1
Introduction
Decarbonizing the industrial sector will demand substantial capital investment for the construction or modification of industrial infrastructure and facilities; the establishment of new factories; the development of domestic supply chains for critical minerals, materials, and low-carbon processes; the management of workforce transitions; and the assurance of environmental responsibility. The required speed and magnitude of industrial decarbonization present both opportunities and challenges for communities nationwide. A just and equitable transition to a decarbonized industrial sector will necessitate the formulation of a new social agreement involving communities, industry, and governments.
With respect to changing climate drivers and information technology solutions, the body of available related knowledge is gaining robustness, especially when it comes to technological solutions. While the continued advancement of new technologies will be crucial, incorporating social, behavioral, and economic sciences—along with interdisciplinary research—will also be necessary to formulate evidence-based strategies that ensure the achievement of technological objectives. However, there remains a need for a widely expanded and continuous effort in the social sciences as well as further research and analysis in the fields of social, behavioral, economic, and other social sciences. Therefore, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Science Foundation, and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation joined to sponsor a project to commission a series of position papers and then hold a public workshop to develop, synthesize, and assess ideas for a national interdisciplinary social science and behavioral research program to support an efficient and equitable clean energy transition in the industrial sector.
The Planning Committee on Developing and Assessing Ideas for Social and Behavioral Research to Speed Efficient and Equitable Industrial Decarbonization was appointed to commission the papers and plan the workshop. As stipulated in the planning committee’s charge (see Box 1-1), a call for abstracts was distributed to researchers, scholars, practitioners, and experts in the fields of social science, engineering, and physical and natural science; community group leaders; and experts from industry and government. The planning committee commissioned four papers1 that outline key societal challenges and the role of social science with regard to building a social compact for industrial decarbonization. A presentation by the author(s) of each paper, accompanied by facilitated panel discussions with the aim of critically assessing the papers, was included as part of the workshop.
___________________
1 The commissioned papers, along with the workshop video and presenter presentations, are available at: https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/developing-and-assessing-ideas-for-social-and-behavioral-research-to-speed-efficient-and-equitable-industrial-decarbonization-a-workshop
BOX 1-1
Statement of Task
The National Academies will appoint a planning committee of 4–6 members to plan and execute a two-part workshop to develop and assess ideas to lay the foundation for a national interdisciplinary social sciences research program to support an efficient and equitable clean energy transition in the industrial sector.
The goal of this workshop is to outline the social, behavioral, and economic sciences and interdisciplinary research needed to develop evidence-based approaches for ensuring the concurrent success of industrial decarbonization, a just transition to clean energy, and American leadership in the next generation of clean energy technologies. Part I of the workshop will commission a series of 3–4 position papers outlining the key societal challenges and needs that require social science insights and tools to build a social compact for industrial decarbonization. In Part II of the workshop an interdisciplinary group of social scientists, engineers, physical and natural scientists, community groups, and experts from industry and government will critically assess the position papers and report on their discussions.
A proceedings of the workshop that describes the presentations and discussions will be produced by a designated rapporteur in accordance with institutional guidelines.
Examples of topics to be considered in the workshop and papers include:
- Understanding Risk: Assist citizens and stakeholders to develop the knowledge to be informed participants in public discourse and make informed decisions about the benefits, risks, and adoption of new technologies and industries. Promote a better understanding for policymakers and stakeholders of risk perception, risk tolerance, behavioral responses, and trade-offs during times of rapid industrial change and decarbonization.
- Improving Industrial Decarbonization Transition Assessments: Develop and evaluate interdisciplinary methods to better assess, project, and communicate the dynamics, benefits, costs, and impacts of industrial system clean technologies, infrastructure, and decarbonization transitions within and across regions.
- Informing Better Policy Decisions: Propose and evaluate market, institutional, policy, and private structures and solutions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and their economic, environmental, and distributional impacts.
- Harmonizing Siting Processes: Develop approaches for siting new regional industrial hubs and projects to simultaneously address economic, workforce, environmental justice, and climate opportunities and challenges. Break down barriers to developing a diverse and robust workforce capacity to support industrial decarbonization with broad participation.
The workshop endeavored to engage a diverse group of experts drawn from industry, academia, government, non-governmental organizations, and community groups, spanning disciplines such as social science, physical and natural sciences, engineering, public health, and more. Their collective expertise was utilized to evaluate the commissioned papers and amplify discussions by panelists and workshop participants to identify additional issues and questions that might further shape the research agenda.
The workshop rapporteur prepared these proceedings as a factual summary of the workshop. The planning committee’s role was limited to planning and convening the workshop. The views contained in the proceedings are those of individual workshop participants and do not necessarily represent the views of all workshop participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The workshop agenda and biographical sketches of the committee members and presenters are in Appendixes A and B.
OPENING COMMENTS
As articulated by Thomas Thornton, Director of the Board on Environmental Change and Society at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, this workshop was in some sense an amplification of the Accelerating Decarbonization in the United States: Technology, Policy, and Societal Dimensions report,2 which included an examination of both the progress being made as well as recommendations to achieve an equitable energy transition to a decarbonized economy. As one of the sectors discussed in that report was the industrial sector, Thornton explained that this workshop would examine social and behavioral issues associated with industrial decarbonization, along with research areas that warrant further attention. Susan Tierney, Senior Advisor at Analysis Group and Planning Committee Chair, noted that social science research issues are often undersupported. Additionally, she pointed out that a focal point of the workshop involved exploring ways to assess matters of justice and equity in the context of the industrial decarbonization transition. The workshop also delved into the role of social science researchers in gaining a clear understanding of decarbonization-related social and behavioral phenomena. Tierney explained that the planning committee recognized the interdisciplinary nature of the industrial decarbonization research agenda and, for this reason, intentionally avoided establishing a definition of “social sciences,” but did consider a variety of disparate disciplines, including economics, psychology, political science, sociology, law, regulation, policy, and other humanities-related areas. Tierney also introduced the sponsors, whom she noted envisioned the workshop as an opportunity to develop ideas for a social science research agenda on industrial decarbonization.
Recognizing the industrial sector’s pivotal role in providing essential materials and products for society, Avi Shultz, Director of the Department of Energy’s Industrial Efficiency and Decarbonization Office (IEDO),3 acknowledged the high environmental cost associated with the industrial sector, which currently contributes which in 2022 contributed to 23% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) directly, and 30% of total U.S. GHGs when emissions from the electricity used in the industrial sector are included.4,5 IEDO supports strategic investments in research and development for future decarbonization technologies as well as initiatives for technical assistance and workforce development. Leveraging social science and behavioral research is instrumental for facilitating understanding of the intricacies of manufacturers’ energy- and emissions-management decisions, Shultz explained. Understanding barriers to implementation of cost-effective practical solutions can help IEDO work with industry to overcome these barriers. Additionally, Shultz emphasized the importance of enhancing the understanding of social and behavioral sciences to better anticipate the energy, environmental, and economic justice implications of technologies. He further stressed the need to ensure that decisions made to promote a future clean and competitive industrial sector help to improve the nation’s quality of life, rather than perpetuating existing inequities.
Chris Frey, Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Research and Development, stated that significant strides have been made toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions across various sectors, thanks to EPA regulations, voluntary programs, and legislation like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act. Looking ahead, Frey pointed out that challenges persist in the ongoing effort to decarbonize the industrial sector and industries situated in communities burdened with air pollution and other stressors face social challenges (e.g., neighborhood characteristics, crime, education, and access to nutritious food) that contribute to cumulative impacts on health, well-being, and quality of life.
According to Frey, addressing the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts from hard-to-decarbonize industries is crucial for achieving a net-zero economy and addressing envi-
___________________
2 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2023). Accelerating decarbonization in the United States: Technology, policy, and societal dimensions. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25931
3 More information about the Industrial Efficiency and Decarbonization Office is available at https://www.energy.gov/eere/iedo/industrial-efficiency-decarbonization-office
4 Department of Energy. (2022). Industrial decarbonization roadmap. DOE/EE-2635. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Industrial%20Decarbonization%20Roadmap.pdf
5 Environmental Protection Agency. (2024). Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks
ronmental justice concerns in affected communities. As highlighted in the fifth National Climate Assessment,6 challenges posed by hard-to-decarbonize sectors include determining the scale and mix of fuels, technologies, and processes needed to achieve decarbonization. Achieving net zero in a fair and just manner, Frey continued, requires interdisciplinary, systems-based approaches that consider both the technical and social dimensions of the steps required to transition from current industrial processes to lower emission alternatives. This includes understanding impacts on industrial production locations, community disruptions, required job skills, and public health consequences. He said, “it will also be critical to develop an improved understanding of the social, cultural, and historical factors that can affect the community acceptance of transitions to local industries, and thus building the capacity for community engagement will be necessary.”
To ensure the success of a blueprint developed for future social science research aimed at just and equitable decarbonization, Frey commented that it is imperative to reflect on whether all voices—particularly those in Black and tribal communities—are being heard. During the research design process, strong representation from these communities is crucial when addressing both problems and solutions. Frey emphasized the importance of seeking direct input from frontline communities and community-led groups deeply engaged in these issues to inform the research agenda. The ultimate aim would be to engage and empower affected communities as experts on their own historical experiences with industry, encompassing both positive aspects such as job provision and negative aspects like environmental contamination. Frey suggested aligning research goals with community needs, values, and concerns. Lastly, he pointed out that early and sustained community participation throughout the research process is crucial to the development of interdisciplinary, sustainable, and locally equitable decarbonization strategies.
Alan Tomkins, Acting Division Director of the National Science Foundation’s Division of Social and Economic Sciences, noted that numerous workshop participants have joint training and/or expertise in engineering as well as social, behavioral, and economic sciences. He emphasized the wide array of participant backgrounds, including in the fields of decision and risk management sciences, economics, geography, policy studies, political science, and sociology.
Isabella Gee, Program Associate in the Energy and Environment Program at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation—which supports academic research to inform the societal transition in the United States to low-carbon energy systems by investigating economic, environmental, technologic, and distributional issues—pointed to an article that reflects on the past 10 years of grant making.7 She mentioned that the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation welcomes increased attention to industrial decarbonization issues.
David Victor, Planning Committee Member and Professor of Innovation and Public Policy at the School of Global Policy and Strategy at University of California, San Diego, urged participants to consider how social science insights for industrial decarbonization differ from social science insights into other areas of decarbonization. In response, Tierney pointed out that the focus of industrial decarbonization is often only on energy industries, given their significant role in economic transformation. The complexity involved with decarbonizing nonenergy firms, Tierney continued, presents exciting opportunities for studying the social science aspects of decision making, community engagement, labor, and workforce issues.
A workshop participant highlighted the challenges of modeling industrial sector behavior, emphasizing its complexity compared to modeling electric utilities’ reactions to various policies. He noted that fundamental economic research, although not directly related to community impacts and environmental justice, serves as the essential foundation upon which all other aspects of industrial decarbonization rely. Another participant suggested that the primary challenge lies in identifying problems and solutions, while a secondary issue involves persuading companies—given their competitive mindsets—to adopt solutions that necessitate greater inclusion, transparency, and early involvement of communities in planning processes to achieve the required speed and scale of transfor-
___________________
6 Jay, A. K., Crimmins, A. R., Avery, C. W., Dahl, T. A., Dodder, R. S., Hamlington, B. D., Lustig, A., Marvel, K., Méndez-Lazaro, P. A., Osler, M. S., Terando, A., Weeks, E. S., & Zycherman, A. (2023). Chapter 1: Overview: Understanding risks, impacts, and responses. In A. R. Crimmins, C. W. Avery, D. R. Easterling, K. E. Kunkel, B. C. Stewart, & T. K. Maycock (Eds.), Fifth National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program. https://nca2023.globalchange.gov/
7 Michaelson, E. S., & Gee, I. M. (2024). Lessons from a decade of philanthropy for interdisciplinary energy research. Issues in Science and Technology, XL(2), 89–93. https://doi.org/10.58875/ETCJ5162
mation. Considering the role of competition and the need for transparency also applies to government entities, another participant noted.
A participant asked a question that Tierney noted would be a core perspective to examine throughout the entire workshop: How can community trust in industries be re-established after a bad actor’s actions lead to distrust, either through the absence of industry-generated transparency or procedural justice, or possibly due to previous infractions such as the failure to use appropriate air pollution controls?
ORGANIZATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS
The hybrid workshop on February 26 and 27, 2024, featured invited presentations and discussions involving researchers, policymakers, advocates, and other stakeholders. These discussions explored topics outlined in commissioned papers addressing critical aspects of industrial decarbonization. The first panel (Chapter 2) explored the challenges associated with establishing regional hubs for industrial decarbonization by considering the economic, environmental, and procedural factors influencing infrastructure siting, drawing from social science frameworks to identify research needs.
The second panel discussion (Chapter 3) scrutinized factors integral to social science research by addressing the diverse impacts of industrial decarbonization on employment across sectors, occupations, and geographies, including historical precedents and potential policies needed to mitigate workforce disruption during the transition to a net-zero economy. The panel identified future research topics, questions, and data needs for social scientists.
The next panel (Chapter 4) evaluated the role of the social sciences field with respect to community engagement for industrial decarbonization, emphasizing an understanding of mechanisms and processes by reviewing a case study on carbon management infrastructure; identifying desired outcomes; and discussing the factors, processes, and institutions influencing those outcomes. The panel also presented innovative community engagement models to highlight areas requiring further scholarly investigation.
The last panel on the first day (Chapter 5) scrutinized social science factors influencing technology decisions with respect to industrial decarbonization, in the process drawing lessons from other sectors; presenting the current state of research on community co-benefits; and addressing barriers, challenges, and risks associated with deploying these technologies. The panel discussed research gaps and offered recommendations for future work. Chapter 6 summarizes the themes, questions, and research gaps that emerged during the first day and highlights pertinent topics for future panels as well as the broader social science research agenda.
The second day (Chapter 7) commenced with an overview of environmental justice concepts and an acknowledgment of the potential of a just and equitable transition in terms of addressing historical inequities and preventing future inequities, as well as exploring the definition and measurement of environmental justice in the context of industrial decarbonization. This panel also discussed the social science research questions needed to incorporate environmental justice principles into ongoing decarbonization endeavors.
The next panel (Chapter 8) investigated the involvement of local, state, and federal governments in industrial sector decarbonization, examining how social science research could illuminate sources of distrust and contribute to building trust and cooperation between governments and the public. An effort was made to draw insights from historical examples to identify research questions informing future industrial decarbonization efforts.
The last panel (Chapter 9) examined corporate governance and industrial organization policies related to decarbonization goals, exploring how firms make decisions about the allocation of capital and risk in their pursuit of emissions reduction. The panel also engaged in discussions about the social science research needed to comprehend and guide decarbonization-related business decisions. Chapter 10 highlights the themes of the workshop.
This page intentionally left blank.
