What does trust mean to you, and how can it be broken or rebuilt? Trust is a fundamental part of any community's ability to work together, particularly in moments of significant change. Across the DUST case study regions, trust has emerged as a central theme in discussions about citizen engagement in the just sustainability transition. As communities across Europe shift towards greener economies, trust is essential for fostering meaningful participation, collaboration, and shared solutions. However, in regions undergoing rapid transformation, trust can often be eroded by past injustices, systemic inequalities, and governance shortcomings. So, how can we restore it? Understanding the barriers to trust and identifying ways to overcome them is crucial for ensuring that the sustainability transition benefits everyone. Read on to discover the insights shared by participants in DUST's focus groups!
Common barriers to trust in the sustainability transition
The sustainability transition isn’t just a shift in policy; it’s a transformation that affects every aspect of our lives. From economies to landscapes to personal livelihoods, these changes can feel overwhelming. Trust in the process and the people driving it is essential for communities to feel secure enough to engage. Yet, several common barriers in the DUST regions continue to undermine this trust:
Historical grievances and past injustices: long-standing historical wounds often resurface during periods of major change, making communities wary of institutional motives. In Katowice, Poland, the legacy of miners’ strikes violently suppressed during the socialist era casts a long shadow over public willingness to engage with authorities. Similarly, Sweden’s Sámi people, whose ancestral lands have been repeatedly exploited without their consent, carry deep-seated mistrust towards government policies. And in Germany’s Rhenish District, corruption scandals have left residents sceptical of political intentions, even in well-meaning sustainability initiatives.
Exclusion and inequality: perceptions of unequal treatment during transitions only amplify distrust. In the Netherlands, uneven compensation for earthquake damages has divided communities and created resentment. Meanwhile, rural areas feel neglected as the government focuses its efforts on urban centres during sustainability shifts. Sweden’s Sámi population continues to be excluded from critical decisions about land use and cultural preservation. In Bulgaria, marginalised communities perceive the sustainability transition as another area where the government prioritises economic elites over vulnerable populations.
Lack of Transparency: opaque governance further erodes trust in the sustainability transition. In Sweden, decisions about infrastructure projects on Sámi lands are often made without consultation, alienating indigenous communities. In Stara Zagora, Bulgaria, vague promises about jobs and pensions have left citizens questioning whether sustainability policies will truly serve their interests.
Social and economic fragmentation: economic shifts often create clear winners and losers, deepening social divides and weakening trust. In Lusatia, Germany, the decline of coal mining has displaced workers, leaving many feeling excluded from the economic opportunities promised by sustainability initiatives. Similarly, in the Netherlands, rural communities feel sidelined in favour of businesses and urban areas, fuelling a sense of inequality in the transition process.
Building blocks for trust in the sustainability transition
While these challenges can seem daunting, the good news is that trust can be rebuilt through conscious and inclusive strategies. By empowering communities, ensuring transparency, and recognising the expertise of citizens, we can foster stronger engagement in the sustainability transition. Here are some suggestions from focus group participants to build trust:
Grassroots community mobilisation: local initiatives are powerful tools for building trust, especially when governmental trust is low. In the Netherlands, community-led projects like car-sharing systems and the Groningen Dorpen initiative show how citizens can take charge of local issues, demonstrating that change is possible even without direct government intervention. In the Rhenish District, citizen collectives and non-governmental organisations bridge the gap between communities and institutions, leading sustainability projects that truly reflect local priorities.
Transparent and regular communication: trust grows when citizens can see how their input shapes decisions. In the Netherlands, residents emphasise the need for regular, clear updates on participatory processes and evidence that their voices influence policy. In Katowice, Poland, participants stress the importance of keeping promises and sticking to timelines. Transparency not only reassures citizens, it also boosts accountability, encouraging them to stay engaged throughout the transition process.
Recognising citizen knowledge and expertise: valuing local knowledge is essential for ensuring sustainability projects resonate with the communities they aim to help. In the Netherlands, participants call for the establishment of permanent community hubs where citizens can engage directly with policymakers. In Bulgaria, initiatives like referenda empower citizens to have a real role in shaping decisions. When governments recognise and incorporate local expertise, they ensure that sustainability initiatives align with the needs of the people.
Accessible and convenient participation: the most effective participation happens in spaces where people feel comfortable and familiar. Dutch participants highlight the importance of informal engagement, such as meeting in citizens’ homes or local community centres, rather than formal government offices. In Lusatia, Germany, local organisations and schools are used to disseminate information and make participation feel accessible. These approaches help break down barriers to engagement, ensuring that the process feels inclusive.
Direct interaction with policymakers: face-to-face interactions humanise institutions and build mutual understanding. In the Rhenish District, town hall meetings offer a direct channel for citizens to engage with policymakers, while in Lusatia, local leaders directly engaging with communities can help build trust. In Poland, small, familiar social settings—such as family or local groups—serve as a foundation for trust-building efforts.
Accountability in action: trust is fragile, and once broken, it’s difficult to rebuild. Governments can only maintain trust by delivering on promises. In the Rhenish District, successful implementation of local development plans has strengthened confidence in governance. On the other hand, in Bulgaria, unfulfilled promises about job creation and pensions have deepened public scepticism. Accountability is key to rebuilding trust—and it must be visible, tangible, and consistent.
The sustainability transition presents both challenges and opportunities for rebuilding trust, a cornerstone for a successful transition. Although, by addressing historical grievances, ensuring transparency, and fostering inclusive participation, we can empower communities to engage meaningfully in the transition process. These strategies need to be tailored to the unique contexts of each region, making sure they resonate with the specific challenges and needs of the people they aim to serve. Stay tuned for updates from DUST to learn more about the role trust plays in the project!