A transformation approach that aims to minimize fossil fuel use and climate injustices requires a just model on how change is going to happen, or in other words – a Theory of Change. A theory of change approach implies a set of beliefs and assumptions on how change will occur.

Although the literature on theories of change (TOC) is broad, CLIFF applies a TOC for managing and evaluating interventions for change. It is influenced by post-normal science which argues that where there is scientific uncertainty (e.g. regarding how much FF must be left underground), high stakes (e.g. fear of economic collapse), urgency (i.e. the need to phase out FF as soon as possible) and disputed values (e.g. who has a right to development, who should pay compensation for opportunity), there needs to be large-scale involvement of all stakeholders in problem definition and solutions, multiple actor-specific solutions developed, and extended peer review.

This has led CLIFF to:

• Identify sectors in which collaboration could enhance the reasoning for leaving fossil fuels underground. This includes the: (i) energy sector as leaving fossil fuel underground implies engaging significantly with the energy sector; (ii) health sector as climate change has serious health impacts and a collaboration between these two sectors can enhance the likelihood of action; (iii) water sector as most climate change impacts are felt through the water system (glacier melting; sea level rise; change in precipitation patterns) and impacts on this sector can have serious effect on the supply chain of business; (iv) development sector as climate and development are closely linked and it is critical to understand what climate change means for development as well as how development impacts on climate change
• Identify agents of change for each strategy: Governments, businesses, NGOs, legal actors/courts, academics, civil society and journalists. We have been opportunistic in trying to see where we can develop useful collaborations and promote our arguments. In terms of governments, we have been working with the Municipality of Amsterdam, diplomats who come for training, and negotiators at UN meetings. In terms of businesses, we have been working with pension funds, banks, investors, procurement officers, and the World Economic Forum. In relation to NGOs, legal actors, academics and civil society – we have been giving regular presentations often tailored to specific audiences. It took some time to mobilize the interest of the press – but since the award of the Spinoza prize – different elements of the press are covering different aspects of our work.
• Assess which actor group is sensitive to which scientific argument, narrative, and/or which agent of change. In our presentations and collaborations, we focus on arguments that may make a difference to the audience. For example, to business audiences we focus on litigation risk and supply chain risks. To government audiences we focus also on how the cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action. To professional audiences we argue that they need to focus also on their own ethical values and scientific knowledge and bring that to bear on their limited professional mandates. Responses from these collaborations and audiences feeds into our log book which enables us to strengthen our arguments. We see this as a way to receive extended peer review on our work.