Second, procedural justice emerges as a critical catalyst for energy justice transformation, with room for improvement. The enhancement of procedural justice while enhancing distributive justice positively affects the overall promotion of social justice in energy transitions.

The temporal evolution of justice perceptions reveals distinct patterns across stakeholder levels (Figure 7). The perceived social justice from different dimensions is significantly different, and perceiving the changes in social justice in the energy transition process from different perspectives can also help dig deeper into the problems and identify the weak points and breakthrough points in the energy justice transition, while finding some valuable conclusions. Figure 7 indicates that the level of social justice, in general, presents an upward trend, and the level of social justice perceived through the three perspectives is closer around 2010. However, after a decade of development, it has produced different degrees of divergence.

A further examination of perspective-specific patterns reveals three key findings: First, as the energy transition process develops, the transformation of energy on both the supply and demand sides results in a rapid increase in the level of social justice perceived by groups, whereas the change in individual perceptions of procedural justice is more pronounced. Second, from the social and group perspectives, distribution justice has increased substantially with the development of energy transition, but individual perceptions of distributive justice have not changed significantly. Third, while policy interventions have demonstrably enhanced overall societal justice levels, attention must be directed toward individual-level impacts, as rapid societal advancement may obscure individual justice perceptions during the transition process.

5.2. China’s Energy Transition Policy Impact Assessment

In this section, we employ the Energy Transition Policy Impact Intensity (ETPII) index to quantitatively assess the effectiveness of China’s energy transition policies in promoting social justice (Figure 8). The overall ETPII value of 1.133 demonstrates a substantial positive correlation between policy implementation and social justice advancement in China’s energy transition. This finding provides empirical evidence to support the argument that well-designed energy policies can contribute to the achievement of social justice while balancing economic development with social equity during the energy transition process.

However, the dimensional analysis reveals notable variations in policy effectiveness, with ETPII values of 1.203, 0.867, 0.804, and 1.175 for energy supply, energy demand, procedural justice, and distributive justice dimensions, respectively. The 39.0% gap between the highest (energy supply justice) and lowest (procedural justice) dimensions indicates a policy imbalance. This disparity likely stems from China’s traditional emphasis on supply-side reforms and infrastructure development, while demand-side management, energy consumption patterns, and inclusive decision-making processes remain relatively underdeveloped. Such an imbalance could hinder the long-term sustainability of the energy transition, as effective demand-side management and public participation are crucial for achieving carbon neutrality goals.

The perspective-specific analysis unveils complex stakeholder dynamics within China’s energy transition landscape. In the energy supply dimension, the stark contrast between individual (1.133) and social (1.154) perspectives and the organizational perspective (0.329) reflects the challenges of China’s energy reform. While policies successfully benefit end-users and society, they may impose significant adjustment costs on specific groups and organizations, particularly those in traditional energy sectors. This finding suggests the need for more nuanced support mechanisms to facilitate industrial transformation while maintaining the momentum of the energy transition, such as targeted subsidies, job retraining programs, and social safety nets for affected workers and communities.

The energy demand dimension presents an intriguing pattern where the social perspective (1.133) significantly outweighs individual (0.867) and group-organizational (0.874) impacts. This divergence and the relatively low PII value of 0.867 in this dimension point to a crucial policy challenge: while the collective benefits of demand-side policies are evident, individual behavioral change and organizational adaptation may lag behind. This gap might be attributed to insufficient market-based incentives, consumer empowerment initiatives, and the predominance of administrative measures in China’s energy demand management. Addressing this challenge requires a multi-pronged approach that combines price signals, public education campaigns, and innovative business models to engage individuals and organizations in the energy transition.

The procedural justice results, with the group-organizational perspective (1.133) dominating individual (0.797) and social (0.811) perspectives, reveal both progress and limitations in China’s energy governance reform. While the high organizational engagement reflects successful institutional reforms and stakeholder involvement, the relatively low individual participation suggests that bottom-up mechanisms and public participation channels remain underdeveloped. This pattern aligns with China’s characteristic top-down policy implementation approach but indicates room for improving inclusive decision-making processes. Enhancing procedural justice calls for innovative governance models that leverage digital platforms, local experimentation, and transparent stakeholder engagement to amplify individual voices and foster social consensus.

The distributive justice dimension shows consistently high impacts across all perspectives (1.133–1.175), representing a significant achievement in China’s energy transition policy. This success likely stems from China’s systematic approach to benefit-sharing mechanisms, compensation schemes, and policies aimed at ensuring the fair distribution of costs and benefits. However, the uniformly high scores also warrant careful interpretation—they might reflect the effectiveness of existing redistributive mechanisms but could mask underlying inequalities that require more targeted interventions.

These findings have critical implications for future policy development. First, addressing the supply–demand imbalance calls for a fundamental shift in policy focus, particularly strengthening market-based demand-side mechanisms, consumer empowerment initiatives, and public participation in decision-making processes. Second, the organizational adaptation challenges in the supply dimension suggest the need for more comprehensive industrial transition support policies, potentially including enhanced technological innovation funding, workforce retraining programs, and social safety nets for affected communities. Third, the procedural justice gap highlights the importance of developing more inclusive governance mechanisms, possibly through digital platforms, local innovations, and transparent stakeholder engagement processes to amplify individual voices and build social consensus. Finally, while the distributive justice achievements are commendable, maintaining this success requires continuous policy monitoring, impact evaluation, and adaptive management to address emerging inequalities in the rapidly evolving energy landscape.

In conclusion, this quantitative assessment of China’s energy transition policies reveals both remarkable achievements and critical challenges in advancing social justice. The overall positive impact of policies on social justice is encouraging, but the dimensional and perspectival disparities underscore the need for more balanced, inclusive, and adaptive policy design and implementation. By leveraging the insights from the ETPII analysis, policymakers can develop targeted interventions to address the identified gaps, promote stakeholder engagement, and foster a more just and sustainable energy transition. As China continues to lead the global energy transition, its experience in navigating the complex social justice landscape offers valuable lessons for other countries pursuing a low-carbon future.

5.3. Correlation Analysis

In this study, we employ correlation analysis to investigate the relationships between different variables in the ETSJF. Specifically, we calculate the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) (Figure 9) and the Spearman rank correlation coefficient (r_s) (Figure 10) to assess the strength and direction of the associations. The Pearson correlation coefficient measures the linear relationship between two variables, while the Spearman rank correlation coefficient evaluates the monotonic relationship based on the rank order of the data, making it more robust to outliers and non-linear relationships. In other words, the Pearson correlation focuses on the degree to which two variables change linearly. In contrast, the Spearman correlation assesses whether a monotonic function can describe the relationship between two variables, regardless of linearity.

Figure 9 presents the Pearson correlations between indicators in the ETSJF model, focusing on the correlations between policy and other indicators. The length of the arc occupied by each indicator reflects the magnitude of its correlation coefficient with the policy indicator. Excluding the correlation coefficients of variables with themselves, we choose the top 20% relationships in the correlation coefficient matrix with the positive ranking of correlation values to plot, so the line between the two indicators indicates that they have a strong correlation. Notably, several indicators, such as clean energy supply per capita (0.85), clean energy consumption per capita (0.82), and news media perception (0.79), exhibit strong correlations with policy, suggesting that energy transition policies may have a significant influence on these aspects of social justice. For instance, the strong correlation (0.88) between the clean energy consumption share of total energy consumption and per capita disposable income of residents indicates the potential interdependence between environmental and economic dimensions of social justice, which should be leveraged and promoted through targeted policies.

To further investigate the consistency of changes across dimensions and perspectives, we calculate Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients between different perspectives within the same dimension, between different dimensions within the same perspective, and between different dimensions and policy intensity (Figure 10 and Figure 11). As shown in Figure 10, policy intensity exhibits a significant monotonic relationship (0.81) with the overall ETSJF index, confirming the effectiveness of policies in promoting social justice in energy transitions. Moreover, the Spearman correlations between policy intensity and the dimensions of procedural justice, energy demand, and distributive justice are above 0.79, indicating that policies may have a more pronounced effect on these three dimensions.

Figure 11a presents the Spearman correlations between dimensions within the same perspective. The mean correlation between the four dimensions from the individual perspective is 0.983, while the mean from the social perspective is 0.886, with a relatively weaker correlation (0.503) between procedural and distributive justice. This discrepancy suggests potential challenges in aligning social justice’s procedural and distributive aspects at the societal level, which may require targeted policy interventions. The mean correlation between the four dimensions from the group and organizational perspective is 0.766, with slightly weaker correlations between energy supply, energy demand, distributive justice, and procedural justice, indicating the need for a more balanced approach in addressing the concerns of different stakeholder groups. Figure 11b shows the Spearman correlations between different perspectives within the same dimension. The correlations between the three perspectives in the dimensions of energy supply, energy demand, and distributive justice are consistently strong (mean values of 0.981, 0.995, and 0.963, respectively), suggesting a high level of consistency in the perceptions and experiences of social justice across individual, social, and group levels. However, the correlations between the three perspectives in the procedural justice dimension are relatively lower (mean value of 0.650), highlighting the challenges in ensuring fair and inclusive decision-making processes that cater to different stakeholders’ diverse needs and interests.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

China has made outstanding contributions in addressing global climate change throughout the years, extensively and profoundly promoting the transformation of its energy system towards greater sustainability. Energy transition involves an extremely wide range of sectors and groups, affecting almost every aspect of people’s lives. It is safe to conclude that a just transition is a common goal and vision for future changes in the development of energy systems. The realization of this common goal and vision is not only about technological changes in the energy transition process but also about a just, fairer, equitable, and inclusive transition [4,32].

This study developed the innovative Energy Transition Social Justice Framework (ETSJF). It employed the Energy Transition Policy Impact Intensity (ETPII) index to quantitatively evaluate the development of social justice and the impact of energy transition policies in China from 2010 to 2021. The key findings are as follows. First, China’s ETSJF index showed a significant upward trend, with an average annual growth rate of 12.9%, indicating substantial progress in social justice alongside energy transition. The growth nodes in 2014 and 2021 coincide with the introduction of important energy transition policies, highlighting the positive impact of policy interventions. Second, the development of China’s ETSJF index across the four dimensions (energy supply, energy demand, procedural justice, and distributive justice) has been positively balanced overall, reflecting the effectiveness of comprehensive policy efforts. Third, multi-stakeholder analysis reveals heterogeneity in the perceptions and experiences of social justice among individuals, society, groups, and organizations, with notable improvements in group and organizational stakeholders’ perceived justice in energy supply and individuals’ perception of procedural justice post-2019. Fourth, the overall ETPII of 1.203 confirms the significant positive impact of energy transition policies on promoting social justice. However, the impact varies across dimensions, with ETPII values of 1.203, 0.867, 0.804, and 1.175 for energy supply, energy demand, procedural justice, and distributive justice, respectively. The policy effectiveness is relatively more substantial in the energy supply and distributive justice dimensions while weaker in the energy demand and procedural justice dimensions. Fifth, the ETSJF and ETPII index analysis reveal the complex dynamics and challenges in balancing different dimensions and stakeholders’ needs in the pursuit of social justice in energy transition.

Energy justice transitions are complex and profound. Based on the findings of this study, we propose the following policy recommendations to advance social justice in China’s energy transition process.

• Maintain the momentum of energy transition policies and prioritize social justice considerations in policy design and implementation. The positive impact of energy transition policies on social justice highlights the importance of sustained policy support and incorporating social justice objectives into energy transition planning and governance.
• Strengthen policy interventions in the energy demand and procedural justice dimensions to achieve a more balanced and inclusive energy transition. This may involve improving energy efficiency and conservation, ensuring affordable access to clean energy for vulnerable groups, and establishing transparent and participatory decision-making mechanisms.
• Pay attention to the differentiated impacts of energy transition policies on individuals, society, groups, and organizations, and develop targeted strategies to address their specific needs and concerns. This may require a combination of top-down policies and bottom-up initiatives and creating platforms for dialogue, negotiation, and conflict resolution among different stakeholders.
• Enhance monitoring and evaluation of social justice indicators in the energy transition process, leveraging insights from data-driven approaches to inform evidence-based policymaking.

The ETSJF and ETPII index developed in this study can serve as valuable tools for assessing progress and challenges in energy transition social justice and guiding evidence-based decisions. As a global leader in renewable energy development and a major player in international energy governance, China can positively advance social justice in energy transitions and contribute to achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

This study comprehensively evaluates the development of social justice and the impact of energy transition policies in China’s energy transition process through a multi-dimensional and multi-perspective model. The results highlight the progress, challenges, and opportunities in realizing a just and inclusive energy transition. By adopting a data-driven and evidence-based approach to decision-making and prioritizing social justice considerations in energy transition planning and governance, China can set an example for other countries and regions in navigating the complexities of energy transitions and building a more sustainable, equitable, and inclusive energy future. While this study focuses on China’s experience, the proposed ETSJF and ETPII methodologies are designed with universal applicability in mind. The framework’s alignment with UN SDGs and its comprehensive structure covering four dimensions and three perspectives make it adaptable to various national contexts. Countries can customize specific indicators within the framework according to their unique circumstances and data availability, while maintaining the core analytical structure. This flexibility enables cross-country comparisons and facilitates global knowledge sharing in pursuing just energy transitions.

Future research could focus on applying this framework to different countries or regions, which would help validate its universal applicability and potentially reveal valuable insights about varying patterns of energy transition social justice across different socio-economic contexts. Nevertheless, this study has several limitations. First, the ETSJF model simplifies the complex issues of social justice in energy transitions. Second, a model based on the experience of a few experts is exceedingly better than the large-scale use of data combined with various rabble [84]. Therefore, further comprehensive research can be conducted mining social media data and experts’ opinions.