Special session 1:
Twin Transition in Regional Economies: A Co-Evolutionary and Interpath Perspective

The convergence of Industry 4.0, Artificial Intelligence (AI), platformisation and decarbonization strategies is presenting both opportunities and challenges across various industries. Against this backdrop, Twin Transition (TT) has emerged as an interdisciplinary research topic that has gained significant attention in sustainability studies (Burinskiene & Nalivaike, 2024; Fouquet & Hippe, 2022), industrial economics (Myshko et al., 2024; Ortega-Gras et al., 2021), and public policy and management research (Gerlitz & Meyer, 2021; Timmermans et al., 2023). Firms, governments, and regions must adapt to these transformations while ensuring technological inclusivity, environmental responsibility, and economic resilience. Recently, economic geography and regional studies have shown increasing interest in TT (Cattani et al., 2023; Cicerone et al., 2023; Faggian et al., 2024; Fazio et al., 2024). TT gained greater prominence when it was formally introduced as part of the European Green Deal in EU policy documents (Kovacic et al., 2024) .
Twin Transition (TT) can manifest across multiple scales: firm level (Burinskiene & Nalivaike, 2024; Montresor & Vezzani, 2023; Rahnama et al., 2022), industry level (e.g., agriculture) ( Myshko et al., 2024) or regional level (Fazio et al., 2024; Gerlitz & Meyer, 2021; Hervas-Oliver & Capone, 2024). One of the key challenges in TT is the asymmetric pace of and the potential misalignment in regions between the two transitions. Digital transformation tends to outpace energy transition due to several constraints on the latter, such as high costs of sustainability investments, regulatory uncertainty, and technological limitations (Fouquet & Hippe, 2022). As a result, existing research has predominantly focused on how digital technologies enable decarbonization (Cicerone et al., 2023; Montresor & Vezzani, 2023; Sjodin et al., 2023), rather than the reverse.  However, despite the clear benefits of digital technologies in enhancing green production processes, optimizing resource efficiency, and fostering sustainable business models, their role is not always purely enabling. In some cases, digitalization can actually hinder green transition efforts by introducing new challenges such as increased energy consumption (e.g., data centers and blockchain technology) and the digital divide, which exacerbates regional and social inequalities (Bianchini et al., 2023; Monstadt & Saltzman, 2025). This complex and sometimes contradictory relationship between digital and green transitions highlights the need for a more nuanced, context-specific and geographically differentiated understanding of TT, addressing both enabling and constraining factors.
Some scholars have examined regional heterogeneity, attempting to understand which regions are more likely to achieve TT, which are struggling, and why (Brueck et al., 2024). For instance, Fazio et al., (2024) found that ICT-innovative regions are more likely to achieve TT, whereas regions specializing in green innovations face greater difficulties. Urban and rural regions also experience TT differently —rural regions focus on eco-innovation, while urban areas leverage Industry 4.0 for sustainability (Faggian et al., 2024). 
However, despite extensive discussions on digital transition across disciplines, its intricate relationship with green transition remains an open and urgent research agenda. To comprehensively address the issue of TT (mis)alignment while also considering the geographical variations in its implementation, we aim to draw inspiration from the fields of interpath dynamics and co-evolution, recently discussed in economic geography. Based on these theoretical perspectives, we seek to explore how TT policies should be designed.
Interpath relations build upon key evolutionary economic geography (EEG) concepts such as path dependence, path creation and path renewal (Boschma & Frenken, 2006; Martin & Sunley, 2006), moving beyond the traditional single-path perspective of regional industrial development (Frangenheim et al., 2020). Interpath relations emphasize the dynamic interactions between multiple regional industrial paths, including supportive, competitive, and neutral (Frangenheim et al., 2020). These relations are dynamic and subject to external shocks, policy interventions, and market forces. For example, Flood Chavez et al. (2023) illustrate how interpath relations evolved from a competitive phase, where tourism and extractive industries (such as timber) competed for land and resources, to a synergistic relationship between wine production and tourism. TT also involves interactions between different industries, and we aim to unravel some of these complexities.
From a broader perspective, co-evolution refers to the reciprocal and interdependent evolution of two or more populations—including industries, institutions, firms, technologies, and networks—where the interaction between industries and institutions plays a central role (Gong & Hassink, 2019). As Schamp (2017, p. 7) states, “a bidirectional causality through various self-reinforcing feedbacks brings about simultaneous growth in the evolution of two (or more) populations…”. Gong and Hassink (2019) further argue that co-evolution should be analyzed within a multi-scalar and historically contingent framework. Ter Wal and Boschma (2011) argue that economic clusters do not evolve in isolation but rather in tandem with industry-wide knowledge networks. We believe that TT follows a similar logic, and we aim to explore this further.
Based on the above discussion, we invite both conceptual and empirical contributions from economic and social geography, regional studies, innovation studies, and sustainability research. Topics of interest include (but are not limited to):  

•    How do digitalization and the green transition mutually reinforce or constrain each other? Does digitalization generate negative environmental externalities (e.g., energy-intensive data centers, electronic waste)? Do different industries experience synergies (mutual reinforcement) or trade-offs (competition) in the processes of digitalization and greening?
•    The temporal evolution of interpath dynamics: Do relationships between different pathways change over time? While early-stage competition (e.g., for funding and policy support) may dominate, long-term collaboration (e.g., digitalization enabling green development) may emerge. If a region initially prioritizes a specific pathway (e.g., smart manufacturing), does this crowd out green innovation? Can certain industries transition from being digitally driven to green-oriented (e.g., IT firms investing in carbon neutrality)? Should governments simultaneously subsidize digitalization and greening, or should there be policy prioritization (e.g., EU’s digital-first vs. China’s green-low-carbon-first approach)?
•    Industrial co-evolution: Which industries or regions successfully achieve a synergistic twin transition? In which sectors (e.g., manufacturing, energy, transport) do digitalization and greening form complementary effects? Which industries may struggle due to technological substitution or policy shocks? Which industries follow supportive, competitive, or neutral pathways?
•    How do different types of regions (e.g., technology-intensive, resource-dependent, or early adopters of low-carbon initiatives) develop differentiated co-evolutionary pathways through institutional, market, and technological interactions?
•    Global-national-local interactions: How do policies at different levels collectively shape the evolution of digitalization and greening? Are there policy misalignments that hinder the twin transition?
•    Multinational corporations and local industrial chains: How do multinational firms coordinate digitalization and greening across global operations? How does this dynamic impact local supply chains and innovation ecosystems? How are business models evolving in response to the twin transition?
•    Institutional co-evolution of the twin transition: Are digital regulations (e.g., data security) and green transition policies (e.g., carbon trading) aligned, or do they create conflicting constraints? How can integrated green-digital standards be established to ensure consistency between technological development and sustainability goals?
•    Labor markets and skill upgrading: How does digitalization impact the demand for green skills? How can labor markets adapt to skill shifts induced by the twin transition?
•    Twin transition and social inequalities: How do digitalization and green transitions create new opportunities or challenges for marginalized communities? Are there risks of unequal access to digital and green technologies, leading to further economic disparities? How can regions ensure that the benefits of these transitions are distributed equitably? 
•    Financing the twin transition: What role do financial institutions, investors, and funding mechanisms play in supporting the twin transition? How do they balance investments in digitalization with sustainability goals?  What financial tools (e.g., green bonds, carbon markets, sustainability-linked loans) are emerging to support businesses undergoing the twin transition?

For inquiries or further information, please contact: Han Chu  chu@geographie.uni-kiel.de