At the heart of the polycrisis debate is the struggle to grapple with both the scientific and political uncertainties of the Anthropocene. The struggles over what to do about the polycrisis are thus found at the intersection of science and politics. We must approach the polycrisis as simultaneously a scientific and political challenge. To do so we propose that the polycrisis project adopts the methods of decision-making under deep uncertainty as a way to integrate and encourage collaborations between the scientific and policy worlds.

The polycrisis concept points to the interaction of multiple global crises and, arguably, to the difficulties in grasping the current moment with conceptual clarity. While Lawrence et al. emphasize the causal relations between crises in multiple global systems to define and operationalize the concept, we argue that they underestimate the politics of knowledge claims about the polycrisis, from the concept's performative function, from the normative claims it enacts or enables, and from the program of action that it carries or implies. We argue instead that at the heart of the polycrisis debate is the struggle to grapple with the (deep) uncertainties – both scientific and political – of the Anthropocene. Polycrisis is found operating at the intersection of science and politics where claims to scientific knowledge and political value, and scientific and political judgements, collide. Dealing with the uncertainties of the polycrisis is thus a matter of scientific methodological conundrum and a matter of political judgement and decision. We then propose that the polycrisis research program adopts decision-making under deep uncertainty methods to reach its objectives of improving policy outcomes, but also to better navigate what we call the uncertainty possibility space of the polycrisis.

The polycrisis is a struggle to grapple with the uncertainties of the Anthropocene which demands a new policy approach.

Climate change is significantly altering our planet, with greenhouse gas emissions and environmental changes bringing us closer to critical tipping points. These changes are impacting species and ecosystems worldwide, leading to the urgent need for understanding and mitigating climate change risks. In this study, we examined global research on assessing climate change risks to species and ecosystems. We found that interest in this field has grown rapidly, with researchers identifying key factors such as species' vulnerability, adaptability, and exposure to environmental changes. Our work highlights the importance of developing better tools to predict risks and create effective protect strategies.

The rising concentration of greenhouse gases, coupled with environmental changes such as albedo shifts, is accelerating the approach to critical climate tipping points. These changes have triggered significant biological responses on a global scale, underscoring the urgent need for robust climate change risk assessments for species and ecosystems. We conducted a systematic literature review using the Web of Science database. Our bibliometric analysis shows an exponential growth in publications since 2000, with over 200 papers published annually since 2019. Our bibliometric analysis reveals that the number of studies has exponentially increased since 2000, with over 200 papers published annually since 2019. High-frequency keywords such as ‘impact’, ‘risk’, ‘vulnerability’, ‘response’, ‘adaptation’, and ‘prediction’ were prevalent, highlighting the growing importance of assessing climate change risks. We then identified five universally accepted concepts for assessing the climate change risk on species and ecosystems: exposure, sensitivity, adaptivity, vulnerability, and response. We provided an overview of the principles, applications, advantages, and limitations of climate change risk modeling approaches such as correlative approaches, mechanistic approaches, and hybrid approaches. Finally, we emphasize that the emerging trends of risk assessment of climate change, encompass leveraging the concept of telecoupling, harnessing the potential of geography, and developing early warning mechanisms.

Climate change risks to biodiversity and ecosystem: key insights, modeling approaches, and emerging strategies.

The popularity of the term polycrisis suggests a growing demand for new thinking about the world's intersecting crises, but loose and haphazard uses of the concept impede knowledge generation. The special issue, ‘Polycrisis in the Anthropocene’, aims to close the gap. This introductory comment first elaborates upon three key contributions of the lead article ‘Global Polycrisis: The Causal mechanisms of Crisis Entanglement’: a conceptualization of crisis as systemic disequilibrium; the distinction between the slow-moving stresses and the fast-moving trigger events that interact to generate a crisis; and a grammar with which to map the causality of crisis interactions. The commentary then explores three key debates around the polycrisis concept: Are we in a polycrisis, at risk of a polycrisis, or neither? Is the present polycrisis truly unique and unprecedented? And where are power and agency in a systemic approach to polycrisis? These ongoing debates suggest promising directions for polycrisis research that could feature in this special issue and advance the field of polycrisis analysis.

This commentary introduces the special issue ‘Polycrisis in the Anthropocene’ by elaborating upon three major contributions of its lead article, ‘Global Polycrisis: The Causal Mechanisms of Crisis Entanglement’, and exploring three key debates surrounding the polycrisis concept. It invites others to contribute to the special issue in order to advance polycrisis analysis, build a community of knowledge and practice, and generate new insights and strategies with which to address the world's worsening crises.

The popularity of the term polycrisis suggests a growing demand for new thinking about the world's intersecting crises, but loose and haphazard uses of the concept impede knowledge generation. The special issue, ‘Polycrisis in the Anthropocene’, aims to close the gap. This introductory comment first elaborates upon three key contributions of the lead article ‘Global Polycrisis: The Causal mechanisms of Crisis Entanglement’: a conceptualization of crisis as systemic disequilibrium; the distinction between the slow-moving stresses and the fast-moving trigger events that interact to generate a crisis; and a grammar with which to map the causality of crisis interactions. The commentary then explores three key debates around the polycrisis concept: Are we in a polycrisis, at risk of a polycrisis, or neither? Is the present polycrisis truly unique and unprecedented? And where are power and agency in a systemic approach to polycrisis? These ongoing debates suggest promising directions for polycrisis research that could feature in this special issue and advance the field of polycrisis analysis.

Inviting contributions and debates to Global Sustainability journal's special issue ‘Polycrisis in the Anthropocene’.

Accelerating global systemic risks impel as well as threaten low-carbon energy transitions. Polycrises can undermine low-carbon transitions, and the breakdown of low-carbon energy transitions has the potential to intensify polycrises. Identifying the systemic risks facing low-carbon transitions is critical, as is studying what systemic risks could be exacerbated by energy transitions. Given the urgency and scale of the required technological and institutional changes, integrated and interdisciplinary approaches are essential to determine how low-carbon transitions can mitigate, rather than amplify polycrisis. If done deliberately and through deliberation, low-carbon transitions could spearhead the integrative tools, methods, and strategies required to address the broader polycrisis.

The urgent need to address accelerating global systemic risks impels low-carbon energy transitions, but these same risks also pose a threat. This briefing discusses factors influencing the stability and resilience of low-carbon energy transitions over extended time-frames, necessitating a multidisciplinary approach. The collapse of these transitions could exacerbate the polycrisis, making it crucial to identify and understand the systemic risks low-carbon transitions face. Key questions addressed include: What are the systemic risks confronting low-carbon transitions? Given the unprecedented urgency and scale of required technological and institutional changes, how can low-carbon transitions mitigate, rather than amplify, global systemic risks? The article describes the role of well-designed climate policies in fostering positive outcomes, achieving political consensus, integrating fiscal and social policies, and managing new risks such as those posed by climate engineering. It emphasizes the importance of long-term strategic planning, interdisciplinary research, and inclusive decision-making. Ultimately, successful low-carbon transitions can provide tools and methods to address broader global challenges, ensuring a sustainable and equitable future amidst a backdrop of complex global interdependencies.

Low-carbon energy transitions must be approached so as to lower the risks of global polycrisis across systems.

Multiple global crises – including the pandemic, climate change, and Russia's war on Ukraine – have recently linked together in ways that are significant in scope, devastating in effect, but poorly understood. A growing number of scholars and policymakers characterize the situation as a ‘polycrisis’. Yet this neologism remains poorly defined. We provide the concept with a substantive definition, highlight its value-added in comparison to related concepts, and develop a theoretical framework to explain the causal mechanisms currently entangling many of the world's crises. In this framework, a global crisis arises when one or more fast-moving trigger events combine with slow-moving stresses to push a global system out of its established equilibrium and into a volatile and harmful state of disequilibrium. We then identify three causal pathways – common stresses, domino effects, and inter-systemic feedbacks – that can connect multiple global systems to produce synchronized crises. Drawing on current examples, we show that the polycrisis concept is a valuable tool for understanding ongoing crises, generating actionable insights, and opening avenues for future research.

The term ‘polycrisis’ appears with growing frequently to capture the interconnections between global crises, but the word lacks substantive content. In this article, we convert it from an empty buzzword into a conceptual framework and research program that enables us to better understand the causal linkages between contemporary crises. We draw upon the intersection of climate change, the covid-19 pandemic, and Russia's war in Ukraine to illustrate these causal interconnections and explore key features of the world's present polycrisis.

Multiple global crises – including the pandemic, climate change, and Russia's war on Ukraine – have recently linked together in ways that are significant in scope, devastating in effect, but poorly understood. A growing number of scholars and policymakers characterize the situation as a ‘polycrisis’. Yet this neologism remains poorly defined. We provide the concept with a substantive definition, highlight its value-added in comparison to related concepts, and develop a theoretical framework to explain the causal mechanisms currently entangling many of the world's crises. In this framework, a global crisis arises when one or more fast-moving trigger events combines with slow-moving stresses to push a global system out of its established equilibrium and into a volatile and harmful state of disequilibrium. We then identify three causal pathways – common stresses, domino effects, and inter-systemic feedbacks – that can connect multiple global systems to produce synchronized crises. Drawing on current examples, we show that the polycrisis concept is a valuable tool for understanding ongoing crises, generating actionable insights, and opening avenues for future research.

No longer a mere buzzword, the ‘polycrisis’ concept highlights causal interactions among crises to help navigate a tumultuous future.

Advocates of the concept of polycrisis show that our world faces many interconnected risks that can compound and reinforce each other. Marxist critics, on the contrary, argue that polycrisis advocates have not yet given sufficient attention to the role of capitalism as a root cause of these intersecting crises. This paper agrees with these critics. But I also argue that it is possible to develop an alternative approach to polycrisis analysis rooted in the traditions of Marxism and neo-Gramscian theory. The paper applies this approach to analyze the European Union's ongoing polycrisis and sketch out its possible futures.

Advocates of the term polycrisis often claim that contemporary crises cannot be reduced to a single driver or dominant contradiction, forming instead a complex multiplicity of inter-systemic shocks. Marxist critics, on the contrary, claim that this approach, by framing contemporary crises as disparate and merely contingently connected, obscures the capitalist roots of contemporary crises. I agree with these critics to a point, though I argue that polycrisis thinking is needed to deepen Marxist analyses of the inter-systemic dynamics of contemporary crises and their possible futures. Polycrisis thinking needs Marxism to deepen its analysis of the political economy of polycrisis, whereas Marxism needs polycrisis thinking to enrich its understanding of the political opportunities and constraints that these intersecting crises may create for counter-hegemonic movements. To synthesize the insights of Marxism and polycrisis analysis, I develop an approach rooted in complexity theory and neo-Gramscian political economy. Using the European Union's (EU) ongoing polycrisis as an illustrative example, I show how neo-Gramscian polycrisis analysis can highlight the constraints that neoliberal hegemony places on the EU's efforts to manage its intersecting crises, while also informing counter-hegemonic struggles aiming to navigate toward more desirable futures in Europe's political possibility space.

This paper combines polycrisis thinking and Marxism to analyze the current polycrisis and possible futures of the European Union.

Climate change is one of the most salient issues in current international politics. In all but the most optimistic of scenarios, it has the potential to severely impact human life in many parts of the world. Production and consumption patterns under the current liberal economic order contribute significantly to the climate crisis. Yet the norms and ideas that guide climate policy under this order are remarkably persistent in the face of climate change. This article explores why these norms have not yet been challenged, and how theories of international relations help understand the absence of such challenges.

Multilateral climate policy has institutionalized a set of norms that may be summarized as liberal environmentalism. Liberal environmentalism presumes that economic growth and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive, but prerequisites for each other, thereby connecting the economic order with environmental policy. This article argues that there is a distinct mismatch between the climate crisis and the stickiness of liberal environmentalism. Although the natural system to be governed is in crisis, the political and normative system tasked with governing it is not. The article thus inquires how crises come about by examining why they sometimes do not. It compares theoretical insights borrowed from liberal institutionalism, constructivism, and neo-realism and explores what may be missing from such approaches to fully grasp the nature of crises in international politics. The article finds that liberal environmentalist norms emerged in the 1990s, cascaded in the early 2000s and became institutionalized in the Copenhagen era, culminating in the Paris Agreement. They are likely to remain unaffected by the current polycrisis in international relations, because institutionalized norms are often resistant to change. Liberal environmentalist norms are now deeply embedded in contemporary climate governance, meaning that they can only be challenged through persistent norm entrepreneurship.

Liberal environmentalism persists in global climate policy because of institutionalized norms and the discursive reproduction of these norms.

The polycrisis, an inadvertent peril of our own making, poses an existential threat to the modern world. Given humanity's innate desire to live safely, and to prosper, what explains this self-inflicted danger? Root causes of the polycrisis are both material and ideational. This essay focuses on the latter, exploring the impact of an exaggerated sense of human exceptionalism which legitimizes profligate behavior and releases us from accountability to each other, to the planet, and to future generations.

The polycrisis presents an existential threat to modern civilization on Earth. Neither desirable nor purposeful, it is an inadvertent consequence of collective human agency, a dangerous phenomenon with the power to override prudent, morally sound behavior. Emerging from the totality of multiple global stresses interlinked by myriad causal pathways, the polycrisis is a coherent entity which can, and does, amplify and accelerate local crises (such as supply chain disruptions, political uprisings and war, or natural catastrophes) into a cascading storm of alarming scale and intensity. I argue that these material features of the polycrisis find their origin in and are authorized by an underlying ideational stratum – a belief system – which lends legitimacy and strong forward momentum to the creation of entangled component stresses. This stratum features an exaggerated sense of human exceptionalism, an anthropocentric zeitgeist, and a licentious conception of freedom, all of which have released us from accountability to each other, to ethical forbearance, to future generations, and to the planet.

Multiple entangled stresses threaten our world. This ‘polycrisis’ emerges from the pathology of human exceptionalism.

The term polycrisis refers to simultaneous and interconnected crises that amplify each other's effects. Understanding how crises spread is crucial for understanding how a polycrisis operates. This article explores the conditions under which crises transmit across systems. By examining various theories – from complexity thinking to epidemiology – it discusses to importance of several conducive conditions and system resilience in shaping crisis transmission. The polycrisis concept underscores the need for interdisciplinary approaches to address interconnected global challenges. By identifying how crises spread, policymakers and researchers can better anticipate and mitigate their impacts, fostering resilience in the face of growing systemic risks.

The concept of the polycrisis builds on the assumption that crises are interconnected. This suggests important processes of crisis transmission operate. However, beyond initial modelling we do not know much about how crisis transmission works. For this reason, this article makes a conceptual contribution by presenting a variety of conditions for crisis transmission. It applies an eclectic and inter-disciplinary approach, presenting a diversity of conceptual arguments addressing when and how crises can spread. These include but are not limited to: conceptualizing crisis boundaries and large impact events, neofunctionalism, rational choice theory, assemblage theory, complexity thinking, and epidemiological and evolutionary approaches. Lastly, crisis transmission also depends on the ability to cope with crises and thus resilience plays an important role.

Crisis transmission informs how a polycrisis operates. Discontinuing transmission helps building resilience.

There is significant focus on the global polycrisis currently – and rightfully so, considering the threat to societies around the world that converging environmental, social, political, and economic challenges pose. However, little is said about what comes after the polycrisis. Are there methods to address the polycrisis in ways that would inherently help establish a ‘better’ post-polycrisis period (PPP) (i.e. preserving more of what sustains the many dimensions of human wellbeing while maintaining the integrity of the biosphere and local ecosystems)? This article explores that question, examining potential interventions that could lead to less suffering both during the polycrisis period and PPP.

This article explores how polycrisis interventions can be designed to be the most effective in setting up a better post-polycrisis outcome, while also improving the polycrisis response potential. It starts by setting up a 2 × 2 matrix to explore interventions that (1) improve outcomes during the polycrisis (but not the post-polycrisis period [PPP]), (2) improve outcomes post-polycrisis (but not during the polycrisis); (3) improve neither, and (4) improve both. The article explores some relevant and timely examples in each of the four quadrants, with particular focus on the quadrant in which interventions improve outcomes both for the polycrisis period and PPP. Particular attention is given, within that quadrant, to: reducing nuclear arsenals, population degrowth, economic degrowth, strengthening local agriculture, low-tech and appropriate technologies, and cultivating deeper respect for Gaia. In conclusion, the article recognizes that although it may be difficult, even impossible, to proactively and effectively plan for the PPP, some measures can be taken even now. Further, failing to put this on societal agendas means planning for and addressing long-term wellbeing will only occur by chance, increasing the odds of an extended period of crisis and/or a loss of key knowledge and civilizational advances gained.

Are there interventions to improve human and ecological wellbeing both in the polycrisis and the period that comes after?

This study combines revolutionary theory with emerging polycrisis discourses to show how various international and national factors and events can become intertwined, creating polycrisis events that can lead to revolutionary moments. Revolutionary moments can further contribute to stresses that cause polycrisis or systemic dysfunction elsewhere, due to our entanglement of global systems. Through the help of two case studies, the Young Turk Revolution and the Arab Spring, this study highlights how revolutions emerge and how they can unfold in the future.

Revolutions – the overthrow or unseating of governmental forces through mass mobilization – have played a crucial role in major societal transformations throughout history (Lawson, 2019, Anatomies of revolution; Goldstone, 2014, Revolutions: A very short introduction). One component of revolutionary theory, past and present, are the ways different factors and forces interact to create revolutionary moments, specifically how international/transnational and internal societal events interconnect to generate revolutionary situations, trajectories, and outcomes. Revolutionary theorist George Lawson (2019) notes that global networks are intermeshed in that they can produce multiple, complex stressors and triggers that cause revolution in what he terms an ‘inter-social approach’. Building on these insights, we argue here through the case studies of the Young Turk Revolution and Arab Spring that the conceptualization of polycrisis as a causal entanglement of crises in multiple global systems provides a critical lens to understand revolutions.

In an age of polycrisis, risk of revolution increases. Explore how revolutions form and learn their future paths.

Systemic risks such as climate change and pandemics are complex and interconnected. Managing such risks requires effective organisational structures and processes. This publication presents conceptually robust, evidence-based approaches for assessing and managing systemic risks.

Systemic risks originate and evolve in the nexus of tightly coupled dynamic systems, which are a characteristic of modern societies in the Anthropocene. Systemic risk implies the breakdown of a system which provides essential functions to society. Connectivity between systems is a key enabler for systemic risk to manifest through cascading effects. Thus, systemic risks originate and evolve in the nexus of tightly coupled dynamic systems. Cascading effects and the convergence of systemic risks with conventional risks as well as other systemic risks challenge the established modes of risk governance that still rest to a large extent on differentiation and compartmentalisation. Thus, governance of systemic risks requires an integrative approach towards risk governance that combines interdisciplinary risk analysis with iterative, adaptive and inclusive governance procedures. By drawing on the case studies of the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change, this paper proposes an innovative risk governance framework for systemic risks based on the integration of systems analysis and a governance procedure with the salient features of reflection, iteration, inclusion, transparency and accountability.

Systemic risks highlight the interconnected nature of our contemporary societies which calls for tailored responses.

This study explores how corporate social responsibility and risk management intersect in the fashion industry, aiming to promote sustainability. It emphasizes the importance of integrating responsible practices into business strategies to mitigate risks and enhance long-term profitability. By focusing on a multinational fashion supply chain, the study examines real-world examples to highlight the challenges and opportunities in balancing brand image with ethical supply chain management. The findings provide insights into how companies can safeguard their reputation, manage complex supply chains, and contribute positively to sustainability goals in the fashion sector.

This paper investigates the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and risk management within the fashion industry. It conducts an in-depth case study of a prominent multinational fashion supply chain, analyzing 11 suppliers through interviews, observations, and internal documents. The study underscores that integrating CSR principles into risk management strategies helps mitigate supply chain risks and capitalize on business opportunities. It addresses gaps in existing literature by presenting empirical evidence of CSR-driven transformations in the sector, rather than merely documenting unsustainable practices. The study contributes by offering practical insights for fashion businesses aiming to achieve long-term success through sustainable practices. Key implications include the necessity for strategic integration of CSR into operational frameworks to protect corporate image, manage risks effectively, and foster sustainable growth in the competitive fashion marketplace.

From risk management to sustainable success: how corporate social responsibility shapes the future of fashion.