Are we focusing our research correctly on climate change solutions? Climate change and biodiversity loss are no longer mere environmental issues; they have become a global crisis threatening humanity's sustainability. In South Korea, too, environmental changes such as increasing fine dust, extreme heatwaves, and natural disasters are having an ever-greater impact, making this no longer just an issue for other countries. So, how adequately is our society addressing this problem? A recently published global study warns that the focus of sustainability research is misplaced and contains structural problems that make it difficult to bring about real change. Researchers from the University of Western Australia, in a study published in Nature Sustainability, point out that global sustainability research is not moving in the right direction regarding climate change and biodiversity loss. They analyzed a staggering 4 million academic papers and found that research on sustainability transitions primarily focuses on the private sector, knowledge production, and individual behavioral changes. In contrast, research and attention on civil society, public institutions, and financial actors—who can bring about true change—were conspicuously lacking. This implies that merely emphasizing individual behavioral changes cannot fundamentally solve environmental problems. The study analyzed academic literature based on the five key strategies and 22 action guidelines presented by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) in 2024. As a result, it found a serious problem: academic interest is unevenly concentrated in specific areas, and, crucially, it fails to effectively connect actions with the responsible actors who must implement them. In particular, the research supported the finding that while technological solutions dominate academic literature, actions that transform economic systems and governance structures receive far less attention. The researchers emphasize that this does not mean technological solutions are unimportant, but rather that viewing them as a panacea for all problems can hinder genuine systemic change. Ultimately, restoring healthy ecosystems requires the courage to fundamentally redesign economic and social structures. Without such structural transformation, even the most innovative technologies will have limited effects. While the strategies and action guidelines proposed by IPBES contain specific and diverse methods necessary for successful sustainability transitions, academic research has not demonstrated the practical will to translate these into action. This problem also manifests in South Korea. While corporate eco-friendly campaigns and technological innovations garner public attention, there is a relative lack of movement towards achieving real transformation within our economic and policy systems. This can be seen as a deviation from the true goal of solving sustainability issues. Among the 4 million documents analyzed by the researchers, studies addressing the role of public institutions were relatively few, and research on financial actors was also significantly lacking, despite their immense influence on the environment. Despite the financial sector's powerful influence in shaping industrial structures and economic activities through investment decisions, it remains a blind spot in academic interest. Similarly, despite civil society organizations playing a crucial role in advocating for policy changes and shifting public awareness, research on their activities and potential has been insufficient. **Overlooking Key Actors, Flaws in Sustainability Discourse** Of course, counterarguments exist in this discussion. A prominent view is that individual behavioral change is indeed important. For example, increased recycling rates and the expanded use of electric vehicles are both cases where the choices of many individuals have collectively produced tangible results. However, environmental problems that can be solved solely through individual behavioral changes have clear limitations. Sustainability is a structural problem that transcends individual choices. This means that if our society as a whole does not provide the policies and economic environment to support it, individual small efforts alone will struggle to create significant change. For instance, even if an individual tries to reduce plastic use, their efforts will be limited if most products distributed in the market are sold with excessive packaging. Similarly, even if one wishes to increase public transport use, it is difficult to do so if public transport infrastructure is not adequately established. This demonstrates that various actors, including policymakers, corporations, and financial institutions, must collectively change the system. So, what can South Korea do? The focus must shift towards a collaborative approach where businesses, government, and citizens pursue systemic change. D