Environmental and climate law of the European Union (EU) often works on predictive, cause-and-effect logic — if we regulate X, we’ll get Y. But climate change does not work like that. Climate change results not only in non-linear but also interconnected and unpredictable changes in society and the environment. When the law is based on linear thinking, it leads to short-term fixes instead of long-term transformation, siloed responses instead of integrated action and ultimately poor crisis management when the unexpected happens.
The EU’s new climate targets: progress or step backward?
The EU has set a legally binding goal of climate neutrality by 2050, as part of the EU Climate Law. This goal sits at the core of the European Green Deal and the EU’s broader climate efforts. The recent 2040 emission reduction target aims for a 90 per cent reduction in net greenhouse gas emissions, compared to 1990 levels. However, policy experts and academics view this as a step back in ambition. During the previous EU institutional cycle, climate and environmental issues moved from being ‘green topics’ to being central to economic and industrial policy. To some conservative representatives, this change is positive, but to many environmentalists this means a shift in the wrong direction. As we see it, the EU’s approach to regulation is in any case too linear and unsuited for today’s complex, uncertain world.
Addressing the linear logic in a complex world
To be effective, climate governance needs to be connected across levels, linking energy, transport, agriculture, and industry while ensuring environmental justice and public engagement. Yet, the EU’s climate policy remains fragmented and reactive. There are many reasons for this: the EU holds many different policy layers, sectoral silos, uses multiple economic and legal instruments, it is often crisis-driven and needs complex political compromises in its decision-making. Opinions differ among Member States on to what extent they should invest in climate mitigation. This means that the EU faces a double risk: Either it invests heavily now to reduce climate risks, which means significant spending of tax moneys of EU citizens and thereby risks sparking or fostering dissatisfaction among voters. Alternatively, by under-preparing, the EU risks facing the unmitigated impact of climate-related disasters and would be forced to ultimately spend more on climate adaptation. This also results in economic losses that much further extends the bill for investments today. Despite this, many policy-makers in the EU today prefer the second option, i.e., to wait with investments. The real challenge is that solving climate change requires long-term but flexible policies, apt for an unpredictable reality. Simultaneously, our political systems often work on short-term cycles, which are not suited for slow-changing events such as sea-level rise.
We need a new approach to governance—one built to navigate uncertainty, interconnection, and complexity. Climate action cannot rely only on top-down EU or national decisions, but must rely on multiple governance levels simultaneously. We see this approach in action around the world through what experts call polycentric systems, a fancy way of saying multiple groups make decisions independently while learning from one another. Because no single government has the money, power, or answers to solve climate change alone, this shared model is crucial. For the EU, that means tackling climate goals at every level at once: European, national, regional, and local. This kind of governance allows experimentation and learning, adapts to different local contexts and includes non-governmental actors — businesses, communities, non-governmental organisations.
What strategy should governments use?
How governments plan and manage resources shapes society’s ability to fight climate change. It is not just about specific laws, but about how governments learn, adapt, and use their capabilities. Rather than solving one environmental issue at a time, we need systemic strategies that connect different areas — law, economy, innovation, and society.
One example of such a strategy is effectuation. According to the effectuation theory developed by Saras Sarasvathy, entrepreneurs can create successful ventures in uncertain environments if they do not limit themselves to a causal logic. Traditional management theory teaches you to set a fixed goal, analyse the market, build a plan, and hunt for resources to reach that target. Effectuation flips this logic and starts with existing resources and minimizing reliance on predictive information. Effectuation focuses on what you can do with what you already have, and shapes goals as you move forward. This strategy values adaptability, resourcefulness, and collaboration — all essential in climate governance as well.
Effectuation provides a framework for developing strategies in unpredictable environments. It is based on five key principles:
- Bird in Hand – Start with what you have: use existing resources, knowledge, and networks
- Affordable Loss – Take small risks; act within what you can afford to lose
- Crazy Quilt – Build partnerships early; co-create with committed partners
- Lemonade – Turn surprises and setbacks into opportunities to adapt
- Pilot in the Plane – Focus on what you can control today to shape the future
How could governments apply the principles of effectuation?
The effectual principles help decision-makers act flexibly, learn by doing, and turn uncertainty into progress:
- Bird in Hand → Start with existing institutions, local knowledge, and networks to launch climate actions now.
- Affordable Loss → Run small pilots and legal experiments that won’t bankrupt budgets but will teach quickly.
- Crazy Quilt → Co-create across governments, firms, researchers, and communities to share resources and responsibility.
- Lemonade → Use shocks (floods, heatwaves) as windows to reform rules or accelerate green innovations.
- Pilot in the Plane → Focus on what local and regional actors can control today to shape longer-term trajectories.
The case of the City Deal on Impact Entrepreneurship (Netherlands)
A great example of how coordinated, multi-level governance can drive systemic change in response to climate and societal challenges is the City Deal on Impact Entrepreneurship in the Netherlands. The initiative brought together over 80 partners - including national and local governments, knowledge institutions, financial organizations, and private enterprises. This initiative aimed to strengthen the ecosystem for impact-driven businesses that prioritize sustainability and social value creation. This was done through the removal of regulatory barriers such as access to public procurement, legal structuring and taxation and by fostering collaboration between different actors to promote innovative revenue models and supporting among other entrepreneurs who develop solutions to environmental issues. This collaborative framework not only accelerated the transition towards sustainability but also demonstrates how public-private partnerships can strengthen local climate action through impact entrepreneurship.
Start Small, Act Together: Solving climate crisis with effectual, shared power
While academics have talked about collaborative policymaking for years, real-world research shows that public organizations are already using effectual thinking in practice, particularly in project- and program-based initiatives. Recognising the power of effectuation is crucial and if governments want to navigate an unpredictable future, they need strategies designed for the real world.
However, when the world feels unpredictable or out of control, human beings, and by extension, the institutions they form, naturally seek cognitive order, predictability, and simple explanations. This is bad news for climate policy. This is why we need to tap into strategies that can be used to navigate the unknown. By combining polycentric governance and effectuation, we can move away from rigid, reactive regulation. Already today, we can start creating adaptive and learning-based systems, designed for the complex, uncertain realities of a changing climate.
*******************
This blog post is based on the paper to be presented at the conference Sustainability Law: Law’s Response to the Convergence of Crises, 16-18 September 2026, at the University of Oslo
