Cluster III — Chapter 40

Ecosocial Contract

Saamah Abdallah, Hot or Cool Institute, Germany

Keywords: Citizen Participation / Deliberation, overconsumption, Political backlash, Political Philosophy, Social Contract

On this page

Definition
History
Different Perspectives
Applications
Further Reading

Definition

The United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) defines the social contract as “the explicit or implicit agreements between state and citizens defining rights and obligations to ensure legitimacy, security, rule of law and social justice”. According to European think tanks IDDRI and the Hot or Cool Institute, it encompasses the “rights we enjoy, the duties we agree to, the responsibilities incumbent on institutions and the narratives we believe in”. There is no agreed definition of what an ecosocial contract (also called a “natural social contract”) is, but UNRISD argues that it “must recognize that humans are part of a global ecosystem. It must protect essential ecological processes, life support systems and the diversity of life forms, and pursue harmony with nature”.

History

The concept of a social contract emerged in the 17th century in the United Kingdom and France as a way to understand political authority without relying on increasingly tenuous claims of “divine right”. The argument is that citizens cede some of their freedoms and allow the state to control aspects of their lives because this grants them security or better living standards. For Hobbes, this was a way to justify the monarch’s absolute power. Locke and Rousseau had more democratic objectives in their visions. To some degree, the social contract is a story or a metaphor – a set of beliefs and expectations. Where there are formal agreements and rules, for example, constitutions, these are typically ratified by elected representatives rather than citizens themselves.

The social contract has evolved over the centuries, with multiple pacts emerging. Hobbes originally focused on a security pact – where citizens concede the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence in exchange for physical security. Later, the American and French revolutions provided scope for a democracy pact – where citizens forfeited a direct political voice in exchange for the possibility to elect representatives, and for political equality. In Western countries such as the United Kingdom and France, the 19th century saw the emergence of a working pact – with increasing protection and welfare rights for workers in exchange for an acceptance of Fordist production models and greater hierarchy. In the 20th century, a consumption pact emerged, whereby citizens had greater and greater expectations in terms of the freedom and possibility to consume while accepting greater alienation at work, competitive consumerist pressures, and increasing inequality. Meanwhile, the security pact continues to evolve, with further aspects of life falling under a similar logic of centralized power and rule-making to ensure greater safety – this logic applies for example to food, health, and more recently environmental considerations.

The idea of an ecosocial contract emerged in the 2020s, motivated by two arguments. On the one hand, there is the perception that our current social contract, shaped by individualism, materialism, short-termism, and the free market, is not compatible with the ecological challenges we face. On the other hand, there is the argument that, by failing to address climate change adequately, states are failing citizens on their most basic obligation – security.

UNRISD has initiated a research program and a research network on the idea of an ecosocial contract, together with the Green Economy Coalition. Meanwhile, IDDRI and Hot or Cool have stepped into the discussion by trying to better understand the state of our current (non-eco)social contract. By doing so, these sustainability-minded organizations have tried to ensure that calls for a new social contract coming from more influential actors (e.g., the UN Secretary-General, or the International Trade Union Congress) are imbued with an ecological perspective.

Different Perspectives

The debate on the ecosocial contract is still nascent, but some differences in perspective can be observed, for example, regarding the framing of the problem to be addressed. For some, the only solution to the environmental crises we face is for nature (including the rights of nature) to be explicitly front and center of a new social contract. Others – while mindful of the need for greater environmental protection – see the main purpose of a new social contract as being about addressing the political backlash against pro-environmental policies.

Box 40.1. Envisioning an ecosocial contract

What could an ecosocial contract look like?

Explicit commitment by citizens to reduce their personal environmental impact in exchange for the commitment of the state to do everything in its power to minimize the threats of climate change (through mitigation and adaptation).
Collectively abandoning the belief that individuals have the right to consume as much as their income allows (see Personal Carbon Allowance).
An evolution of the work ethic existing in some countries. Working hard would not be seen as a virtue in itself, but rather virtuous to the extent that it contributes to society.
Aside from the protection of those who are out of work, the state expects to ensure that those who are at work can attain a decent living standard, perhaps through the provision of universal basic services.

These are just speculative suggestions. For those who stress the importance of citizen participation, it makes little sense to already define what the social contract should be without involving citizens in the co-creation process.

From this perspective, many of the solutions to the sustainability challenge already exist – the problem is that there has been much less thought on how to ensure these solutions have political and public support. Discussing the social contract presents an approach whereby new societal rules can be co-created without being imposed upon society (see Box 40.1). In that sense, the ecosocial contract agenda overlaps with the citizen participation agenda, stressing the need for the public to be involved in the process of defining a new social contract through citizens’ assemblies and other participatory approaches.

Other authors take politically salient notions such as the Just Transition and Green New Deal as their starting point but argue that neither is sufficient to truly address the sustainability challenge. In effect, these authors are arguing that a focus on production and the welfare state is not enough to reduce emissions. Rather, over-consumption in the Global North needs to be addressed directly, and a new social contract can help toward that.

Applications

Three national-level examples have included some features that can be understood as elements of an ecosocial contract. Between 2007 and 2008, a Constituent Assembly was set up in Ecuador to draft a new constitution. The elected assembly included politicians and also academics, and representatives of NGOs and indigenous communities. The final constitution was then approved in a referendum by citizens. The constitution was partly inspired by indigenous philosophy, in particular the concept of Sumak kawsay (translated into Spanish as buen vivir or living well, but also sometimes as “living in harmony”). This was reflected in the inclusion of the rights of nature into the constitution, which has helped environmental movements in Ecuador, for example, to restrict oil drilling in the Amazon. Despite several changes of government, the constitution still holds in Ecuador today, and the clauses on the rights of nature have recently been used to protect the river through the capital city Quito.

Less successful was the attempt to introduce a new constitution in Chile in 2022. As with the case in Ecuador, the Convention charged with drafting the new constitution was elected and included a large spread of society, with many independent candidates. The proposed constitution also included elements of the rights of nature, as well as the right to a clean and healthy environment. In this case, however, the proposed constitution was rejected in a referendum for being too “left-leaning”.

Another example, which has been framed as an ecosocial contract, is the 2015 constitution in Nepal. This constitution was focused on ensuring social rights and also included rich elements of environmental protection.