Photo by Diva Plavalaguna on Pexels

This is such an enduring problem: how can we address and manage that change within the legal system. I see the legal system as quite rigid, so I wonder whether we can change it from within, or if it should be approached in another way? (RELIEF project stakeholder interview, February 2025)

This question, raised during the stakeholder interviews, touches upon one of the key research problems of the RELIEF project: what changes are needed in the legal system to address environmental issues effectively and in a just way? “That change“, namely the sustainability transformation, is a complex goal, and its difficulty the interviewee reflects upon. Achieving this goal requires resolving multiple environmental issues, such as climate change and biodiversity loss, simultaneously and in a socially sustainable manner. 

Additionally, the interviewee’s concern reflects a broader atmosphere in our society, characterized by various tensions, value conflicts, and inertia. Change is also hindered by the solid internal structures of the legal system: ensuring continuity is one of the most crucial functions of the legal system in a liberal democratic society, which is why institutional mechanisms to moderate or delay abrupt transformations have been established. For example, the constraints imposed by the rule of law and fundamental rights often challenge legislative efforts to strengthen sustainability regulations. Such friction typically arises in relation to property rights and the freedom of enterprise when attempts are made to limit economic activities that are problematic from climate or environmental perspectives. 

In terms of the sustainability transformation of the legal system, it is important to ask how these tensions and frictions affect the possibilities of promoting change and creating space within the system to operate differently. What possibilities for agency do different actors have within the legal system? And actually, what does sustainability agency even mean in a complex system such as the legal system? 

Understanding the system is the first step toward sustainability agency 

Discussions with stakeholders in the RELIEF project have made it clear that the perspective of agency in the legal system is often perceived as unfamiliar and difficult, yet also new and inspiring. To understand sustainability agency in complex settings, we argue that it is useful to examine the above-mentioned questions from two points of view: from the perspective of the system as a whole and from the perspective of the actor engaging with the system. Thus, to explore how the system enables or restricts agency, we need to grasp both the “outside view” and the “inside view” dialectically. 

Understanding sustainability transformation within a complex legal system requires systems thinking, since the complexity of the system means it cannot be addressed as merely the sum of its parts. The emergent, multilevel characteristics of the system must therefore also be acknowledged. 

The legal system is continuously shaped and influenced by various people, organizations, and institutions. As a social and complex construct, it reflects the voices of past generations and the often unspoken paradigms that prevailed in their time. Consequently, both the past and the present simultaneously shape the rule-based system, which can either slow down or support sustainability agents operating within it. 

Various institutions, including the legal system, perpetuate fundamental paradigms (i.e., shared worldviews and beliefs), system goals, structures, and rules that are often viewed as the most effective levers for change. For this reason, promoting sustainability transformation within the legal system is bound to influence – and even alter – these systemic characteristics. However, these effective levers can also represent some of the most challenging barriers to change. Difficulties arise especially when paradigms, aims, visions, and advocacies collide. Institutional structures frequently favor individual interests over collective environmental benefits, and economic values often conflict with views that advocate for the intrinsic value of nature and the preservation of biodiversity. 

As a result, the possibility of change within the complex legal system may appear very limited, or at least it can seem so. Yet, by understanding the system as a historically developed, socially constructed, and multilevel whole, there is potential for new forms of problem-solving – and perhaps room for sustainability agency. 

Everyday sustainability agency requires navigating amidst tensions 

In public administration, everything has to be based on law and is therefore quite clear-cut. Yet the reality is that it’s people who work in those institutions, whether in the Supreme Administrative Court or ministries and so on. (RELIEF project stakeholder forum, May 2025)

The above quote illustrates how promoting sustainability transformation in the legal system is also everyday work and action. It involves many different people, such as legislative drafters in ministries, permit authorities, administrative court judges, and representatives of various companies and advocacy groups. 

When examining the system from the outside, it is easy to overlook the significance of the people working within it and the interactions between them. Within the system, people always operate in individual moments and situations, each of which is influenced not only by sustainability goals, but also by countless other factors that are impossible to control. The outcomes in these situations, such as decisions and regulations, are thus shaped by the collective actions of many people and the conditions influencing those actions. Administrative cultures, organizational practices, and the approaches, ideals, and worldviews adopted in legal education, for example, all have their effects. 

Thus, in examining systemic change, it is essential to pay attention also to individual situations, people, and their interactions. Mere knowledge is not sufficient to bring about change; the key lies in the discussions and reactions that develop from that knowledge. For example, at the RELIEF stakeholder forum, the importance of emotions in how tensions and needs for change are dealt with in legislative processes sparked discussion. The tensions between existing paradigms within the system are not abstract theories; they are concretely experienced in human interaction as different emotional states and physical sensations. The ability to tolerate difficult emotions, together with the skills of encountering and listening to each other, are an essential part of generating new types of solutions and interpretations. 

Navigating amidst tensions is an inevitable part of everyday sustainability agency. Instead of striving for consensus, it needs to be accepted that tensions will never be completely resolved, not at the global, national, or even local levels. Flourishing sustainability agency requires the ability to balance in continuously changing situations and  build new, creative solutions. It is crucial to understand different interpretative frames being used to make sense of tensions. Constructing new interpretations can ease the resolution of challenging and contradictory, even paradoxical, questions. 

The process of co-creation opens space for sustainability agency 

Promoting sustainability transformation and strengthening sustainability agency within the legal system seem to require new ways of thinking and working. Co-creation processes may shed light on how these new ways can be generated. However, this also requires that the principles of co-creation challenge customary working methods. These processes should allow room for not-knowing and feelings of confusion, which we argue are necessary sparks for change. In the face of confusion, people experience new emotions and insights that drive them to seek approaches better suited to these situations. 

The process of co-creation aims at collective learning, where the focus is not solely on the individual’s capacity to understand and act but rather on the emergence of collective agency. Importantly, collective learning requires breaking the boundaries of social systems and fostering interaction across them. Emphasizing the collective does not aim to downgrade the importance of the individual; rather, it highlights the significance of the interrelational, co-constructed relationships between individuals and the collective. Thus, these processes are emergent and, at their best, transformative — fundamentally renewing perceptions and ways of operating. For successful co-creation, it is necessary to partly abandon the idea of control and recognize the significance of actors as agents of change. It involves focusing on the present by strengthening the resilience of both the system and the people operating within it, rather than concentrating solely on managing complexity through rigorous future scenarios and calculations. 

According to complexity theory, adaptation of a complex system can be fostered by blurring system boundaries, as only an open system can be adaptive. By supporting diversity, boundaries become more permeable — a feature characteristic of many co-creation processes. Supporting diversity means, for instance, involving people from multiple scales, recognizing and balancing power structures, and bringing together various knowledge systems, forms of expertise, and perspectives. Moreover, it requires voicing and remaining open to different paradigms that are often taken for granted when pursuing change. The purpose is to foster trust, create space for experimentation, and even failure — in other words, for innovation. 

In the co-creation process, the ability to understand the complex system forms the foundation for transformation. The goal is to delve into the root causes of problems and to use them as deep levers for change, thereby creating spaces for transformation within the complex legal system that is in many ways resistant to change. 

Promoting sustainability transformation requires new ways of understanding ourselves as part of a constantly evolving system that our actions influence. At its best, the co-creation process not only generates knowledge and action but also fosters a stronger sense of agency — the recognition that one can influence their environment both individually and collectively. This new form of sustainability agency can emerge through the co-creation process, which we will explore further as the RELIEF project progresses. 

The spice of this work, in a certain way, is the anticipation of the moment when one’s actions have made an impact. It’s the realization that it matters who sits in this chair or performs this task. […] These are probably very small details, especially when focusing on an individual civil servant, where their influence lies. But then, the collective of civil servants can achieve more over time. (RELIEF project stakeholder interview, February 2025)