Urban Bus Electrification as a Common Good Agenda: Governance, Public Value and Socio-Technical Coordination in Brazil

Mots-clés:

Résumé:

Purpose
The transport sector remains a major source of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions, while urban mobility systems continue to reproduce environmental, social, and public health problems associated with fossil-fuel dependence. In this context, battery electric buses (BEBs) have emerged as a promising alternative for decarbonising public transport, improving air quality, and enhancing the quality of urban mobility services. In Brazil, this transition is particularly relevant, as bus trips fell by 44.1% over the last decade, intensifying the circulation of private light vehicles and worsening congestion, emissions, and public health impacts (CNT, 2025).
Despite this potential, the implementation of BEBs still faces major barriers to large-scale adoption, including high upfront costs, uncertainty regarding lifecycle competitiveness, charging infrastructure limitations, operational constraints, regulatory fragmentation, and the limited financial capacity of transport operators (Li et al., 2018; Aldenius et al., 2022; Villen et al., 2024). In Brazil, these challenges are aggravated by the structural fragility of the bus sector and by difficulties in renewing fleets even under conventional diesel-based systems (Goes, 2021; Villen et al., 2024).
This paper argues that the electrification of urban bus systems should not be understood merely as a process of technological substitution. Instead, it should be approached as a common good agenda, in which public transport is treated as a collective urban service whose transformation must produce shared environmental, social, and economic benefits. Here, common good agenda refers to an institutional orientation in which public transport is understood as a collectively valuable system whose benefits depend on equitable access, public regulation, and the maintenance of service quality over time (Birrong, 2021; Kwarciński, 2018). This is also consistent with studies showing that accessibility, reliability, comfort, and public trust are central to the social value of public transport (dell’Olio et al., 2010; Lunke, 2020; Vickerman, 2021). The Brazilian case deserves specific attention because it combines strong municipal responsibility for service provision, the absence of a comprehensive national strategy for bus electrification, and a socio-technical regime still deeply structured around diesel technologies. At the same time, Brazil has a consolidated bus manufacturing base and relevant industrial capabilities, which distinguishes it from other Latin American markets that depend more directly on imported technological solutions (Consoni et al., 2025; ANFAVEA, 2024; Barassa et al., 2022; C40 Cities et al., 2023).
The paper addresses two questions: what are the main political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental barriers affecting the sustainable adoption of BEBs in urban public transport; and how can governance arrangements and public-value-oriented strategies help overcome these barriers in the Brazilian context?
Methodology
The paper adopts a qualitative analytical approach based on a structured literature review and the application of the PESTLE framework. This framework allows a systemic examination of the factors shaping the electrification of urban public transport across six interconnected dimensions: political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental.
The political dimension focuses on collaborative governance, stakeholder participation, and the role of the state in coordinating energy and mobility transitions (Guno et al., 2021; Allan et al., 2022). The economic dimension examines vehicle and infrastructure costs, investment risks, market uncertainty, and the financial limitations of operators, while also considering evidence that BEBs may offer lower fuel and maintenance costs over time (Aamodt et al., 2021; Nassar et al., 2024). The social dimension addresses public health gains, lower noise exposure, service quality, and social inclusion (Ferreira & Pereira, 2026). The technological dimension considers batteries, charging systems, route optimisation, and energy management (Wenz et al., 2021; Rodrigues & Seixas, 2022). The legal dimension examines regulatory gaps and lack of standardisation (Häll et al., 2019; Aldenius et al., 2022). The environmental dimension addresses the potential of BEBs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and local pollutants while supporting sustainable urban development (Jagiełło, 2025).
Findings
The analysis indicates that the transition to BEBs should be understood less as an isolated technological upgrade and more as a socio-technical coordination challenge involving multiple actors, infrastructures, and institutional arrangements. The barriers to electrification emerge from the interaction between financing constraints, regulatory ambiguity, operational uncertainty, fragmented planning, and uneven institutional capacities (Li et al., 2018; Aldenius et al., 2022; Rodrigues & Seixas, 2022; Villen et al., 2024). In Brazil, these barriers are intensified by the mismatch between municipal responsibility for public transport services and the absence of stable national coordination mechanisms capable of aligning industrial strategy, infrastructure deployment, and long-term transition goals (Consoni et al., 2025).
The analysis also suggests that framing electrification as a common good agenda broadens the criteria through which the transition is evaluated. Rather than focusing exclusively on cost-efficiency or short-term operational performance, this perspective makes visible a wider range of collective benefits, including cleaner air, lower urban noise, better public health conditions, more reliable mobility services, and more equitable access to public transport. It also highlights that accessibility, reliability, and public trust are part of the collective value of the system itself (dell’Olio et al., 2010; Lunke, 2020; Vickerman, 2021). In this sense, electrification can strengthen public transport as a shared urban good (Glover, 2011).
Finally, the Brazilian case suggests that the transition cannot be interpreted simply as a matter of importing successful models from other contexts. It requires strategies that address the country’s specific combination of local public authority, industrial capability, institutional fragmentation, and heterogeneous market arrangements across cities (Consoni et al., 2025; C40 Cities et al., 2023).
Practical and theoretical implications
From a practical perspective, the paper suggests that sustainable bus electrification requires integrated policy strategies that go beyond vehicle procurement. Municipalities and transport authorities need to articulate infrastructure deployment, regulatory frameworks, financing mechanisms, operational planning, and stakeholder engagement in a coordinated manner. In Brazil, this also implies recognising that the transition pathway must be built in relation to its own institutional and industrial conditions, especially the centrality of cities, the diversity of contractual arrangements, and the existence of a consolidated bus production system that may either enable or lock in particular transition trajectories (Consoni et al., 2025; ANFAVEA, 2024; Barassa et al., 2022).
From a theoretical perspective, the paper contributes to debates on socio-technical transitions by connecting urban transport electrification with the notion of the common good. Rather than a generic normative term, common good is used here as an analytical lens to examine how electrification can protect equitable access, service quality, and socially shared benefits over time (Birrong, 2021; Glover, 2011). The paper thus contributes to the dialogue between sustainability transitions, governance studies, and public value approaches by showing that the electrification of public transport is not only a technical transition, but also a political and institutional process oriented toward collective urban improvement.

Texte complet:

Urban Bus Electrification as a Common
Good Agenda: Governance, Public Value,
and Socio-Technical Coordination in Brazil
Raquel Teixeira Gomes Magri1; Pablo de Freitas Hernandez2; João Guilherme Ito Cypriano3; Flávio Tonioli Mariotto4; Flávia Luciane Consoni5; Luiz Carlos Pereira da Silva6
Purpose
The transport sector remains a major source of energy-related greenhouse gas
emissions, while urban mobility systems continue to reproduce environmental, social, and
public health problems associated with fossil-fuel dependence. In this context, battery electric
buses (BEBs) have emerged as a promising alternative for decarbonising public transport,
improving air quality, and enhancing the quality of urban mobility services. In Brazil, this
transition is particularly relevant, as bus trips fell by 44.1% over the last decade, intensifying
the circulation of private light vehicles and worsening congestion, emissions, and public health
impacts (CNT, 2025).
Despite this potential, the implementation of BEBs still faces major barriers to largescale
adoption, including high upfront costs, uncertainty regarding lifecycle competitiveness,
charging infrastructure limitations, operational constraints, regulatory fragmentation, and the
limited financial capacity of transport operators (Li et al., 2018; Aldenius et al., 2022; Villen
et al., 2024). In Brazil, these challenges are aggravated by the structural fragility of the bus
sector and by difficulties in renewing fleets even under conventional diesel-based systems
(Goes, 2021; Villen et al., 2024).
This paper argues that the electrification of urban bus systems should not be understood
merely as a process of technological substitution. Instead, it should be approached as a common
good agenda, in which public transport is treated as a collective urban service whose
transformation must produce shared environmental, social, and economic benefits. Here,
common good agenda refers to an institutional orientation in which public transport is
understood as a collectively valuable system whose benefits depend on equitable access, public
regulation, and the maintenance of service quality over time (Birrong, 2021; Kwarciński,
2018). This is also consistent with studies showing that accessibility, reliability, comfort, and
public trust are central to the social value of public transport (dell’Olio et al., 2010; Lunke,
2020; Vickerman, 2021). The Brazilian case deserves specific attention because it combines
strong municipal responsibility for service provision, the absence of a comprehensive national
strategy for bus electrification, and a socio-technical regime still deeply structured around
diesel technologies. At the same time, Brazil has a consolidated bus manufacturing base and
relevant industrial capabilities, which distinguishes it from other Latin American markets that
depend more directly on imported technological solutions (Consoni et al., 2025; ANFAVEA,
2024; Barassa et al., 2022; C40 Cities et al., 2023).
The paper addresses two questions: what are the main political, economic, social,
technological, legal, and environmental barriers affecting the sustainable adoption of BEBs in
urban public transport; and how can governance arrangements and public-value-oriented
strategies help overcome these barriers in the Brazilian context?
Methodology
The paper adopts a qualitative analytical approach based on a structured literature
review and the application of the PESTLE framework. This framework allows a systemic
examination of the factors shaping the electrification of urban public transport across six
interconnected dimensions: political, economic, social, technological, legal, and
environmental.
The political dimension focuses on collaborative governance, stakeholder participation,
and the role of the state in coordinating energy and mobility transitions (Guno et al., 2021;
Allan et al., 2022). The economic dimension examines vehicle and infrastructure costs,
investment risks, market uncertainty, and the financial limitations of operators, while also
considering evidence that BEBs may offer lower fuel and maintenance costs over time (Aamodt
et al., 2021; Nassar et al., 2024). The social dimension addresses public health gains, lower
noise exposure, service quality, and social inclusion (Ferreira & Pereira, 2026). The
technological dimension considers batteries, charging systems, route optimisation, and energy
management (Wenz et al., 2021; Rodrigues & Seixas, 2022). The legal dimension examines
regulatory gaps and lack of standardisation (Häll et al., 2019; Aldenius et al., 2022). The
environmental dimension addresses the potential of BEBs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and local pollutants while supporting sustainable urban development (Jagiełło, 2025).
Findings
The analysis indicates that the transition to BEBs should be understood less as an
isolated technological upgrade and more as a socio-technical coordination challenge involving
multiple actors, infrastructures, and institutional arrangements. The barriers to electrification
emerge from the interaction between financing constraints, regulatory ambiguity, operational
uncertainty, fragmented planning, and uneven institutional capacities (Li et al., 2018; Aldenius
et al., 2022; Rodrigues & Seixas, 2022; Villen et al., 2024). In Brazil, these barriers are
intensified by the mismatch between municipal responsibility for public transport services and
the absence of stable national coordination mechanisms capable of aligning industrial strategy,
infrastructure deployment, and long-term transition goals (Consoni et al., 2025).
The analysis also suggests that framing electrification as a common good agenda
broadens the criteria through which the transition is evaluated. Rather than focusing exclusively
on cost-efficiency or short-term operational performance, this perspective makes visible a
wider range of collective benefits, including cleaner air, lower urban noise, better public health
conditions, more reliable mobility services, and more equitable access to public transport. It
also highlights that accessibility, reliability, and public trust are part of the collective value of
the system itself (dell’Olio et al., 2010; Lunke, 2020; Vickerman, 2021). In this sense,
electrification can strengthen public transport as a shared urban good (Glover, 2011).
Finally, the Brazilian case suggests that the transition cannot be interpreted simply as a
matter of importing successful models from other contexts. It requires strategies that address
the country’s specific combination of local public authority, industrial capability, institutional
fragmentation, and heterogeneous market arrangements across cities (Consoni et al., 2025; C40
Cities et al., 2023).
Practical and theoretical implications
From a practical perspective, the paper suggests that sustainable bus electrification
requires integrated policy strategies that go beyond vehicle procurement. Municipalities and
transport authorities need to articulate infrastructure deployment, regulatory frameworks,
financing mechanisms, operational planning, and stakeholder engagement in a coordinated
manner. In Brazil, this also implies recognising that the transition pathway must be built in
relation to its own institutional and industrial conditions, especially the centrality of cities, the
diversity of contractual arrangements, and the existence of a consolidated bus production
system that may either enable or lock in particular transition trajectories (Consoni et al., 2025;
ANFAVEA, 2024; Barassa et al., 2022).
From a theoretical perspective, the paper contributes to debates on socio-technical
transitions by connecting urban transport electrification with the notion of the common good.
Rather than a generic normative term, common good is used here as an analytical lens to
examine how electrification can protect equitable access, service quality, and socially shared
benefits over time (Birrong, 2021; Glover, 2011). The paper thus contributes to the dialogue
between sustainability transitions, governance studies, and public value approaches by showing
that the electrification of public transport is not only a technical transition, but also a political
and institutional process oriented toward collective urban improvement.
References
Aamodt, A., Cory, K. S., & Coney, K. (2021). Electrifying transit: A guidebook for
implementing battery electric buses (No. NREL/TP-7A40-76932). Golden, CO, USA:
National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Aldenius, M., Mullen, C., & Pettersson-Löfstedt, F. (2022). Electric buses in England
and Sweden – Overcoming barriers to introduction. Transportation Research Part D: Transport
and Environment, 104, 103204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103204Allan, M., Turner,
S., & Eisenberg, T. (2022). De Santiago a Shenzhen: Como os ônibus elétricos estão movendo
as cidades. Instituto de Políticas de Transporte e Desenvolvimento (ITDP).
ANFAVEA. (2024). Brazilian automotive industry yearbook.
Barassa, E., Cruz, R. F. da, Faria, L. G. D., Tanure, T. M. do P., Rodríguez, T. B., &
Rigon, V. (2022). Oferta de ônibus elétrico no Brasil em um cenário de recuperação econômica
de baixo carbono.
Birrong, S. (2021). Public transport as a common pool resource - sustainable
configuration options in the case of Glasgow. https://doi.org/10.17185/duepublico/74421
Bogacki, M., & Bździuch, P. (2019). Urban bus emission trends in the Krakow
metropolitan area (Poland) from 2010 to 2015. Transportation Research Part D, 67, 33–50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.11.003
Bousse, Y., Corazza, M. V., De Belen, M., Kowalski, J., Arriaga, D. S., & Sessing, G.
(2019). Electrification of public transport: Lessons from the ELIPTIC project. In E. G.
Nathanail & I. D. Karakikes (Eds.), CSUM 2018 (AISC 879, pp. 469–477). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02305-8_57
C40 Cities, Centro de Movilidad Sostenible, ICCT, & Centro para la Sostenibilidad
Urbana (CPSU). (2023). Pipeline of electric bus projects in Latin America: Overview of 32
cities.
CNT – Confederação Nacional de Transportes. (2025). Análise comparativa das
emissões entre transporte rodoviário coletivo e individual.
Consoni, F. L., Andrade, V., Bermúdez-Rodríguez, T., & Bastos, P. (2025). Public
policy and battery-electric bus deployment in Latin America: A critical review through the
Brazilian lens. Energy for Sustainable Development, 88, 101801.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2025.101801
dell’Olio, L., Ibeas, A., & Cecín, P. (2010). The quality of service desired by public
transport users. Transport Policy, 18, 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.08.005
Ferreira, W. L., & Pereira, R. G. (2026). Environmental and social analysis of the use
of electric buses in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy,
28(78). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-026-03429-4
Glover, L. (2011). Public transport as a common pool resource. In Australasian
Transport Research Forum 2011 Proceedings (pp. 1–15). Australasian Transport Research
Forum.
Goes, G. V. (2021). O fomento a tecnologias alternativas no transporte coletivo por
ônibus para reduzir a evasão de usuários e ampliar a segurança energética nacional (n. 84).
IPEA.
Guno, C. S., Collera, A. A., & Agaton, C. B. (2021). Barriers and drivers of transition
to sustainable public transport in the Philippines. World Electric Vehicle Journal, 12, 46.
https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj12010046
Häll, C. H., Ceder, A., Ekström, J., & Quttineh, N.-H. (2019). Adjustments of public
transit operations planning process for the use of electric buses. Journal of Intelligent
Transportation Systems, 23(3), 216–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/15472450.2018.1488131
Jagiełło, A. (2025). Economic efficiency of sustainable public transport: A literature
review on electric and diesel buses. Energies, 18, 1352. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18061352
Kwarciński, T. (2018). Transport as a public good. European Journal of Service
Management, 27(3), 229–235. https://doi.org/10.18276/ejsm.2018.27/2-28
Li, X., Castellanos, S., & Maassen, A. (2018). Emerging trends and innovations for
electric bus adoption—a comparative case study of contracting and financing of 22 cities in the
Americas, Asia Pacific, and Europe. Research in Transportation Economics, 69, 470–481.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2018.06.016
Lunke, E. (2020). Commuters’ satisfaction with public transport. Journal of Transport
& Health, 16, 100842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2020.100842
Maier, R., Posch, A., Proß, C., Plakolb, S., & Steininger, K. W. (2023). Cutting social
costs by decarbonizing passenger transport. Transportation Research Part D.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2023.103878
Nassar, A., Rodrigues, B., Serra, B., Linke, C. C., Melo, J., Veiga, L., Brito, M., &
Bassi, R. (2024). Soluções para incentivar a eletrificação do transporte público. Instituto de
Políticas de Transporte e Desenvolvimento (ITDP).
Rodrigues, A. L. P., & Seixas, S. R. C. (2022). Battery-electric buses and their
implementation barriers: Analysis and prospects for sustainability. Sustainable Energy
Technologies and Assessments, 51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101896
Vickerman, R. (2021). Will Covid-19 put the public back in public transport? A UK
perspective. Transport Policy, 103, 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.01.005
Villen, F. B., Pimentel, R. C. Q., Souza, F. de O., & Maher Junior, J. P. (2024). Impulso
à adoção de ônibus elétricos no Brasil. BNDES Setorial, 30(58), 57–96.
Wenz, K.-P., Serrano-Guerrero, X., Barragán-Escandón, A., González, L. G., &
Clairand, J.-M. (2021). Route prioritization of urban public transportation from conventional
to electric buses: A new methodology and a study case in an intermediate city of Ecuador.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111215
Xiong, J., Guan, Z., Jiang, S., & Wang, Z. (2026). A joint scheduling framework for
electric bus fleets and charging infrastructure in urban transit systems. Systems, 14, 235.
https://doi.org/10.3390/systems14030235

____________________________________________________________________________

1 Ph.D. student at Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering, UNICAMP. Fellow at Sustainable Campus,
UNICAMP. Researcher at the Laboratory of Electric Vehicles Studies (LEVE), UNICAMP.
2 Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Campinas, UNICAMP, and is a researcher affiliated
with the São Paulo Center for Energy Transition Studies (CPTEn), UNICAMP.
3 Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Campinas, UNICAMP, and is a researcher affiliated
with the São Paulo Center for Energy Transition Studies (CPTEn), UNICAMP.
4 Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Campinas, UNICAMP, and is a researcher affiliated
with the São Paulo Center for Energy Transition Studies (CPTEn), UNICAMP.
5 Professor Ph.D. in Science and Technology Policy. Professor at the Department of Science and Technology
Policy, UNICAMP. Coordinator of the Laboratory of Electric Vehicles Studies (LEVE), UNICAMP, and the São
Paulo Centre for Energy Transition Studies (CPTEn).
6 Professor Ph.D. In Electrical Engineering. Professor at the Department of Systems and Energy in Faculty of
Electrical and Computer Engineering, UNICAMP and Coordinator of the São Paulo Centre for Energy
Transition Studies (CPTEn).