Why Sustainable Development Requires Societal Innovation and Cannot Be Achieved without This
- To offer a historical discussion of the ways in which business has dealt with sustainability demands and why such attempts have been relatively futile.
- To offer a more systematic approach to innovation types with attention to mutual relations.
- To bridge the gap between the business model literature and the sustainability transition literature, which is done through the concept of societal innovation.
- To offer a more contextualized, co-evolutionary understanding of innovation-based transformations, based on a recursive relationship between innovations, improvement perspectives and socio-economic transformations, including the transformation of modernity.
2. The Business Perspective on Sustainability Transitions
2.1. A Historical Description of Business Strategies for Sustainability
2.2. Boundary Spanning and Business Model Innovation
- the defensive strategy, which focuses on reducing risks/costs to maintain business as usual
- the accommodative strategy, which focuses on ameliorating the business model to reduce impacts
- the proactive strategy, which focuses on completely new designs of the value logic.
2.3. Business Models and Societal Transitions
3. The Sustainability Transition Perspective on Value Creation
4. A Recursive Perspective on Innovation and Society
4.1. Societal Innovation as a Recursive Multi-Actor Improvement Process
4.2. Recursive Perspectivism
4.3. Improvement Perspectives and Intentional Logics
4.4. The Innovation Cube
- the number of different actors, i.e., actors with different experiential worlds (p for pluriformity, for example, bakers, political parties in a debate, and butchers are different actors),
- the mean number of actors with similar experiential worlds (s for similarity, the number of bakers, the number of politicians in a political party, and the number of butchers), and
- the average perspectivist scope of these different experiential worlds (u for unity).
4.5. Societal Innovation as a Systemic Type of Innovation Requiring System Building and Design Thinking
- A focus on concrete design to deal with a specific issue in a specific action context,
- Systematic reflection on the current structural arrangements of the system at hand and the needs of key actors involved
- Systematic assessment of needs, values and competencies of the actors involved
- Connection of identified needs, values and competencies with technical and structural aspects of a socio-technical design and relevant behaviors.
- Determination of functional requirements and use of morphological diagrams to guide design thinking with attention been given to local circumstances
- Anticipating structural change and identification of barriers at the regime level that may hinder niche formation
- Making proposals and actual interventions in order to lower or remove barriers at the regime level
- Pilots and trials for use with activities of participatory evaluation
5. Societal Innovation as a Rebalancing of Society
Conflicts of Interest
- Amit, R.; Zott, C. Creating Value through Business Model Innovation. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2012, 53. Available online: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/creating-value-through-business-model-innovation/ (accessed on 1 January 2020).
- Chesbrough, H. Business Model Innovation: Opportunities and Barriers. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 354–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- David, P.A. Clio and the economics of QWERTY. Am. Econ. Rev. Proc. 1985, 75, 332–337. [Google Scholar]
- Cowan, R. Nuclear Power Reactors: A Study in Technological Lock-in. J. Econ. Hist. 1990, 50, 541–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Christensen, C.M.; Overdorf, M. Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change; Harvard Business Review: Boston, MA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Dahlin, E.C. The Sociology of Innovation: Organizational, Environmental, and Relative Perspectives. Sociol. Compass 2014, 8, 671–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garud, R.; Rappa, M.A. A Socio-Cognitive Model of Technology Evolution: The Case of Cochlear Implants. Organ. Sci. 1994, 5, 344–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Van de Ven, A.H.; Polley, D.; Garud, R.; Ventakaraman, S. The Innovation Journey; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Elzen, B.; Geels, F.; Green, K. System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Geels, F. Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: Refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2005, 72, 681–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geels, F.W.; Schot, J. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res. Policy 2007, 36, 399–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grin, J.; Rotmans, J.; Schot, J. Transitions to Sustainable Development; Routledge: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Diepenmaat, H. The Path of Humanity: Societal Innovation for the World of Tomorrow; Series Society in Perspective; Parthenon Publishing House: Almere, The Netherlands, 2018; Volume V. [Google Scholar]
- Etzkowitz, H.; Leydesdorff, L. The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Res. Policy 2000, 29, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Etzkowitz, H.; Zhou, C. The Triple Helix. University–Industry–Government Innovation and Entrepreneurship; Routledge: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Mintzberg, H. Rebalancing Society: Radical Renewal Beyond Left, Right, and Center. Available online: http://www.mintzberg.org/sites/default/files/page/rebalancing_full.pdf (accessed on 30 January 2020).
- Loorbach, D.; Van Bakel, J.C.; Whiteman, G.; Rotmans, J. Business strategies for transitions towards sustainable systems. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carroll, A. Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Bus. Soc. 1999, 38, 268–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bocken, N.; Short, S.; Rana, P.; Evans, S. A value mapping tool for sustainable business modelling. Corp. Gov. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2013, 13, 482–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Senge, P.; Smith, B.; Kruschwitz, N.; Laur, J.; Schley, S.; & Brealey, N. The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals and Organizations Are Working Together to Create a Sustainable World; Crown Publishing Group: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- SOER. A Comprehensive Assessment of the European Environment’s State, Trends and Prospects, in a Global Context; EEA: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- UNEP. Towards a Green Economy, Pathways towards Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Visser, W. The Age of Responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the New DNA of Business. J. Bus. Syst. Gov. Ethic 2010, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geissdoerfer, M.; Savaget, P.; Bocken, N.M.; Hultink, E.J. The Circular Economy—A new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 757–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- McDowall, W.; Geng, Y.; Huang, B.; Barteková, E.; Bleischwitz, R.; Türkeli, S.; Kemp, R.; Doménech, T. Circular Economy Policies in China and Europe. J. Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, 651–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Rosa, P.; Sassanelli, C.; Terzi, S. Towards Circular Business Models: A systematic literature review on classification frameworks and archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 236, 117696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Towards the Circular Economy vol. 1: An Economic and Business Rationale for an Accelerate Transition. Available online: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/Ellen-MacArthur-Foundation-Towards-the-Circular-Economy-vol.1.pdf (accessed on 31 January 2020).
- EEA. Closing the Loop—An EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy. 2015. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0614 (accessed on 30 January 2020).
- Foss, N.J.; Saebi, T. Fifteen Years of Research on Business Model Innovation: How Far Have We Come, and Where Should We Go? J. Manag. 2017, 43, 200–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Pieroni, M.P.; McAloone, T.C.; Pigosso, D.C. Business model innovation for circular economy and sustainability: A review of approaches. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 215, 198–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dees, J.G. Taking social entrepreneurship seriously. Society 2007, 44, 24–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moulaert, F. The International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Bocken, N.; Short, S.; Rana, P.; Evans, S. A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 42–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Schaltegger, S.; Hansen, E.G.; Lüdeke-Freund, F. Business Models for Sustainability: Origins, Present Research and Future Avenues. Organ. Environ. 2016, 29, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stubbs, W.; Cocklin, C. Conceptualizing a “Sustainability Business Model.”. Organ. Environ. 2008, 21, 103–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Margretta, J. Why Business Models Matter. Available online: https://hbr.org/2002/05/why-business-models-matter (accessed on 30 January 2020).
- Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y. Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers and Challengers; John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Sarasini, S.; Linder, M. Integrating a Business Model perspective into Transition Theory: The example of new mobility services. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2018, 27, 16–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zott, C.; Amit, R. Business Model Design: An Activity System Perspective. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 216–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. Creating Shared Value. Available online: https://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared-value (accessed on 30 January 2020).
- Teece, D.J. Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 172–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henderson, R.M.; Clark, K.B. Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms. Adm. Sci. Q. 1990, 35, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Bocken, N.; Boons, F.; Baldassarre, B. Sustainable business model experimentation by understanding ecologies of business models. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 1498–1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boons, F.; Lüdeke-Freund, F. Business models for sustainable innovation: State-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 45, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaltegger, S.; Freund, F.L.; Hansen, E.G. Business cases for sustainability: The role of business model innovation for corporate sustainability. Int. J. Innov. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 6, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geissdoerfer, M.; Vladimirova, D.; Evans, S. Sustainable business model innovation: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 198, 401–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bocken, N.M.P.; De Pauw, I.; Bakker, C.; Van Der Grinten, B. Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 2016, 33, 308–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Defourny, J.; Nyssens, M. Conceptions of Social Enterprise and Social Entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and Divergences. J. Soc. Entrep. 2010, 1, 32–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prahalad, C.K. The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, 5th ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Tukker, A. Eight types of product–service system: Eight ways to sustainability? Experiences from SusProNet. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2004, 13, 246–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Velter, M.; Bitzer, V.; Bocken, N.; Kemp, R. Sustainable Business Model Innovation: The role of Boundary Work for multi-stakeholder alignment. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 247, 119497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Visser, W.; Kymal, C. Integrated value creation (IVC): Beyond corporate social responsibility (CSR) and creating shared value (CSV). J. Int. Bus. Ethics 2015, 8, 29–43. [Google Scholar]
- Meijer, L.; Schipper, F.; Huijben, J. Align, adapt or amplify: Upscaling strategies for car sharing business models in Sydney, Australia. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2019, 33, 215–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iansiti, M.; Levien, R. Strategy as ecology. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2004, 82, 68–78. [Google Scholar]
- Moore, J.F. Business Ecosystems and the View from the Firm. Antitrust Bull. 2006, 51, 31–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Pfitzer, M.; Bockstette, V.; Stamp, M. Innovating for Shared Value: Companies that Deliver both Social Benefit and Business Value Rely on Five Mutually Reinforcing Elements. Available online: https://hbr.org/2013/09/innovating-for-shared-value (accessed on 30 January 2020).
- Krantz, R. A New Vision of Sustainable Consumption: The Business Challenge. J. Ind. Ecol. 2010, 14, 7–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bocken, N.M.P.; Antikainen, M. Circular Business Model Experimentation: Concept and Approaches. 2018. Available online: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-04290-5_25 (accessed on 31 January 2020).
- Bidmon, C.M.; Knab, S.F. The three roles of business models in societal transitions: New linkages between business model and transition research. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 178, 903–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolton, R.; Hannon, M. Governing sustainability transitions through business model innovation: Towards a systems understanding. Res. Policy 2016, 45, 1731–1742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Kemp, R. Technology and the transition to environmental sustainability. Futures 1994, 26, 1023–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geels, F.W. The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: A multi-level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860–1930). Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag. 2005, 17, 445–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelson, R.R.; Winter, S.G. In Search of Useful Theory of Innovation. Res. Policy 1977, 6, 36–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dosi, G. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Res. Pol. 1982, 11, 147–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rip, A.; Kemp, R. Technological Change. In Human Choice and Climate Change; Rayner, S., Malone, L., Eds.; Resources and Technology; Batelle Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1998; Volume 2, pp. 327–399. [Google Scholar]
- Loorbach, D. Transition Management for Sustainable Development: A Prescriptive, Complexity-Based Governance Framework. Governance 2010, 23, 161–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rotmans, J.; Kemp, R.; Van Asselt, M. More evolution than revolution: Transition management in public policy. Foresight 2001, 3, 15–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kemp, R.; Loorbach, D.; Rotmans, J. Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution for sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2007, 14, 78–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Kauffman, S. At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self–Organization and Complexity; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Voß, J.-P.; Smith, A.; Grin, J. Designing long-term policy: Rethinking transition management. Policy Sci. 2009, 42, 275–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meadowcroft, J. Engaging with the politics of sustainability transitions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2011, 1, 70–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Planko, J.; Cramer, J.M.; Chappin, M.M.; Hekkert, M.P. Strategic collective system building to commercialize sustainability innovations. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 2328–2341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Van De Ven, H. The development of an infrastructure for entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 1993, 8, 211–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van De Ven, A.H. Running in Packs to Develop Knowledge-Intensive Technologies. Mis Q. 2005, 29, 365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pel, B. Trojan horses in transitions: A dialectical perspective on innovation ‘capture’. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2015, 18, 673–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jhagroe, S.; Loorbach, D. See no evil, hear no evil: The democratic potential of transition management. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2015, 15, 65–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loorbach, D.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Avelino, F. Sustainability Transitions Research: Transforming Science and Practice for Societal Change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2017, 42, 599–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diepenmaat, H. Trinity: Model-Based Support for Multi-Actor Problem Solving; Applied to Environmental Problems. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Diepenmaat, H.B.; Te Riele, H. In Dutch: Boven het klaver bloeien de margrieten. Een maatschappelijk netwerk voor innovaties richting duurzaamheid, (Above the Clover Flower the Daisies. A Societal Network for Sustainable Innovations); Actors Procesmanagement: Zeist, The Netherlands, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Wielinga, B.J.; Schreiber, A.T.; de Greef, P. Synthesis Report. Esprit Project P1098, Deliverable Y3; University of Amsterdam: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Kemp, R.; Ramani, S. Solution design through a stakeholder process as a new perspective for Environmental Economics with illustrations from Indian case studies. In A Research Agenda for Environmental Economics; Ruth, M., Ed.; Edward Eldgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Diepenmaat, H. Multi-Actor Procesmanagement in Theorie en Praktijk; (Serie Maatschappij in Perspectief); Parthenon: Almere, The Netherlands, 2011; Volume IV. [Google Scholar]
- Popper, K.R. The Myth of Framework; Routledge: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Newell, A. The knowledge level. Artif. Intell. 1982, 18, 87–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceschin, F.; Gaziulusoy, I. Evolution of design for sustainability: From product design to design for system innovations and transitions. Des. Stud. 2016, 47, 118–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bos, A.P.; Grin, J. ‘Doing’ Reflexive modernization in pig husbandry: The hard work of changing the course of a river. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2008, 33, 480–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grin, J. Reflexive modernization as a governance issue: Or designing and shaping re-structuration. In Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development; Voß, J.-P., Bauknecht, D., Kemp, R., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2006; pp. 57–81. [Google Scholar]
- Bos, A.; Koerkamp, P.G.; Gosselink, J.; Bokma, S. Reflexive Interactive Design and its Application in a Project on Sustainable Dairy Husbandry Systems. Outlook Agric. 2009, 38, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Rankin, J. European Parliament Votes to Ban Single-Use Plastics. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/27/the-last-straw-european-parliament-votes-to-ban-single-use-plastics (accessed on 30 January 2020).
- Diepenmaat, H. Ruggengraat voor het klimaat, Advies voor de Borgingscommissie Energieakkoord voor duurzame groei. (A Backbone for the Climate, Advice for the Guarantee Committee of the Energy Agreement for Sustainable Growth); Actors Procesmanagement: Zeist, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Huguenin, A.; Jeannerat, H. Creating change through pilot and demonstration projects: Towards a valuation policy approach. Res. Policy 2017, 46, 624–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagner, P. Modernity as Experience and Interpretation: A New Sociology of Modernity; Polity Press: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Kemp, R.; Strasser, T.; Davidson, D.; Avelino, F.; Pel, B.; Dumitru, A.; Kunze, I.; Backhaus, T.; Haxeltine, A.; O’Riordan, T.; et al. The humanization of the economy through social innovation. In Proceedings of the SPRU 50th Anniversary Conference and IST2016 Conference, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 24–26 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Kivimaa, P.; Kern, F. Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Res. Policy 2016, 45, 205–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
|Rondeel Eggs||In the case of Rondeel eggs, five functionalities are being combined: animal well-being, compact use of space, the collection of eggs should be labor-extensive, efficient removal of chicken manure, affordable price for consumers. With the help of design thinking and multi-actor management, the five requirements were all met. Animal well-being had to be determined, which was done on the basis of animal behavior studies and discussions with environmental groups about animal well-being. The support of animal well-being groups helped to win over support from consumers and the higher retail price for the eggs paid for the extra costs in connection to the newly built system and use of more healthy chicken feed. The eggs are packaged in compostable package material based on potato flour, in an eye-catching design. The eggs are sold directly to a big retailer (AH) where they are part of the “pure and fair” product line, in which they are sold for an extra price of 10 cents per egg.|
|Sustainable Packaging||As the biggest market segment in the plastics industry, the packaging is under much pressure because of (a.o.) oceanic plastic pollution and the emerging awareness of the negative impacts of micro and nano plastics. In determining the meaning of sustainable packaging, different approaches are possible. The firm could start with rethinking individual packaging. This, however, leads to an incremental improvement on the product level. Spanning the boundary to product-packaging combinations enhances the transformative character of innovation. More sustainable individual packaging and product-packaging combinations can be achieved by cross-sectoral collaborations, in which producers and packaging experts play an important role. However, when lifting the discussion to the level of the unsustainability of our production-consumption chains and their enormous societal benefits, the true societal scope of innovating our current production-consumption chains, including packaging, comes to the surface. Turning our current production-consumption systems into sustainable systems while maintaining its societal benefits requires the additional involvement of consumers, governments, companies, knowledge institutes and intermediaries. At this societal system level, producers and packaging experts are participants in a far larger team, rather than in charge. The question is who should take up the glove to organize and further these massive cooperative societal innovations.|
|Wood as Construction Material||Concrete is responsible for 8% of CO2 emissions, far above those from aviation. In houses and many other buildings, concrete can be replaced by wood-based (or wood-supported) constructions. Combined with forestation, wood helps to reduce carbon by capturing carbon from the air (thus serving as a negative carbon resource). When done properly, wood use could serve goals such as climate adaptation and eco-system improvement, when not done properly, it could result in unattractive forests with low resilience. Sustainable wood use is thus connected with carbon compensation reforestation schemes, sustainable forestry and deliberate attempts to bring benefits to local communities living in and around forests, something that requires special attention, care and solution design thinking . In addition, houses can be designed for re-use of materials and for more communal ways of living. Different configurations are possible, allowing for place-sensitive solutions that cater to local needs and circumstances.|
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Diepenmaat, H.; Kemp, R.; Velter, M. Why Sustainable Development Requires Societal Innovation and Cannot Be Achieved without This. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1270. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031270
Diepenmaat H, Kemp R, Velter M. Why Sustainable Development Requires Societal Innovation and Cannot Be Achieved without This. Sustainability. 2020; 12(3):1270. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031270Chicago/Turabian Style
Diepenmaat, Henk, René Kemp, and Myrthe Velter. 2020. "Why Sustainable Development Requires Societal Innovation and Cannot Be Achieved without This" Sustainability 12, no. 3: 1270. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031270