Accountability, transparency, and engagement are critical elements of
any principles based system. Just transition principles move from effectively and normatively positive system design and operation to the objectives toward which that system is to be directed--that s , it represents a cluster of objectives, premises, and principles that shape the way in which the system weighs, values, processes, aligns, orders, and identifies information and then applies that as a function of its objectives parameters. In that sense, just transition, like any 0ther foundational set of ordering premises not merely shapes the cognitive cages within which the machine/system operates, but also serve as a justification space within which its ordered biases can be realized. This is not a bad thing; but it is a "thing" that ought to be recognized as one puts forward a normative cage within which the operation and accountability, transparency, and engagement of systems are undertaken.
That is certainly the case with "just transition"--a term, an idea, a set of significs, the premises around which a community of believers organizes its rationalization, and judgment of the world around them. Yet like other foundational terms, objectives, premises and the like, the signification of just transition represents a spectrum of orthodoxy some of which may not be entirely aligned with others. “Just transition” is not a term with one settled definition, a universally accepted set of criteria, or a single institutional owner. It is better understood as a contested concept whose meaning changes with the institution, political constituency, economic problem, and conception of justice through which it is articulated. The term originated in labor and environmental disputes over the consequences of environmental regulation for workers and communities, but it has since acquired a broader field of application encompassing climate policy, energy systems, regional development, human rights, ecological restoration, democratic participation, and, in some settings, transitions beyond decarbonization (see, e.g., UN DESA Policy Brief No. 141: A just green transition: concepts and practice so far (2022); pdf here).
The analytical problem is therefore not simply to collect definitions and compare their wording. It is to determine what each definition makes the object of justice, whose interests it recognizes, which institutions it authorizes to act, what kind of change it regards as necessary, and what obligations follow from describing that change as just. A definition that treats justice as compensation for displaced workers does something different from one that treats it as the redistribution of economic power, the protection of internationally recognized rights, or the transformation of an extractive economic order.
Three distinctions might usefully guide any inquiry:
(1) Transition versus transformation. A transition may change the means of production while retaining the underlying economic and political order; a transformative conception may instead make that order, including its distribution of power and resources, an object of change.
(2) Justice as outcome versus justice as process. One approach asks whether the benefits and burdens of change are distributed fairly; another asks whether those affected have meaningful authority over the decisions that produce those outcomes.
(3) Justice within a system versus justice of the system. Some definitions seek to make a specified transition fairer without questioning its governing objectives. Others ask whether the existing system's ownership arrangements, development priorities, or historical relationships of exploitation are themselves unjust.
The distinctions, of course, are not meant to suggest analytical categories, nor do they purpose to suggest mutually exclusive schools or official classifications. A single policy may incorporate elements of all three, although their coexistence does not establish that the tensions among them have been resolved. And yet, precision, at least with respect to analytical streams may prove useful when one moves from "high concepts" to operational realities in sector and territorially specific context.
It might follow, then that the term "just transition" as object, as a vessel of signified principles; and as the platform for the orthodox organizaiton of a view of the world through its conceptual lens, invites further consideration which might be divided along four analytical streams: considerations of Several conclusions follow from the comparison.
First, there may be a meaningful difference between making a transition just and using transition as an occasion to pursue justice. The former can be satisfied, at least in principle, through measures that reduce the harms associated with a specified policy. The latter may make the existing economic order itself an object of criticism and change. It is worth noting the difference--the former is passive and reactive, the latter is active and anticipatory. One responds to changes in the world, the other seeks to cause and direct them. The differences in these approaches reflect the foundational principles of political/normative ideology since the start of modernity in the Enlightenment--are humans to be led toward "the good" by a vanguard of social forces (the current position within elements of liberal democratic and Marxist-Leninist ordering) that proceeds from principal applied to individual through collective leadership and guidance; or are humans to respond to the stimulus/irritation of change through the iterative mimetic interactions of individuals which when aggregated serve as the change around which one might be able to discern the emergence of principle. he former embraces deductive processes; the latter inductive processes. Usually human systems deploy both, but virtually all lead with one or the other.
Second, the relationship between justice and efficiency is unlikely to be settled by the terminology. A transition may be economically efficient in aggregate while imposing concentrated costs on particular workers or communities. Conversely, policies intended to protect affected populations may impose fiscal or adjustment costs of their own. The question is how those competing considerations are ordered and justified, rather than whether one can simply be substituted for the other. And that is a question of politics, and the control of the collective meaning of the terms imposed either as internalized "truth" or as truth imposed through the usual mechanisms of disciplining orthodoxy.
Third, participation, compensation, and transformation might be better treated as separate dimensions. They may reinforce one another, but none is a reliable proxy for the others. Indeed, the issue of proxies in just transition suggests the tension between idealization and its insertion into terms or actions that are deemed to signify their value or occurrence, and the actual occurrence itself that evidences values. Each is itself a term with its own spectrum of idealization, usually a s a function of other, though sometimes related, sets of ordering norms and premises. Each can be understood itsef as a vessel through which the operationalization of connections and reinforcement among norms necessary for the articulation and then realization of objectives may be comprehensively approached. Indeed, at its core, each of the terms also requires a "just transition" if the meta-concept of societal just transition, even within distinct sectors of human organizational life is to be realized. And yet all of these then test the weight and importance of those objectives against the fundamental goals of political systems within which it is to be undertaken.
Fourth, the concept's breadth, then,may be understood, even in sector specific application, as both useful and problematic. It allows institutions with different mandates to address related consequences of economic change. At the same time, it permits a relatively narrow policy of employment adjustment and a more fundamental project of economic transformation to share the same designation without necessarily sharing the same substantive commitments. The conceptual review by Wang and Lo identifies precisely this difficulty: the variety of definitions and perspectives can make communication and debate more difficult in the absence of clearer distinctions.
All of this enriches the engagement with the concerns and approaches elaborated in the July-September 2026 Newsletter of The International Code of Conduct Association – ICoCA--"Accountable Security in Transition." The theme is framed in this way for the Newsletter:
As demand for critical minerals grows, responsible private security has an important role to play in protecting human rights, strengthening community trust and supporting a just transition. In this edition, we explore how security practices affect communities, highlight initiatives to strengthen accountability and prevent human rights risks, and showcase responsible security in action. We also look ahead to ICoCA’s 13th Annual General Assembly.
ICoCA "is a multi-stakeholder
initiative formed in 2013 to ensure that providers of private security
services respect human rights and humanitarian law. It serves as the
governance and oversight mechanism of the International Code of Conduct
for Private Security Service Providers." (ICoCA--About).
The ICoCa summarizes its mission this way: "Our mission is to raise
private security industry standards and practices that respect human
rights and international humanitarian law and to engage with key
stakeholders to achieve widespread adherence to the International Code
of Conduct globally. Discover the benefits for each stakeholder group
below."
Featured interventions include: (1) From mine to market: the security blind spot in critical minerals supply chains; (2) Private security: the critical minerals game-changer policymakers and investors can't afford to ignore; (3) From accountability to prevention: securing Mozambique's critical minerals; (4) When mineral demand meets community realities in Peru; and (5) two case studies on transition in South Sudan and Kenya.
A French version of this newsletter is available
here.
Securing communities for a Just Transition |
|
As demand for critical minerals grows, responsible private security has an important role to play in protecting human rights, strengthening community trust and supporting a just transition. In this edition, we explore how security practices affect communities, highlight initiatives to strengthen accountability and prevent human rights risks, and showcase responsible security in action. We also look ahead to ICoCA’s 13th Annual General Assembly. |
|
A French version of this newsletter is available here. |
|
| From mine to market: the security blind spot in critical minerals supply chains |
|
The transition to a greener economy depends on critical minerals, yet the role of private security in their extraction and transport remains largely overlooked. From mine sites to transport corridors and ports, security practices can influence community trust, operational stability and the risk of human rights abuses, with consequences that extend across entire supply chains. |
|
This article examines why responsible security must be embedded in mining standards, procurement and oversight, and how doing so can help ensure the energy transition does not come at the expense of affected communities. It highlights the rationale behind ICoCA’s Strategic Goal 3, which seeks to ensure that responsible security is recognised as essential to a just transition. |
|
|
| Private security: the critical minerals game-changer policymakers and investors can't afford to ignore |
|
At the International Security Expo 2026 in London, ICoCA Executive Director Jamie Williamson highlighted the strategic role of private security in critical minerals supply chains. He explored how responsible security can help manage risks, protect communities and uphold human rights, making it an essential part of ensuring that critical minerals investments support stability and responsible business practices. |
|
|
| From accountability to prevention: securing Mozambique's critical minerals |
|
As demand for critical minerals grows, so does the need for responsible and rights respecting security. With EU support, ICoCA is working with partners in Mozambique to strengthen oversight, community engagement and the prevention of human rights risks in the extractive sector. This work will help build more secure, accountable and trusted critical mineral supply chains. |
|
|
| When mineral demand meets community realities in Peru |
|
As in Mozambique, the EU funded CRM Secure project will focus on strengthening community participation and dialogue around mining related risks in Peru. Working with DCAF, ICoCA will support civil society actors and security providers to address human rights challenges, prevent conflict and promote more responsible practices across the critical minerals sector. |
|
|
| ICoCA Responsible Security Awards 2025: Case studies highlights |
|
The ICoCA Responsible Security Awards highlight how private security companies and civil society partners advance responsible practices in complex environments. The following two case studies showcase different approaches to community resilience and a responsible transition in the critical minerals sector. |
|
| Responsible transition beyond mine closure |
| Building resilience amid flooding and conflict |
|
 | | At Kenya’s Kwale Mineral Sands Operations, SGA Security took a people centred approach to managing the transition as the mine approached closure. Its “Life after Base” programme supported security officers through clear communication, financial training, counselling and opportunities for redeployment or alternative livelihoods. The case demonstrates how responsible security can contribute to a more just transition by supporting workers, maintaining trust and reducing social tensions during mine closure. |
 | | In South Sudan, Archer International is helping communities build resilience in an environment affected by conflict and severe flooding. In Fangak, the company has supported flood preparedness, provided essential equipment and shared skills in first aid, health and safety. By working alongside local communities, Archer has extended its role beyond traditional security services to strengthen preparedness, build trust and support communities facing complex and interconnected challenges. |
|
| New interactive Technology Toolkit for private security |
|
ICoCA’s Technology Toolkit for Responsible Private Security, developed with ICT4Peace, is now available through an interactive platform on ICoCA’s Training Hub. |
|
Accessible exclusively to ICoCA members and affiliates, this digital version provides practical guidance on the responsible use of new technologies in private security, with an integrated chatbot that allows users to explore topics, ask questions and quickly identify relevant good practices. The new platform makes the Toolkit easier to navigate and supports private security providers in addressing both the opportunities and human rights challenges presented by emerging technologies in security operations. |
|
|
(ICoCA members and affiliates only) |
|
| Save the date for ICoCA's 13th AGA! |
|
ICoCA will host its 13th Annual General Assembly (AGA) online on 30 November-4 December 2026, in line with our commitment to wider global participation for our members, affiliates and observers. - 30 November, 15:30-17:00 CET: Observer Pillar meeting
- 1 December, 15:30-17:00 CET: CSO Pillar meeting
- 2 December, 15:30-17:00 CET: Government Pillar meeting
- 3 December, 15:30-17:00 CET: PSC Pillar meeting
- 4 December, 15:00-17:00 CET: Plenary
Stay tuned for the registration links coming soon!
|
|
| Membership and certification |
|
Member monitoring
ICoCA handles complaints and monitors its Members and Affiliates regarding their compliance with the Code through remote tracking, mandatory reporting, in person site visits and through its civil society network. ICoCA is regularly publishing data on its monitoring and complaints functions, including allegations received.
To read the 2026 summary monitoring update, click here. |
|
|
ICoCA was pleased to welcome 5 new certified members, 1 transitional member and 7 affiliates from July to September 2026:- Al-Sadd Al-Manea Company for Security Services and Public Guards, Iraq (transitional member)
- Alsancak Group Security and Protection Services Ltd. Co., Türkiye (affiliate)
- Artan Center LLC, Ukraine (affiliate)
- Asia Shaheen Security Services Company, United States (affiliate)
- Babylon Fayhaa, Iraq (certified member)
- Bidvest Protea Coin, South Africa (certified member)
- BlackWolf Eyes Security Company, Iraq (certified member)
- Castor Vali, United Kingdom (certified member)
- Evatho Matrix Security, Tanzania (affiliate)
- Forces Plus Security and Man Guarding, Egypt (affiliate)
- Good Knight Security Services, Afghanistan (affiliate)
- Realstar Security Private Limited, Zimbabwe (affiliate)
- Rock for Security Services and Consultancy, Jordan (certified member)
You can find the full membership update for Q3 2026 here. |
|
The minutes of the Q2 2026 Board of Directors meeting, which took place on 30/06/2026, are available here.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment