3.1 Key features of and gaps in the climate mainstreaming framework

In this section, we describe the identified key features of and gaps in the climate mainstreaming framework. They relate to: (1) its aims; (2) development (reason and process); (3) components and their interrelations; (4) underlying assumptions, principles and heuristics; and (5) their linkages to transformation, that is, the levels at which change needs to take place to achieve transformation towards sustainability. See also Supplementary Material A for additional information and descriptions regarding these aspects.

Climate mainstreaming can be understood as a theory of change that is based on many years of experience in different cross-cutting domains. The latter include HIV/AIDS, gender, environment, climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction (see Supplementary Material A). It provides a heuristic, and represents a roadmap for systematically integrating climate change considerations across all sectors and levels. Specifically, it highlights that sustainable transformation can only be achieved if: (1) all levels of mainstreaming are addressed and interlinked; (2) short-term responses and longer-term approaches to increasing climate resilience are combined; and (3) top-down and bottom-up approaches are linked. The levels of mainstreaming, and the associated strategies and measures are illustrated in Figure 1, and defined in Table 1.

Figure 1. Climate mainstreaming framework and associated mainstreaming levels and strategies. Adapted from Wamsler (Reference Wamsler2014, Reference Wamsler2015). See also Table 1 and Supplementary Material A.

Table 1. Mainstreaming strategies as part of the climate mainstreaming framework

Adapted from Wamsler (Reference Wamsler2014, Reference Wamsler2015). See also Figure 1 and Supplementary Material A.

Note: The terms institution and organisation are used interchangeably in this framework/article.

In simple terms, the different levels of mainstreaming demonstrate that sustainable practices at the local level (strategies I and II) must be accompanied by change at systems (strategies III–V) and cultural levels (strategy VI). Here, the term ‘local’ refers to where climate change-related challenges manifest, and where climate actions result in visible outcomes and change. It relates to the question of tangible change. To achieve change, the goal is to institutionalise climate change mitigation and adaptation (starting from a specific organisation/institution) at institutional and inter-institutional levels, to the point that its integration at the local level becomes standard procedure. This needs, in turn, to be supported by the creation of mechanisms and structures for education and learning, to bring about cultural change within institutions and society at large (strategy VI). The latter relates to individual and collective capacities, values, beliefs, assumptions and paradigms.

Whilst these strategies represent different entry points, mainstreaming and associated transformation requires the implementation of activities at all levels and, hence, the implementation of all strategies, as they support each other (Table 1). Whilst such activities can be assessed by tracking progress and accountability, they need to be accompanied by monitoring and evaluating sustainability outcomes at the local level, which is more challenging (Runhaar et al., Reference Runhaar, Wilk, Persson, Uittenbroek and Wamsler2018). Apart from the strategies, the mainstreaming framework also defines the combination of (socio-economic, physical and environmental) measures that are needed, at each level, to address climate risk comprehensively and ensure that both short-term responses and longer-term approaches are considered (Table 1).

The mainstreaming framework is generic in the sense that it can be applied to both overall adaptation or mitigation, or specific aspects of these (e.g. environmental/nature-based solutions), as well as to other cross-cutting topics. A set of guiding principles and operational tools exists to help organisations translate the framework into practice, and identify gaps and the measures needed to address them. These tools are mainly based on systems thinking and social learning theories, along with methods for risk and project management, monitoring and evaluation (see Wamsler & Raggers, Reference Wamsler and Raggers2018 and Supplementary Material A).

Whilst mainstreaming theory addresses all levels of transformation (see Section 3.2), at the same time there is a lack of systematic and comprehensive consideration of internal dimensions, together with the associated links or ‘bridges’ between different levels (Ensor et al., Reference Ensor, Wennstrom, Bhatterai, Nightingale, Eriksen and Sillmann2019; Woiwode et al., Reference Woiwode, Schäpke, Bina, Veciana, Kunze, Parodi, Schweizer-Ries and Wamsler2021). Such considerations are, however, crucial to get sufficient traction for equitable and transformative change. Without explicit considerations of individual and collective beliefs, values and paradigms, mainstreaming climate considerations into existing development logics and structures can, in practice, perpetuate an anti-political machine, obscuring and depoliticising rather than addressing these internal root causes of the problem (Scoville-Simonds et al., Reference Scoville-Simonds, Jamali and Hufty2020). ‘Mainstreaming [thus] risks not only reproducing development-as-usual, but in fact reinforcing technocratic patterns of control’ (Scoville-Simonds et al., Reference Scoville-Simonds, Jamali and Hufty2020, p. 1).

3.2 Key features of and gaps in the conscious full-spectrum framework

In this section, we describe the identified key features of and gaps in the conscious full-spectrum response frameworkFootnote ^xiii that relate to its: (1) aims; (2) development (reason and process); (3) components and their interrelations; (4) underlying assumptions, principles and heuristics; and (5) their linkages to transformation, that is, the defined levels at which change needs to take place to achieve transformation towards sustainability. See also Supplementary Material B for additional information and descriptions regarding these aspects.

The conscious full-spectrum framework is a theory of change that aims to connect personal and societal transformation. The goal is to generate lasting results by sourcing internal human capacities and values for strategic action (within oneself and others), and increasing integrity through blending internal and external dimensions in policymaking, planning and implementation. Its development was based on more than 20 years of work for the UN, particularly UNDP and other organisations, and it has been applied to many projects in fields such as HIV/AIDS, disaster recovery and food security (Sharma, Reference Sharma2017). Later, O'Brien and Sygna (Reference O'Brien and Sygna2013) adapted and situated the framework in the context of climate change, articulating the heuristic as three spheres of transformation, consisting of the so-called personal, practical and political (IPCC, Reference Field, Barros, Dokken, Mach, Mastrandrea, Bilir, Chatterjee, Ebi, Estrada, Genova, Girma, Kissel, Levy, MacCracken, Mastrandrea and White2014, p. 1122; O'Brien, Reference O'Brien2018).

The conscious full-spectrum framework is linked to transformation theory and other heuristics that highlight the role of human agency in transformation, and the potential of individuals and groups to become agents of change (Hedlund-de Witt, Reference Hedlund-de Witt2012; O'Brien & Sygna, Reference O'Brien and Sygna2013; O'Brien & Wolf, Reference O'Brien and Wolf2010; Senge, Reference Senge1990). The latter relates to people's underlying values, motivations, beliefs, worldviews and other drivers associated with an activity (and their systemic expressions), and the power to influence or change them (Siegel, Reference Siegel2007). The conscious full-spectrum framework is, therefore, unlike theories of change that seek to encourage sustainable behaviours by ‘nudging’, but do not address deeper causes (O'Brien, Reference O'Brien2018; Rowson, Reference Rowson2011).

The conscious full-spectrum framework, illustrated in Figure 2 and Table 2, involves three essential strategies or spheres that need to be addressed simultaneously. The innermost circle, or practical sphere of transformation, corresponds to the local level, where problems (e.g. sustainability challenges) manifest, and where actions result in visible outcomes or change (cf. Section 3.1, strategies I and II). Sharma (Reference Sharma2017) calls such actions ‘technical’ solutions, where technical can be seen more broadly as a synonym for ‘practical’ (O'Brien, Reference O'Brien2018). It represents both technical solutions and behaviours with respect to climate change (O'Brien & Sygna, Reference O'Brien and Sygna2013). The middle circle or ‘political’ sphere represents the broader social, political, economic, environmental and cultural systems in which local sustainability problems and actions are embedded (cf. Section 3.1, strategies III–V). These systems can be seen as the rules of the game, and represent enabling or disabling conditions such as policies, governance structures, norms and associated power relations (O'Brien & Sygna, Reference O'Brien and Sygna2013). They therefore constrain or support the implementation of local solutions.

Figure 2. Conscious full-spectrum response framework. Adapted from Sharma (Reference Sharma2017) and Sharma (Reference Sharma2007). The triangular ‘cut’ indicates that outcomes of sustainability occur across all three levels/spheres and that all levels/spheres must be addressed simultaneously to support transformation (i.e. responses should not be partial but have to ‘cut through’ all spheres to support transformation).

Table 2. Different-level strategies as part of the conscious full-spectrum response framework

Adapted from Sharma (Reference Sharma2017) and O'Brien and Sygna (Reference O'Brien and Sygna2013).

Dominant systems and norms have been established by societies over time, and reflect past and present mindsets – values, beliefs, worldviews – and associated social paradigms (which is also the case for climate mainstreaming [see Section 3.1]). This links to the outermost circle. The latter corresponds to the ‘internal’ or ‘personal’ sphere of transformation, notably internal capacities and agency, here expressed as transformational leadership or stewardship (cf. Section 3.1, strategy VI). Such internal dimensions shape the ways systems and local solutions are viewed, as they influence the framing of issues, and the questions that are asked – or not (O'Brien & Sygna, Reference O'Brien and Sygna2013). Changes related to this internal sphere link to our consciousness, that is, the ways of seeing, understanding and thus interacting with the world. Underlying theories come from the so-called consciousness community of scholars and practitioners, and associated fields such as social and environmental psychology, social neuroscience, personal or adult development and leadership (e.g. Covey, Reference Covey2004; Fielding et al., Reference Fielding, Hornsey and Swim2014; Kegan & Lahey, Reference Kegan and Lahey2001; Torbert Reference Torbert2004).

The framework highlights that sustainable results require an effective response to immediate sustainability problems. However, at the same time, there is a need to leverage the full potential of people to ensure that humanity and the planet thrive. It is founded on universal values, and the capacity to apply this personal stance to enhance effective responses in for example, policymaking, organisational development, project planning and implementation.

The framework can be understood as a process ontology (O'Brien, Reference O'Brien2018) that is linked to a three-step pedagogy. The latter involves operational methods, tools and exercises that are aimed at: (1) sourcing interior capacities; (2) designing to make a difference; and (3) practising/implementing new processes. The framework can also, therefore, be seen as a practice of change. Methods, tools and exercises draw upon knowledge from fields that encompass systems thinking, personal development, social neuroscience, applied psychology and leadership, as well as associated principle-centred frameworks and concepts such as emotional intelligence, mindfulness-based stress reduction, non-violent communication and different project planning tools (e.g. Covey, Reference Covey2004; Goleman et al., Reference Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee2002; Henderson & Knoll, Reference Henderson and Knoll2002; Kabat-Zinn, Reference Kabat-Zinn2005; Kegan & Lahey, Reference Kegan and Lahey2001; Senge, Reference Senge1990, Reference Senge1999; Tann & Luyet, Reference Tann and Luyet2005).Footnote ^xiv

The framework is anchored in the deep work of the internal sphere, and pulls that through the political and practical spheres, thereby providing the scaffolding for a transformative change process. At the same time, it does not sufficiently define, nor provide a theoretical model for identifying and developing the internal qualities or capacities that are required to support sustainability. In addition, it is somewhat removed from political and social science theory regarding climate mainstreaming, climate change attitudes and behaviours that may hamper its implementation in these fields. There is an implicit assumption that certain internal qualities or capacities are accessible to all, and invariably lead to greater sustainability across all levels. Such inner transformation–sustainability linkages are, however, complex and require further consideration to allow their systematic support and mainstreaming in climate work (Wamsler et al., Reference Wamsler, Osberg, Osika, Hendersson and Mundaca2021; Woiwode et al., Reference Woiwode, Schäpke, Bina, Veciana, Kunze, Parodi, Schweizer-Ries and Wamsler2021).

3.3 Synergies and overlaps

Our comparative analysis identified many synergies and overlaps between mainstreaming and full-spectrum frameworks. They include:

1. (1) the questions they contend with.

2. (2) The defined levels at which change needs to take place to achieve sustainable transformation.

3. (3) An emphasis on the importance of addressing and interlinking all levels of mainstreaming/transformation simultaneously.

4. (4) A focus on enhancing effective response and addressing the root causes or factors that underlie the targeted challenges.

5. (5) The importance given to responding to such challenges, whilst simultaneously fostering wider well-being/flourishing/resilience.

6. (6) The fact that their underlying principles can be applied to all kinds of cross-cutting topics.

Whilst the two frameworks use different wording, both present process-ontologies, and the questions they contend with are ‘how’ questions. In addition, there are clear similarities in the defined levels (spheres) where change needs to take place. In both cases, the innermost circle (Figures 1 and 2) corresponds to local practices and behaviours, the sphere where outcomes become visible on the ground. In the context of climate mainstreaming, the many local flagship projects are typical examples. These initiatives show that impacts are limited if they do not go hand-in-hand with changes within the other levels/circles. The second circle or level refers, in both cases, to changes in the wider system, including, for instance, implementing organisations and other players. The latter includes sectoral organisations and civil society, and the structures that regulate their actions and interactions. These are, in turn, linked to the deeper root causes found in the values and paradigms that are adopted by actors, both professionals and citizens. Both frameworks indicate that training and education programmes and measures should pay particular attention to these root causes.

Another similarity is that both frameworks highlight the importance of addressing and interlinking all levels of mainstreaming/transformation simultaneously. Although most of the literature on transformation acknowledges that there are multiple spheres, it seldom recognises important interdependencies and interactions between them. In contrast, both frameworks highlight that all spheres offer multiple entry points for interventions, but that action should extend to all other spheres for sustainable change. Typical leadership approaches might, for instance, begin by targeting the outermost circle (this is also the initial strategy found in the methods, tools and exercises that are part of the conscious full-spectrum approach), whilst traditional mitigation and adaptation projects, and associated mainstreaming, are more likely to start from the innermost or middle circles, for example, through the development of local solutions and/or institutional strategies at city level, before reaching out to simultaneously address all other spheres.

Despite potential different starting points, both frameworks focus on enhancing effective response and addressing the root causes or factors that underlie the targeted sustainability challenges. Climate mainstreaming is motivated by the need to challenge common ideas, attitudes or activities and change dominant paradigms at multiple levels of governance. It seeks to increase sustainability and resilience by expanding the focus from preventing or resisting climate hazards, to a broader systems framework in which we learn to live and cope with an ever-changing, and sometimes risky, environment (Wamsler et al., Reference Wamsler, Pauleit, Zölch, Schetke, Mascarenhas, Kabisch, Korn, Stadler and Bonn2017). It thus aims to address the root causes of risk, including power structures and failed approaches to sustainable development (Wamsler & Raggers, Reference Wamsler and Raggers2018). Similarly, as described in Section 3.2 the full-spectrum framework relies on the assumption that root causes can be addressed by sourcing human internal capacities to manifest change.

Another similarity between the frameworks is the dual objective of responding to specific needs or challenges, whilst simultaneously engaging in long-term activities that aim to help society and the planet to thrive. In the context of the mainstreaming framework, this is seen in the measures needed to comprehensively address climate risk at all levels, and linking them to educational mainstreaming. Two of the mainstreaming framework's measures relate to responding to hazards and disasters (hazard/disaster response and recovery), whilst the other two focus on increasing resilience and well-being by reducing climate change, vulnerabilities and exposure (Table 1). In the conscious full-spectrum framework, the two-fold objective is mainly related to its focus on internal capacities to effect behavioural and systems change. As Sharma (Reference Sharma2017, p. 216) stated, ‘The mindset and strategies of survival are different from the mindset and strategies for thriving’. Meeting basic needs and addressing immediate problems must, thus, go hand-in-hand with cultivating societies where we nurture human beings to manifest their full potential. This dual objective requires consideration at all levels of mainstreaming and transformation.

The final common trait is the importance given to the inclusion of different stakeholders, their roles, interactions between them and the agency given to ordinary people, that is, to all people. The latter is an explicit aim of the conscious full-spectrum approach.Footnote ^xv In the context of the mainstreaming framework, it is expressed in the aim to achieve distributed governance (strategy V) and associated guidance that seeks to ensure equitable stakeholder involvement (see also Supplementary Material A). At the same time, the latter has not yet given adequate consideration to the internal (cognitive/emotional and relational) dimensions that support agency.

In sum, both frameworks are based on a similar logic and heuristic for achieving sustainable change, with a focus on renewing existing perspectives, mechanisms and structures. Their application, in this context, is not aimed at adding new, separate mechanisms and structures. Instead, it is about mainstreaming a new perspective, that is, ‘doing the same things differently’ (Sharma, Reference Sharma2017, p. 141). Consequently, whilst the two frameworks focus on different mainstreaming topics (climate change and internal qualities/capacities, or interiority, respectively) to leverage human potential and agency towards change and scaling up, the underlying principles can be applied to all kinds of sectors and cross-cutting topics, which is another explicit feature of both frameworks. The latter is an important finding, as it provides mutual support for the frameworks' underlying logic and heuristic, and opens up the potential for mutual learning from, and integration of, aspects that are lacking or differ.

3.4 Differences and gaps

Our analysis found that, despite certain synergies and overlaps, there are also differences and gaps between the mainstreaming and full-spectrum frameworks. They include:

1. (1) the thematic focus (the mainstreaming topic).

2. (2) The starting point (individual versus organisational perspective) and associated target groups.

3. (3) The extent to which internal capacities are considered across all levels/spheres; this, in turn, reflects the framework's thematic foci, starting points and perspectives.

4. (4) The latter difference is also reflected in the associated tools (e.g. for sourcing internal capacities and agency) and associated processes for achieving transformation.

5. (5) The conscious full-spectrum framework is particular in that it provides a pedagogy and practical tools for addressing current gaps in climate mainstreaming (regarding internal capacities/spheres and relationality).

6. (6) Each approach is based on an implicit assumption that certain internal qualities/capacities lead to sustainability outcomes at different scales, and that these are trainable through a combination of tools that have in parts been adapted to the context of sustainability. An explicit heuristic and integration is, however, missing, opening up scope for further developments and integration.

The first difference we identified is the thematic focus. The full-spectrum approach focuses on agency, through sourcing internal capacities and their mainstreaming across all levels/spheres. The mainstreaming framework focuses on climate change and the mainstreaming of related considerations across all spheres. Consequently, the starting point, and also the perspectives, differ.

Whilst the full-spectrum approach was developed to be applied from the perspective of individuals (independent of any professional affiliation or orientation), the mainstreaming framework was developed to be used from the perspective of an implementing organisation that operates in a place where climate change or climate risk are a current or future sustainability challenge (which is the case for most organisations worldwide). The aim is to assist such organisations in the process of climate mainstreaming, and in particular staff who are responsible for leading this intersectoral and transdisciplinary process.

The third point is that interior dimensions are not addressed to the same extent. This relates to the areas of greatest leverage that each model is guided by. The conscious full-spectrum framework is guided by the notion that the greatest leverage is found in the personal or internal sphere. Consequently, all spheres are examined from this viewpoint, that is, how internal capacities and potential can be sourced to achieve change within all other levels of change and be integrated into essential project design elements, such as learning programmes, communication, policy formulation and organisational development. In contrast, the mainstreaming framework is guided by the notion that the greatest leverage is in scaling or linking up processes within a system. Therefore, whilst internal dimensions are included in the framework in all spheres, it is given less priority. Consequently, whilst the outermost circle is also explicitly related to the internal sphere, in this case, this is without any directionality. Here, the outermost circle is associated with the educational mainstreaming strategy (see strategy VI, Table 1). The aim is to support a conceptual shift (individual and collective/cultural) in the underlying paradigms (that drive sector-specific education and stewardship) that would encourage climate change adaptation and mitigation to become an inherent part of all spheres. This shift should be understood in a broad rather than technical sense, as it is based on a comprehensive understanding of risk. Climate change, hazard exposure and vulnerabilities are here understood as being interlinked with other sustainability challenges (e.g. poverty) that are rooted in multiple societal issues of power, separation and exclusion, such as consumerism, materialism, colonialism, racism and/or elitism (Wamsler & Raggers, Reference Wamsler and Raggers2018). From the perspective of an implementing organisation, the internal sphere can be addressed, for instance, by working with educational bodies to offer training or other joint measures that can be targeted at any of the three spheres. The middle circle of the mainstreaming framework also addresses internal capacities, in the context of managerial mainstreaming (Table 1). For example, the implementing organisation's staff can be offered training that supports the integration and institutionalisation of climate change adaptation and mitigation at the local, project level.Footnote ^xvi However, this does not explicitly include the need for staff to develop their ability to source internal qualities/capacities and values and draw upon them when designing and implementing projects that can shift behaviours, systems and paradigms (even if they are local). Finally, the innermost circle of the mainstreaming framework also considers personal capacities, for instance in relation to local needs and analysis tools described in Wamsler (Reference Wamsler2014). However, these are often only looked at in relation to implementing and governing climate change adaptation and mitigation measures, rather than the broader sense of supporting human potential and thriving that is found in the full-spectrum approach.

The different considerations of internal dimensions are reflected in the methods and tools used. Unlike the mainstreaming framework, the full-spectrum approach is linked to a process-based pedagogy that aims to source internal capacities that support agency and transformation by mainstreaming their consideration across all sectors and spheres (see also Supplementary Material B). The mainstreaming framework also includes process-based tools for considering personal capacities. However, whilst it focuses on integrating climate change considerations across all spheres, including the internal sphere, it has historically developed out of a more technical and systems perspective. Consequently, most guiding principles and tools are of a more managerial nature. Meanwhile, the lack of consideration of cognitive, emotional and relational aspects and tools that can address underlying mindsets/paradigms has been increasingly highlighted as a key barrier to sustainable mainstreaming and transformation (Wamsler et al., Reference Wamsler, Wickenberg, Hanson, Alkan Olsson, Stålhammar, Björn, Falck, Gerell, Oskarsson, Simonsson, Torffvit and Zelmerlow2020b, Reference Wamsler, Osberg, Osika, Hendersson and Mundaca2021).

Our analyses show that the conscious full-spectrum framework provides a pedagogy and practical tools for addressing such gaps in climate mainstreaming and, more broadly, sustainability science, practice and education, which are currently vastly removed from relational perspectives and approaches (Walsh et al., Reference Walsh, Böhme and Wamsler2020). The framework and the associated pedagogy are based on an implicit assumption that certain internal qualities/capacities lead to engagement and sustainability outcomes across all scales (from the individual to the global) and are trainable through a combination of methods and tools that have, in part, been adapted to the context of sustainability. However, these assumptions and the underlying mechanisms remain implicit. This hampers their potential use as a blueprint that can be applied more broadly to the issue of climate change in general, and climate mainstreaming in particular (see Sections 3.1–3.3).

Advancing current knowledge requires the better-identification, definition and validation of the specific internal qualities and capacities needed to foster agency and achieve systems change for sustainability. This would also allow methods and tools to be adopted, contextualised and adapted to mainstreaming topics (which encompasses most sustainability challenges). The latter point is not explicitly addressed in the context of the full-spectrum approach. In practice, its effective application to the field of climate change mitigation and adaptation (or any other cross-cutting topic) thus requires the simultaneous consideration of knowledge and approaches provided by mainstreaming theory.