Continued unsustainability and surpassed planetary boundaries require not only scientific and technological advances, but deep and enduring social and cultural changes. The purpose of this article is to contribute a theoretical approach to understand conditions and constraints for societal change towards sustainable development. In order to break with unsustainable norms, habits, practices, and structures, there is a need for learning for transformation, not only adaption. Based on a critical literature review within the field of learning for sustainable development, our approach is a development of the concept of transformative learning, by integrating three additional dimensions—Institutional Structures, Social Practices, and Conflict Perspectives. This approach acknowledges conflicts on macro, meso, and micro levels, as well as structural and cultural constraints. It contends that transformative learning is processual, interactional, long-term, and cumbersome. It takes place within existing institutions and social practices, while also transcending them. The article adopts an interdisciplinary social science perspective that acknowledges the importance of transformative learning in order for communities, organizations, and individuals to be able to deal with global sustainability problems, acknowledging the societal and personal conflicts involved in such transformation.

The main achievements of the debates on deliberative democracy and democratised science are investigated in order to analyse the reasons, meanings and prospects for a democratisation of global environmental policy. A deliberative systems approach, which emphasises the need to explore how processes in societal spheres interact to shape the deliberative qualities of the system as a whole, is adopted. Although science plays a key role in this, its potential to enhance deliberative capacity has hardly been addressed in deliberative theories. The democratisation of science has potential to contribute to the democratisation of global environmental policy, in that it also shapes the potential of deliberative arrangements in the policy sphere. Deliberative arrangements within the policy sphere may stimulate the democratisation of science to different degrees.

Science is frequently called upon to provide guidance in the work towards sustainable development. However, for science to promote action, it is not sufficient that scientific advice is seen as competent and trustworthy. Such advice must also be perceived as meaningful and important, showing the need and urgency of taking action. This article discusses how science tries to facilitate action. It claims that the use of scientific storytelling—coherent stories told by scientists about environmental trajectories—are central in this; these stories provide meaning and motivate and guide action. To do this, the storylines need to include both a normative orientation and emotional appeals. Two different cases of scientific storytelling are analyzed: one is a dystopic story about a world rushing towards ecological catastrophe, and the other is an optimistic story about a world making dramatic progress. These macrosocial stories offer science-based ways to see the world and aim to foster and guide action. The article concludes by stating that using storylines in scientific storytelling can elicit fear, inspire hope, and guide action. The storylines connect cold and distant scientific findings to passionate imperatives about the need for social transformation. However, this attachment to emotions and values needs to be done reflexively, not only in order to create engagement with an issue but also to counteract a post-truth society where passionate imperatives go against scientific knowledge.

Expert organizations are often described as facilitators of the interactions between science and policy. In managing this boundary, they must also manage other boundaries, such as those between different knowledge systems and between different categories of actors. However, how this intersectional boundary work is performed, and what it implies, is still unexplored territory. Focusing on the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), this study contributes knowledge on the intersectionality of boundary work and how it influences the production of global policy-relevant knowledge. This is done by examining how IPBES socializes junior experts to become senior experts. This socialization process makes a number of norms and ideals visible and enables an analysis of how the knowhow of boundary work is passed forward from one generation of experts to the next. The study analyzes three boundaries: between senior and junior experts, between science and policy, and between scientific knowledge and indigenous and local knowledge. The findings show how intersectional boundary work is crucial in the creation of expert organizations and policy-relevant knowledge. In the case of IPBES, this study shows how the institutionalization of the organization unintentionally has created restrictions for the boundary work between different knowledge systems.

Welfare service experiences are known to shape citizens' trust in public institutions and their support of the welfare state. But, there is poor understanding of how this relationship is shaped in systems of mixed provision, that is, welfare states that use public in-house as well as contracted private providers for publically funded services. Drawing on the notion of system trust this article provides a theoretical account of how mixed-provision welfare systems condition the relationship between service experience and trust, affecting the legitimacy of the state. Utilizing a randomized vignette experiment with participants in a general citizen survey in Sweden, we investigate whether it matters for the formation of institutional trust if the welfare service is provided by a public or third-party private provider. The main result show that the spillover of trust from positive service experiences with the provider to trust in public institutions is higher in cases of public service provision. Thus, the possibility of using welfare services to build trust in the welfare system seems to be greater when public provision is used.