Introduction

Civil society plays an essential role in contemporary societies. It serves as a site for collective action alongside states, markets and families, where citizens come together to explore shared interests and to influence societal development (Diamond, 1994; Habermas, 1998). Causing and/or reinforcing social, political and cultural change, civil society actors, such as activist networks, social movements and advocacy groups, bring forward new ideas but also act as watchdogs against states and businesses (Arvidson et al, 2018b) regarding welfare developments (Martin, 2001; Annetts et al, 2009) and climate change transformations (Rootes and Brulle, 2013; Caniglia et al, 2015; Cassegård et al, 2017; Temper et al, 2020). Many of today’s welfare and environmental reforms would not have occurred without the pressure mobilised by environmental movements and social welfare organisations (for example, Strømsnes et al, 2023).

This chapter investigates collaboration and integration patterns across established environmental and welfare domains concerning discourses, actor constellations and practices. Our research focuses on how environmental and welfare-oriented civil society organisations (CSOs) and movements discursively frame their concerns regarding sustainable welfare. The aim is to capture patterns of stability and change and what factors drive integration or separation across environmental and welfare spheres. For this purpose, we use the concept of frames as a reference to ‘schemes of interpretation’ (Benford and Snow, 2000). It points to how organisations and movements produce and maintain the meaning of relevant issues (for example, climate change and social injustices) to mobilise supporters or demobilise antagonists. Furthermore, the chapter seeks inspiration from theories on movement coalitions (for example, Diani and Bison, 2004; Fisher and Nasrin, 2021) regarding collaboration patterns between organisations without forming a new unit. Climate change is of crucial relevance in this respect. As van Dyke (2003, p 226) noted, ‘local threats inspire within-movement coalition events, while larger threats that affect multiple constituencies or broadly defined identities inspire cross-movement coalition formation’. In this view, climate change constitutes a significant event, putting pressure on established frames and organisational identities and opening up for movement-spanning activities (see Flesher Fominya, 2010; Wang et al, 2018).

The analysis draws on two sets of data collections. First, we use interviews with representatives of environmental and welfare organisations active at the local level. The sample cuts across welfare and environmental divides and types of actors, that is, movements and organisations, as well as radical versus established organisations. It includes organisations like Extinction Rebellion, Friends of the Earth, the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, Save the Children, the Swedish retirement organisation and organisations working with civic education. A total of 24 interviews have been conducted with representatives of local and national associations in Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö. Second, we capitalise on a survey with protest participants in Swedish Friday for future demonstrations, which was fielded in 2019. The demonstrations took place in Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö. We surveyed demonstrations in Stockholm (15 March, 24 May and 27 September 2019), Malmö (15 March and 27 September) and Gothenburg (27 September) to analyse support for welfare and environmental concerns by protest participants (see Emilsson et al, 2020). The response rate varied between 22 per cent (Stockholm), 28 per cent (Gothenburg) and 29 per cent (Malmö) (see de Moor et al, 2020, for further information on methods).

Civil society silos

Swedish civil society is plural, diverse and in constant flux, as in most Western countries. However, it also constitutes a field of organisations with a certain degree of stability (Johansson and Kalm, 2015). Swedish civil society has primarily been formed in connection with a long-lasting tradition of popular movement organisations and close and cordial relations between the (Social Democratic) state and civil society actors (Arvidson et al, 2018a). Historically, civil society has been organised concerning workers’ and women’s rights, and charitable activities linked to marginalised social groups. This was later complemented by environmental concerns represented by a vibrant environmental movement (Tranvik and Selle, 2007).

These historical traits remain relevant as most Swedish CSOs follow the tradition of membership-based collective action organisations (Einarsson, 2011; Henriksen et al, 2019; von Essen, 2019). Many of the associations formed in the early 20th century continue to dominate Swedish civil society, as they hold extensive membership, have exclusive access to key decision makers and act as well-established stakeholders in relevant policy fields (Johansson and Scaramuzzino, 2022). In international comparison, Swedish civil society stands out as less oriented towards fulfilling public contracts and instead being dominated by associations with high membership counts and extensive public legitimacy to act in politics (Johansson et al, 2019).

This way of organising coincides with a corporatist model of interest intermediation, that is, a system of institutionalised contacts, mutual negotiations and coordinated decision making between the state and civil society (Hermansson et al, 1999; Lundberg, 2017; Gavelin, 2018). Such a model relies on the premise that citizens can influence public policies in two different ways – through voting in general elections (the ‘electoral channel’) and membership in interest groups (the ‘corporate channel’) (Rothstein, 1992). The system assumes collaboration between the state and a set of recognised CSOs involved in exploring and implementing public policies (Micheletti, 1995). Partnerships between the government and CSOs have sometimes been criticised for being exclusive, mainly inviting well-established CSOs (Lundåsen, 2010). In his analysis of Swedish environmental politics, Lundqvist (2004, p 217) argues that the ‘dominant form for ecological governance is co-operation with organised interests and persuasion of the general public’ (see Hildingsson, 2010). Despite rumours of its demise, it is thus a model still alive in both policy areas (for example, Kronsell et al, 2019).

The corporatist model of interest intermediation promotes separation between civil society actors based on expertise and activity. CSOs are accredited with a special status to sit at the negotiating table with decision makers and elected politicians. Such inclusion and the corresponding ability to mobilise and organise citizens within an area of expertise and influence is, however, conditioned on state recognition. This model creates extensive lock-in effects and civil society actors who have a seat at the table benefit from reproducing rather than changing it. Moreover, although CSOs cooperate in umbrella associations, such cooperation patterns are primarily kept within established policy domains. CSOs stay within their domain as experts on a particular cause, while seeking collaboration across political and organisational divides is often considered risky. As theories of path dependency propose, the benefits of staying with the established path tend to be more profitable than investments in new and unknown paths (Pierson, 1996).

Environmentalists’ take on ‘the welfare issue’

Environmental organisations form a significant part of Swedish civil society. In what follows, we ask how these view and approach welfare concerns and the challenges associated with diverging from established positions. Thörn and Svenberg (2016) contend that the Swedish environmental movement is diverse (Boström, 2001) and includes various actors mobilising on different ecological causes and concerns. In their study of local environmental activists, de Rosa et al (2022) found that local activities were extensively involved in pushing for change, even though the corresponding activities were often oriented towards national governments and less towards local conditions.

The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (Naturskyddsföreningen) has over 200,000 members and is one of the most significant associations. It enjoys substantial public support, occupies a central position in the organisational field and is often invited to participate in public committees and events. Though organising considerably fewer members (10,000), the Swedish branch of Friends of the Earth (Miljöförbundet Jordens Vänner) has likewise a central position in the national environmental movement. Both organisations have been active for a long time. However, the internationalisation of environmental politics implied the entrance of a new range of organisations that more directly address climate change than nature conservation (for example, Klimataktion). This implied a re-orientation towards climate change issues within the broader movement and contentious tactics such as protests, civil disobedience and direct action campaigns. These tactics have brought forward changes in the general framing of the environmental question, not only regarding discursive differentiation between nature conservation and climate change but also a set of newcomers to the environmental movement, changing the dynamics within the organisational field.

As an established actor in the field, the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation found a multidimensional take on sustainability difficult. Taking the ‘middle ground’ within the movement (Thörn and Svenberg, 2016), environmental protection and nature conservation lie at the heart of its mission statement, with human beings seen as responsible for causing environmental problems. ‘People are the cause of environmental issues, and we must, therefore, also create the solutions by changing our lifestyles and societies’ (Naturskyddsföreningen, 2024). Aside from its explicit focus on nature conservation and environmental protection, the organisation recognises all relevant sustainability dimensions. However, the social dimension appears to be the most difficult to integrate into its organisational domains. During our interviews, representatives talked lengthily about the organisation’s teams working with environmental change and protection and expressed clear views on how the economy should be reformed. While this captures two dimensions of the sustainability trinity, the social dimension was portrayed with uncertainty and ambiguity. ‘It’s hard to get at it. It’s that simple. The environment can be measured, and the economy can also be measured. But the social aspects …’ (Interview, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation). Interviewees pointed out that even though workshops on environmental and economic concerns were held, the internal debates lacked clues about what a combined approach to environmental and welfare concerns could mean. One informant was confused about addressing environmental and welfare concerns in combination, stating ‘rarely we talk about it that way’. Another representative pointed to the general lack of such debates: ‘Unfortunately, we do not talk so much about it [the social dimension] at all.’ Despite the absence of internal discussion, representatives claimed that the problems and risks associated with climate change nevertheless required changes to lifestyles and ways of living. The organisation instead envisioned non-materialistic opinions on welfare, including ‘clean water, fresh air, silence, peace and quiet and an opportunity to, a sense of coexistence with nature’ (Interview, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation). Statements of these kinds suggested an option for discursive alignment across environmental and welfare domains based on a non-materialistic redefinition of the latter.

Other highly institutionalised environmental organisations followed similar lines. Organisations working with civic education on environmental concerns (Studiefrämjandet – www.studieframjandet.se) considered environmental changes threatening humanity and approached sustainability as depending on environmental, economic and social problems. The association expressed that it primarily focused on two aspects of sustainability: ecological and social. However, it contended that it considered ‘economic sustainability a precondition to reach success in these areas’, indicating a less conflict-oriented view on sustainability dimensions (Studiefrämjandet, 2024). Although strategic documents placed social and environmental concerns on equal footing, interviewees expressed the organisation’s primary focus as being on ‘animal welfare’, ‘nature’ and ‘environmental concerns’ (Interview, Studiefrämjandet). While defining environmental sustainability appeared relatively simple, interviewees found it difficult to describe what may be meant by social sustainability. Social sustainability partly functioned as a ‘catch-all phrase’ or anything except ecological sustainability. Such challenges were sometimes met with humour, as one local representative expressed: ‘If you want to be cheeky, I would say that everything we do is social sustainability. Ha ha’ (Interview, Studiefrämjandet).

Studiefrämjandet’s central focus on environmental concerns is reflected in its membership. While the association holds membership with a wide range of environmental CSOs due to its role in providing civic education services, it had no members specifically mobilising on welfare-related issues. It considered itself ‘strong in terms of membership in ecological sustainability, but we have a lot of activities that are more social. So it would not have been wrong to complement [the current member base] with more members with a social focus’ (Interview, Studiefrämjandet). While Agenda 2030 was embraced in general terms, the combination of environmental and social concerns caused some worries over organisational boundaries. Key representatives feared framing sustainability along left–right dimensions and suggested that adding a welfare dimension would bring the organisation (and the environmental movement) too close to the labour movement. Similarly, welfare organisations’ involvement with sustainability was considered an intrusion into the domains of the environmental movement, as environmental concerns should not follow classic left–right divides. ‘I think there is a risk of the sustainability issue being co-opted by the labour movement. If it becomes too red, so to speak. We could be a bridging force there, showing that the sustainability issue is not right–left’ (Interview, Studiefrämjandet).

Environmental organisations with a more radical take on environmentalism viewed the combination of environmental and welfare concerns differently. Following its central claim of climate emergence, Extinction Rebellion (XR) argued that the current situation would require a radical shift in all societal systems, as ‘we are facing an unprecedented crisis, a crisis that threatens to destroy everything we hold dear – our planet’s ecosystem and the future for future generations’ (Extinction Rebellion, 2024). When referring to the demonstrations organised by Fridays for Future, in which members of XR participated, the spokesperson we interviewed diagnosed the general environmental movement as in a state of change. The person considered climate change an existential question directly linked to human welfare.

However, unlike other environmental movement actors, XR refrained from using sustainability and rather referred to climate change’s justice implications and conditions. Some raised concerns about capturing the unequal conditions among social groups to embark on climate change transformation and their ability to change their lifestyles. Informants pointed out that the climate transition should not affect poor and less fortunate people. Claims were also made to redefine welfare and individual living standards. This included re-orientation away from welfare as high material living standards and a need to ‘re-evaluate what this means’ (Interview, XR). At the same time, our interviewees carefully avoided the notion of a ‘low’ living standard. XR participants instead framed welfare as a set of needs (rather than wants) that welfare systems should address, suggesting that environmental and welfare concerns could be combined. From this perspective, welfare systems are essential in ensuring that ‘we are protected, have a roof over our heads, health care, education and the ability to eat our fill, etc.’ (Interview, XR).

This approach opened for cooperation across established and radical flanks. Still, interviews reveal barriers due to differences in tactics and overall aim. A study of local environmental activism (de Rosa et al, 2022) found that radical groups tend to be driven by bravery and continue to do what they believe is right. For an actor like XR, contentious action is essential. Though known for its costumes and public actions, interviews reveal that it also engages in non-contentious actions and monitors local politics. Participants write articles and arrange public lectures (‘Extinction talks’) to promote public and political awareness about the climate emergency. Although climate change is viewed as a global phenomenon, local branches carry out campaigns in their respective urban settings, such as collecting signatures for a ‘citizen proposal’ to publicly push local decision makers to declare a climate emergency.

Established actors like the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation however considered XR too radical, especially its choice of civil disobedience to cause a popular uprising (‘folkligt uppror’). In contrast, the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation preferred to build a reputation, nurture good contacts with political decision makers and public authorities and gain political influence (Interview, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation). This suggests that although different elements of the Swedish environmental movement can find frame congruence in terms of exploring a link between environment and welfare concerns based on non-materialistic and needs-oriented views on welfare, they were nevertheless splintered along differences in strategies on how to influence politics, public debate and hence societal developments.

Welfarists’ take on ‘the environmental issue’

Swedish civil society includes various CSOs working on welfare and social rights issues, such as workers, women, people with functional impairments and retired citizens. In many welfare states, civil society actors have been pivotal in pushing for more and better social rights for citizens and members, often connected with a materialistic welfare conceptualisation. Societies’ focus on climate change challenges the ideas and ideals these organisations mobilise upon, with the Swedish labour movement being slow in incorporating climate change and environmental issues into organisational agendas (for example, Cassegård et al, 2017; Bell, 2020; Rolfer, 2020). Räthzel and Uzzell (2011) aptly framed this as the ‘job versus environment dilemma’. Unions aim to protect workers’ rights, salaries and working conditions and, at the end of the road, seek to secure better wages for members. This might be why previous studies find limited cooperation between environmental and labour movements (Lundström et al, 2015; Lundström, 2017).

Strategic planning documents however indicate that climate change is not integrated into mission statements and, if so, mainly considered a driver of social risks and inequalities. ABF representatives however recognised a growing demand among members to address sustainability issues, and considered themselves ‘late in the game’ (Interview, ABF). Informants thought this reflected a limited interest within the labour movement in environmental-related issues. The proposed combination of welfare and environmentalist frames furthermore caused tensions among its member organisations, with some taking a clear stance against putting environmental and welfare concerns on equal footing. ‘We are not at the forefront when it comes to ecological sustainability. Undoubtedly, there is a conflict within the labour movement: the environment or jobs. There is no point in making fun of the fact that it’s not like that’ (Interview, ABF). Local representatives justified the hierarchisation of frames due to ‘their groups’ lacking economic resources to engage in sustainability transitions. Like environmental organisations, which placed nature conservation or climate action first, welfare organisations prioritised welfare before environmental issues. For instance, ABF found it far easier to address sustainability linked to class differences than ecological sustainability, let alone linked to issues set in forests or the stratosphere.

Other welfare-oriented CSOs felt the pressure to adapt to social, environmental and economic sustainability debates. One of Sweden’s most prominent social welfare organisations (PRO, Pensionärernas Riksorganisation, the Swedish National Pensioners’ Organisation, the largest national senior-citizen association with more than 260,000 members) expressed interest in exploring the relevance of an environmental agenda for members and future generations. It adopted a motion to reduce its environmental impact and push for sustainable development. However, our review of its strategic documents finds advocacy for better economic development, health and care services for members, and consumer politics to be its main priorities (see PRO, 2024). None included environmental or climate change issues. Local representatives found growing member interest in sustainability issues. Considering the size of the organisation and its contacts with decision makers at local and national levels, they felt responsible for using their power to push for change. However, they expressed significant uncertainty about how to do this, as they lacked expertise on the climate issue (Interview, PRO).

Also other social welfare organisations considered the sustainability agenda to be ‘imposed’ on them. For instance, Save the Children (Rädda Barnen) experienced pressure to adopt environmental concerns, as funders expected them to incorporate green thinking into their activities as a form of sustainability mainstreaming. Although the organisation recognised that climate change and environmental disasters affected children, this was not something they had started to explore – especially not in connection to their activities in Sweden. As one representative expressed, ‘we have not had those glasses on’ (Interview, Save the Children). Such pressures caused uncertainty regarding the organisation’s identity. One informant expressed concern about whether the organisation would become ‘an environmental organisation’. Although adaptation to funders’ priorities was considered necessary, such adaptation could cause mission drift and change the organisation’s orientation.

Urban protests and sustainable welfare

Cities are dynamic places suitable for civic action, providing social, cultural and political infrastructures for bringing people together. The urban setting is particularly relevant to study in a Swedish context since much organising tends to follow institutionalised silos, including civil society organising. In August 2018, a trend of urban mobilisations on climate change took place in a wide array of cities across the globe. These started in Stockholm during the national election campaign when school pupil Greta Thunberg decided to demand forcible climate action from policy makers through a school strike outside the Swedish parliament. At the end of 2018, the school strikes spread around Sweden and the world. Demonstrations in other countries attracted thousands of protesters, ranging from 100,000 in Melbourne and London, around 200,000 in Rome and Berlin to more than 300,000 in Montreal (Emilsson et al, 2020).

The Swedish climate marches gained extensive public recognition. While the first event in Stockholm attracted several thousands of participants, by September 2019, this number had risen to approximately 70,000 individuals. Activities in Gothenburg and Malmö attracted fewer participants, with three to ten thousand participants. While these strikes and protest events invigorated the Swedish environmental movement as climate change gained extensive public recognition, they also served as the basis for recruiting new groups to organisations and movements.

Inspired by Greta Thunberg, the first series of protest events primarily attracted school students; the later stages of protests included a broader range of participants across age cohorts. For instance, at the 2019 September demonstrations, more than 80 per cent of participants were 26 or older. While much previous research has shown that about equal numbers of women and men participated in protests, women were overrepresented in the Swedish Climate Strikes, with around 63 per cent of the total participants. A large share of the participants had completed a university education (more than 80 per cent in each city), and approximately 85 per cent identified as middle class (Emilsson et al, 2020). Most of the protest participants self-identified as ‘left’ (approximately two thirds among the participants) and 30 per cent with the green or left-socialist parties, respectively.

Whereas our previous analysis mainly addressed the integration of environmental and climate concerns on an organisational level, our survey with protest participants allowed us to explore how committed individuals viewed similar problems, that is, the potential conflict and trade-offs between environmental and welfare concerns. Unsurprisingly, most participants agreed to claims of governmental redistribution (‘the government should redistribute income from the better-off to those who are less well off’), indicating social justice and redistribution as core values among participants. This resonates with the trend towards emphasising justice concerns in environmental and climate movements and, hence, a frame alignment about social and environmental justice concerns, potentially resulting from spillover effects from the global justice movement with its explicit anti-capitalist expressions.

Moreover, protest participants had clear priorities about potential environmental and economic trade-offs. As an illustration of support for an environmental frame, we asked them whether protecting the environment should be given priority, even if it causes slower economic growth and some loss of jobs (see Table 4.1). To a very high extent, the protesters supported an environmental frame and dismissed the relevance of an economic growth frame. Almost three quarters of the respondents (74.9 per cent) strongly agreed with an environmental frame, and only 1 per cent disagreed. Hence, the ‘jobs versus environment dilemma’ (Rätzhel and Uzzell, 2011), which influenced labour and welfare organisations’ take on environmental concerns, was less relevant for protest participants.

However, respondents had difficulty exploring their view on whether to support measures to decrease CO₂ emissions, even if these worsened social welfare arrangements. Our results show that respondents mainly selected a mid-option, expressing neither support nor rejection of welfare versus an environmental frame. This might be interpreted as participants supporting sustainable welfare, that is, environmental and welfare concerns in combination. However, protest participants differed due to social background factors. To a higher extent, well-educated participants supported an environmental over a welfare frame. Active trade unionists were less likely to put ‘the environment’ first and instead stressed the protection of jobs and economic growth.

However, the boundary-protecting practices we observed among environmental and welfare organisations appear less relevant at the individual level. Many of the protest participants held membership with different CSOs. While a large percentage were members of environmental organisations, we also found that many held membership in charitable and humanitarian organisations and trade unions. The low levels of union membership are most likely due to the low age of participants. Few were, however, active, and most held passive membership. Whereas protecting ideological boundaries is relevant for organisations, (some) individuals nonetheless crossed boundaries and supported environmental and welfare concerns through memberships in both types of organisations (see Table 4.2).

Civil society practices of sustainable welfare

Theories of path emergency stress small and incremental changes as significant for change. Niches form enabling environments alongside dominant institutional settings. Community practices, voluntary activities and non-profits often explore niches to develop new ideas and practises (Clark and Johansson, 2016). Eco-social enterprises seek to deliver environmental and socially integrated services based on non-profit grounds (Johanisova et al, 2020). Community-based eco-social initiatives build on grassroots and community involvement in developing and regulating sustainable welfare practices (Sekulova et al, 2017). Whereas terms like eco-social enterprises point to initiatives that are different from but loosely integrated with markets, community-based initiatives stress civil society initiatives as local, small scale and of a voluntary nature.

Civil society practices are often portrayed positively as alternatives to large-scale systems and organisations (Stamm et al, 2020) and valued according to their emerging qualities. A review of eco-social innovations in Malmö found a complex mix of repair café, urban gardening projects and reuse of food and waste that combined environmental and social concerns, for instance, by engaging marginalised groups (Kennedy Tsunoda and Björngren Cuadra, 2022). Local activists or community groups ran some of these local practices as an association, but, at times, they took the form of a social enterprise. Relations to states and markets are however more complex than conceptual distinctions suggest, as some of these practices rely on voluntary work and others benefitted from public programmes of supported employment.

While these practices certainly can give rise to change, the niche metaphor comes with methodological problems as it primarily focuses on what is new and not so much on how it ties to established settings (Stamm et al, 2020). Our interviews with environmental organisations demonstrated this, as representatives found listing their environmentally motivated activities easy, yet problematic in expressing practices concerning sustainable welfare (Interview, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation). Practices like repair cafés, recycling communities or gardening projects gained support, but primarily seen as something odd, outside ordinary environmental movement practices. ‘Many new organisations … do environmentally related stuff, yet that is not called environmental organisations’ (Interview, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation). Often, the combination of welfare and environmental concerns meant the addition of a social dimension to existing established environmental projects and practices. For instance, the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation had a group working with urban meadows and was asked to initiate a project in one of the city’s suburbs. Aside from promoting green and environmentally friendly lifestyles, the project was considered particularly relevant as it was seen as capable of broadening the recruitment to the organisation. The term social was thus mainly interpreted as linked to social practices and participation rather than individual welfare or social justice.

Conclusion

Theories of inertia, emergence and transformation allow us to explore the role played by civil society in a dual way. On the one hand, civil society can be seen as a site where new ideas and claims for societal change emerge and gain traction as citizens engage in organisations and movements. In that respect, civil society is a source of transformation rather than inertia. On the other hand, civil society constitutes a site of actors and organisations shaped by relations of collaboration and competition over relevant resources (Johansson and Kalm, 2015). Whereas civil society actors might push for change in connection with other sites, internally, inertia might be the most appropriate interpretation.

Although environmental and welfare groups push for change and engage extensively in discussions and practices of sustainable development, this chapter has demonstrated that environmental and welfare organisations have difficulty breaking free of history and largely continue to act within established paths and policy domains. Although sustainable development constitutes one of the most significant societal discourses of our time, it has not (yet) become a policy ‘field’ in its own right. For the time being, this means Swedish policies continue to be developed within silos. The ongoing relevance of a corporatist system is a vital reason why environmental and welfare-oriented organisations still act within their established domains. The structural influence of clearly divided policy domains is one reason why we find limited variation across the three cities of Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö.

The limited cooperation between environmental and welfare CSOs furthermore relates to factors at an organisational level. Swedish civil society actors have successfully gained influence based on what we consider a particularistic logic of mobilisation. Most mobilise on one core mission, which creates barriers to other organisations working with other policy issues. Whether or not this should be interpreted as habitual or utilitarian practice requires further exploration. However, this chapter has found that environmental and welfare civil society actors protect their domain and avoid too close cooperation with other organisations. While there is ambition to combine environmental and welfare concerns, this is hampered by a lack of a proper language to act across and engage in coalitional work. This includes the lack of expertise on climate and environmental issues for welfare organisations. Civil society can thus function as a catalyst for societal change, yet continue to be internally structured by path protection and inertia practices.

Inertia, however, only partly captures our study’s findings. While theories of path dependency stress the role of institutions, theories of emergence emphasise the role of small-scale development and individuals acting as path entrepreneurs or advocates. Emergence is, however, a messy process with extensive contingency involved. The protest participants’ dilemmas illustrate this: deciding whether to support an ‘environmentalist’ or a ‘welfarist’ frame. If participants had had an opportunity to express support for both, they may have done so, acting as an avant-garde for both environmental and welfare concerns. What seems to support this interpretation is that committed individuals are not held back by organisational or movement divides. Although organisations benefit from marking boundaries with others, our study shows that committed individuals tend to hold membership in both.

Though framing environment and welfare as a ‘justice concern’ turned out to be vital for such boundary-spanning activities, our study demonstrates tensions between moderate and radical flanks within both the environmental and welfare movements. Actors that stress the reduction of material welfare in combination with unconventional methods tend to encounter criticism from moderate environmental and welfare organisations, and vice versa. Within the welfare movement, the divide follows splits between opting for more or less material welfare and within the environmental movement between ecological preservation and climate change (Thörn and Svenberg, 2017; Jasny and Fisher, 2023). A path towards sustainable welfare thus entails elements of frame separation and integration simultaneously.