2. Transformation Pleas and Governance Approaches for Achieving This
- Does the project offer a contribution to a societal problem (challenge)? Which challenge is this?
- Is it informed by a vision of sustainable mobility? Is it designed to learn about this vision?
- Is it part of a transition path? If so, what path?
- Is it oriented towards demonstration or learning? Does it learn about sustainability aspects, markets, how various actors may be enrolled and how the project may be scaled up?
3. Quest for a New Social Contract
“The core philosophy of a social contract, as articulated by Aristotle, Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, Kant, Rawls and other political philosophers, emphasizes an implicit arrangement between citizenry, their respective societies, and legitimate government to create a healthier and safer society together. Social Contract theory states that legitimate, collective governance arrangements should be informed by the consent of the people (Weale, 2004), and this theory, therefore, informs our modern concepts of democracy. The question remains, however, if a social contract focused on individualism, materialism, privatisation, short-termism, the free market, and with a singular focus on economic growth, while paying little attention to social and ecological values, can adequately respond to the challenges of the 21st century. As Albert Einstein said, “we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them”. The fact that ecological vulnerability translates into social and economic vulnerability, and a complex set of security and justice challenges, is an important omission in Social Contract theory, and political theory and economics more in general” .
“Nature has had little or no intrinsic value for most (but not all) Social Contract theorists” .
“Increasing wealth inequality, financial crises, ecological crisis, climate change, trade wars, migration issues, and even vulnerabilities to the coronavirus pandemic (related to global dependencies and interconnectedness), can be traced back to two common denominators: First, the schism between humans and nature and the dominant anthropocentric worldview that arose during the Enlightenment era. Additionally, second, the capitalist economic logic and in particular the unsustainability of infinite economic growth in a finite world and belief in the infallibility of the free market that arose after the Second World War” .
“Since the 1970s, many Western countries have too easily subscribed to an economic model that if the market arranges it, then it is better and more efficient. However, this has left us with market-based societies characterized by individualism and self-interest, materialism, privatisation, short-termism, and a dogmatic focus on profit and economic growth. The result diminishes social and ecological values and instead prioritizes excessive production, consumption and depletion of our natural resources and raw materials. This decades-long focus has resulted in loss of biodiversity and key ecosystem functions, as well as environmental degradation, and the depletion of natural resources and raw materials. We now experience first-hand that ecological vulnerability translates into economic and social vulnerability, and a complex set of security and justice challenges.” .
4. Four Proposals for Transition Policy
- Transition policy is often too sectoral, so that it does not take sufficient advantage of other agendas. Dutch policy between 2001 and 2009 was judged to be inconsistent  and not very democratic ). Attention to the contradictions between various agendas (sustainability, liberalization and democracy) helps to achieve better results, with the help of interministerial coordination, evaluative research into policy interaction effects  and integrated approaches for regional development based on multiple value creation (such as the Markemodel or Midden-Delflandmodel).
- Choices of instruments, direction and implementation matters receive too little attention. The Netherlands has high policy ambitions about a circular economy. Provinces have a circular agenda, but there is little power and money behind it. There are five ‘transition agendas’ and agreements such as the Plastic Pact and the Concrete Agreement, but voluntary action is paramount. Current innovation policies and mission-driven agendas are illustrative of the old-fashioned and blind belief that everything can be solved by stimulating technology, and therefore do not provide a sufficient basis for social innovation. A positive example is this regard is the Integrated Circular Economy Report (ICER), which provides an overview of the state of play of the transition to a circular economy in the Netherlands. The report describes actions by social parties and provides guidelines for government policy. As noted by EGT and transition management scholars, transition endeavours have to be institutionalized (via laws, agencies responsible for monitoring and evaluation) and should go beyond a push strategy by giving attention to strategic uncertainty, complex mutual dependence and a polyarchic power distribution in which partial interests have de facto veto power.
- Too little attention is paid to the unrest that transitions entail. Many voters do not like the unrest inherent in transitions. Marc Oosterhout says that “Voters don’t like change; they are conservative by nature. They are for safety and security. You see this, for example, with technological innovations. They only succeed if innovations are in line with recognizable routines. Of course, you can change people and move them to new behavior, but that almost always goes through the way of certainty and trust.” (https://www.volkskrant.nl/columns-opinie/opinie-de-kiezer-houdt-niet-van-verandering-dus-moet-links-juist-vertrouwen-bieden~b2bfef86/) (accessed on 14 March 2021) A commitment to a just transition helps to win support and pre-empt resistance. This can be achieved through projects of co-creation and (de facto) regulations that the benefits of renewable energy projects (solar panels and wind turbines on farmers land) are distributed fairly. However, even that may not be enough to take away feelings of anxiety. According to research by Kennedy and Givens : “participants in higher social classes experience environmental concern in a way that is consistent with a broader sense of competency and control to positively shape the world around them, including the natural environment”, whereas “those in lower social classes experienced environmental concern in a way consistent with their broader sense of lacking power to influence their surroundings”. This shows that there are also limits to an anxiety-reducing approach.
- More attention is needed for the adaptation of structures. Sustainable development can never be achieved through technology alone. Structures need to be overhauled , all innovation and transition researchers agree on this, but little is done with this insight. The triple helix model (cooperation between governments, knowledge institutions and companies for (open) innovation) works excellently for high-tech innovations but is not a good model for sustainability transitions , because it makes little or no use of civil society organizations and citizens, who are active in the hybrid sphere. Involvement of civil society organizations ensures that moderately sustainable options (such as biomass for energy production) are identified as such and that the capacity for change of civil organizations is used. Stimulating interdisciplinary research ensures that social science knowledge is used more and better.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
- Van Assche, K.; Beunen, R.; Duineveld, M. Evolutionary Governance Theory: An Introduction; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; p. 5. [Google Scholar]
- Allina-Pisano, J. Post Soviet Potemkin Villages. Politics and Property Rights in the Black Earth; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Verdery, K. The Vanishing Hectare: Property and Value in Postsocialist Transylvania; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- O’Brien, K.; Hayward, B.; Berkes, F. Rethinking Social Contracts: Building Resilience in a Changing Climate. Ecol. Soc. 2009, 14, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Schellnhuber, H.J.; Messner, D.; Leggewie, C.; Leinfelder, R.; Nakicenovic, N.; Rahmstorf, S.; Schlacke, S.; Schmidt, J.; Schubert, R. World in Transition: A Social Contract for Sustainability; Flagship Report; WBGU: Berlin, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Jennings, B. Ecological Governance: Toward a New Social Contract with the Earth; West Virginia University Press: Morgantown, WV, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Huntjens, P. Sociale Innovatie voor een Duurzame Samenleving: Op weg naar een Natuurlijk Sociaal Contract; Lectorale boek, IMPACT Lectoraat Sociale Innovatie in het Groene Domein; Hogeschool Inholland: Delft, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Huntjens, P. Towards a Natural Social Contract: Transformative Social-Ecological Innovation for a Sustainable, Healthy and Just Society, 1st ed.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; ISBN 978-3-030-67129-7. [Google Scholar]
- Omtzigt, P.H. Een Nieuw Sociaal Contract; Prometheus: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Shafik, M. What We Owe Each Other; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Ostrom, E. Understanding Institutional Diversity; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Huntjens, P.; Lebel, L.; Pahl-Wostl, C.; Camkin, J.; Schulze, R.; Kranz, N. Institutional design propositions for the governance of adaptation to climate change in the water sector. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2012, 22, 67–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adger, W.N.; Quinn, T.; Lorenzoni, I.; Murphy, C.; Sweeney, J. Changing social contracts in climate-change adaptation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2012, 3, 330–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- O’Brien, K. Global environmental change II: From adaptation to deliberate transformation. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2012, 36, 667–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dryzek, J.S.; Hunold, C.; Schlosberg, D.; Downes, D.; Hernes, H.-K. Environmental Transformation of the State: The USA, Norway, Germany and the UK. Political Stud. 2002, 50, 659–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mintzberg, H. Time for the Plural Sector, Stanford Social Innovation Review. 2015. Available online: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/time_for_the_plural_sector (accessed on 25 November 2021).
- Kemp, R.; Huntjens, P.; Jonkergouw, G. Transitiebeleid na Corona: Het Belang van een Natuurlijk Sociaal Contract’. Coronapapers. 2 July 2021. Available online: https://coronapapers.nl/nieuws-1/nieuws/transitiebeleid-na-corona-het-belang-van-een-natuurlijk-sociaal-contract (accessed on 12 October 2021).
- Weale, A. Contractarian theory, deliberative democracy and general agreement. In Justice and Democracy: Essays for Brian Barry; Dowding, K., Goodin, R., Pateman, C., Barry, B., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2004; pp. 79–96. [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]
- Raworth, K. Doughnut Economics. Seven Ways to Think Like a 21-Century Economist; Random House Business: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Felber, C. Change Everything. Creating an Economy for the Common Good; Bloomsbury Publishing: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Mason, P. Post-Capitalism. A Guide to Our Future; Allen Lane: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Standing, G. A Precariat Chapter. From Denizens to Citizens; Bloomsbury Academic: London, UK, 2015. [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]
- Rosenbloom, D.; Meadowcroft, J.; Cashore, B. Stability and climate policy? Harnessing insights on path dependence, policy feedback, and transition pathways. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 50, 168–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norgaard, R.B. Coevolutionary Development Potential. Land Econ. 1984, 60, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norgaard, R. Development Betrayed: The End of Progress and a Co-Evolutionary Revisioning of the Future; Routledge: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Nelson, R.R. The Co-evolution of Technology, Industrial Structure, and Supporting Institutions. Ind. Corp. Chang. 1994, 3, 47–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Hippel, E. The Sources of Innovation; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Leonard-Barton, D. Implementation as Mutual Adaptation of Technology and Organisation. Res. Policy 1988, 17, 251–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenkopf, L.; Tushman, M. The Coevolution of Technology and Organization. In Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations; Baum, J., Singh, J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1994; pp. 403–424. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Van de Ven, A.H.; Garud, R. The Co-evolution of Technical and Institutional Events in the Development of an Innovation. In Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations; Baum, J.A., Singh, J.V., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1994; pp. 425–443. [Google Scholar]
- Von Tunzelmann, N. Historical Coevolution of Governance and Technology in the Industrial Revolutions. Struct. Chang. Econ. Dyn. 2003, 14, 365–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aarset, B.; Jakobsen, S.-E. Path dependency, institutionalization and co-evolution: The missing diffusion of the blue revolution in Norwegian aquaculture. J. Rural. Stud. 2015, 41, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Kemp, R.; Rotmans, J. The management of the co-evolution of technical, environmental and social systems. In Towards Environmental Innovation Systems; Weber, M., Hemmelskamp, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; pp. 33–55. [Google Scholar]
- Edmondson, D.L.; Kern, F.; Rogge, K.S. The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions. Res. Policy 2018, 48, 103555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kemp, R.; Turkeli, S. Sustainable Development as Redirected Evolution. Insights from Innovation Studies and Ecological Humanities. In Cultures and Local Practices of Sustainability; Valdivieso, G., Casals, A., Vélez, A.E.B., Eds.; UPB: Medellín, Colombia, 2021; Available online: https://repository.upb.edu.co/handle/20.500.11912/9748 (accessed on 25 October 2021).
- Basalla, G. The Evolution of Technology; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Ziman, J. (Ed.) Technological Innovation as an Evolutionary Process; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Schot, J. The Usefulness of Evolutionary Models for Explaining Innovation. The Case of the Netherlands in the Nineteenth Century. Hist. Technol. 1998, 14, 173–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kemp, R.; Schot, J.; Hoogma, R. Regime Shifts to Sustainability through Processes of Niche Formation. The Approach of Strategic Niche Management. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 1998, 10, 175–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ansell, C.; Gash, A. Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2008, 18, 543–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Diepenmaat, H.; Kemp, R.; Velter, M. Why Sustainable Development Requires Societal Innovation and Cannot Be Achieved without This. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Velter, M.; Bitzer, V.; Bocken, N.; Kemp, R. Sustainable business model innovation: The role of boundary work for multi-stakeholder alignment. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 247, 119497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nill, J.; Kemp, R. Evolutionary Approaches for Sustainable Innovation policies: From niche to paradigm? Res. Policy 2009, 38, 668–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sartorius, C.; Zundel, S. (Eds.) Time Strategies, Innovation and Environmental Policy; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- 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 towards sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2007, 14, 78–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Kemp, R. The Dutch energy transition approach. Int. Econ. Econ. Policy 2010, 7, 291–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smits, R.; Kuhlmann, S. The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy. Int. J. Foresight Innov. Policy 2004, 1, 4–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hendriks, C.M.; Grin, J. Contextualizing Reflexive Governance: The Politics of Dutch Transitions to Sustainability. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2007, 9, 333–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Voß, J.-P.; Smith, A.; Grin, J. Designing long-term policy: Rethinking transition management. Policy Sci. 2009, 42, 275–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Loo, F.; Loorbach, D. The Dutch Energy Transition Project (2000–2009). In Governing the Energy Transition. Reality, Illusion or Necessity? Verbong, G., Loorbach, D., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Kern, F.; Howlett, M. Implementing transition management as policy reforms: A case study of the Dutch energy sector. Policy Sci. 2009, 42, 391–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, A.; Kern, F. The transitions storyline in Dutch environmental policy. Environ. Politics 2009, 18, 78–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Susskind, L.; Field, P. Dealing with an Angry Public: The Mutual Gains Approach to Resolving Disputes; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Rodríguez-Carvajal, R.; Moreno-Jiménez, B.; de Rivas-Hermosilla, S.; Álvarez-Bejarano, A.; Vergel, A.I.S. Positive psychology at work: Mutual gains for individuals and organizations. Rev. Psicol. Trab. Organ. 2010, 26, 235–253. [Google Scholar]
- Ryan, L.; Wallace, J. Mutual Gains Success and Failure: Two Case Studies of Annual Hours in Ireland. Ir. J. Manag. 2019, 38, 26–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Islam, S.; Madani, K. Water Diplomacy in Action: Contingent Approaches to Managing Complex Water Problems; Anthem Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- Yasuda, Y.; Hill, D.; Aich, D.; Huntjens, P.; Swain, A. Multi-track water diplomacy: Current and potential future cooperation over the Brahmaputra River Basin. Water Int. 2018, 43, 642–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huntjens, P. Mediation in the Israeli-Palestinian water conflict: A practitioner’s view. In Water Diplomacy in Action: Contingent Approaches to Managing Complex Water Problems; Anthem Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Mazzucato, M. The entrepreneurial state. Soundings 2011, 49, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bos, A.P.; Grin, J. Reflexive interactive design as an instrument for dual track governance. In System Innovations, Knowledge Regimes, and Design Practices towards Sustainable Agriculture; Barbier, M., Elzen, B., Eds.; INRA: Paris, France, 2012; pp. 132–153. [Google Scholar]
- Visser, W. CSR 2.0: Transforming the Role of Business in Society. (Social Space. 26–35. Social Space). 2011. Available online: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lien_research/87 (accessed on 25 October 2021).
- Kristjanson, P.; Harvey, B.; Van Epp, M.; Thornton, P.K. Social learning and sustainable development. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 4, 5–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Folke, C.; Hahn, T.; Olsson, P.; Norberg, J. Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005, 30, 441–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Huitema, D.; Mostert, E.; Egas, W.; Moellenkamp, S.; Pahl-Wostl, C.; Yalçin, R. Adaptive Water Governance: Assessing the Institutional Prescriptions of Adaptive (Co-)Management from a Governance Perspective and Defining a Research Agenda. Ecol. Soc. 2009, 14, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Termeer, C.J.; Dewulf, A.; Lieshout, M.V. Disentangling Scale Approaches in Governance Research: Comparing Monocentric, Multilevel, and Adaptive Governance. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huntjens, P. Water Management and Water Governance in a Changing Climate. Experiences and Insights on Climate Change Adaptation in Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia; Eburon: Delft, The Netherlands, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Huntjens, P.; Pahl-Wostl, C.; Rihoux, B.; Schlüter, M.; Flachner, Z.; Neto, S.; Koskova, R.; Dickens, C.; Kiti, I.N. Adaptive Water Management and Policy Learning in a Changing Climate: A Formal Comparative Analysis of Eight Water Management Regimes in Europe, Africa and Asia. Environ. Policy Gov. 2011, 21, 145–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ison, R.; Blackmore, C.; Iaquinto, B.L. Towards systemic and adaptive governance: Exploring the revealing and concealing aspects of contemporary social-learning metaphors. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 87, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaffin, B.C.; Gosnell, H.; Cosens, B.A. A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: Synthesis and future directions. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rip, A. A co-evolutionary approach to reflexive governance—And its ironies. In Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development; Voss, J.P., Bauknecht, D., Kemp, R., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2006; pp. 82–100. [Google Scholar]
- Leach, M.; Bloom, G.; Ely, A.; Nightingale, P.; Scoones, I.; Shah, E.; Smith, A. Understanding Governance: Pathways to Sustainability. 2007. Available online: https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/20.500.12413/2440 (accessed on 25 October 2021).
- Voß, J.P.; Bornemann, B. The politics of reflexive governance: Challenges for designing adaptive management and transition management. Ecol. Soc. 2011, 16, 9. Available online: https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art9/ (accessed on 25 October 2021). [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Voß, J.-P.; Kemp, R. Sustainability and reflexive governance: Introduction. In Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development; Voß, J.-P., Bauknecht, D., Kemp, R., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2015; pp. 3–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Feindt, P.H.; Weiland, S. Reflexive governance: Exploring the concept and assessing its critical potential for sustainable development. Introduction to the special issue. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2018, 20, 661–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Huntjens, P.; Smits, M.; van den Akker, J. Literatuurstudie voor het Identificeren van Succes- en Faalfactoren voor Natuur-inclusieve Landbouw; SIA-Project Gebiedsgerichte Kansen voor Natuur-Inclusieve Landbouw: Delft, The Netherlands, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Shtaltovna, A.; Van Assche, K.; Hornidge, A.-K. Where Did This Debt Come from? Organizational Change, Role Ambiguity and Development in Rural Khorezm, Uzbekistan. Int. Asienforum 2012, 43, 179–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stavrakakis, Y. Lacanian and the Political; Routledge: London, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Mintzberg, H. Rebalancing Society: Radical Renewal beyond Left, Right, and Center. 2015. Available online: http://www.mintzberg.org/sites/default/files/page/rebalancing_full.pdf (accessed on 25 October 2021).
- O’Leary, M.; Valdmanis, W. Accountable. How We Can Save Capitalism; Penguin Business: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Atkinson, A.B. Inequality: What Can Be Done? Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Van Bavel, B. The Invisible Hand? How Market Economies Have Emerged and Declined since AD 500; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Collier, P. The Future of Capitalism: Facing the New Anxieties; HarperCollins: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Avelino, F.; Wittmayer, J.M. Shifting Power Relations in Sustainability Transitions: A Multi-Actor Perspective. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2015, 18, 628–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martella, J.; Rendon, T.; Schilder, D. System Leaders and System Thinkers. Available online: http://ceelo.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/PLI_System_Thinking2019.pdf (accessed on 25 October 2021).
- Kern, F.; Rogge, K.S. Harnessing theories of the policy process for analysing the politics of sustainability transitions: A critical survey. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2018, 27, 102–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogge, K.S.; Reichardt, K. Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis. Res. Policy 2016, 45, 1620–1635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ostrom, E. Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems. Am. Econ. Rev. 2010, 100, 641–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Mahoney, J.; Thelen, K. A Theory of Gradual Institutional Change. In Explaining Institutional Change. Ambiguity, Agency, and Power; Mahoney, J., Thelen, K., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010; pp. 1–37. [Google Scholar]
- Lawrence, T.B.; Suddaby, R. Institutions and institutional work. In Handbook of Organization Studies, 2nd ed.; Clegg, R., Hardy, C., Lawrence, T.B., Nord, W.R., Eds.; SAGE: London, UK, 2006; pp. 215–254. [Google Scholar]
- Velter, M.G.E.; Bitzer, V.; Bocken, N.M.P. A Boundary Tool for Multi-Stakeholder Sustainable Business Model Innovation. Circ. Econ. Sustain. 2021, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scharmer, O. The Essentials of Theory U: Core Principles and Applications. 2018. Available online: https://www.amazon.com/Essentials-Theory-Core-Principles-Applications/dp/1523094400 (accessed on 25 October 2021).
- Dijk, M.; Iversen, E.; Klitkou, A.; Kemp, R.; Bolwig, S.; Borup, M.; Møllgaard, P. Forks in the Road to E-Mobility: An Evaluation of Instrument Interaction in National Policy Mixes in Northwest Europe. Energies 2020, 13, 475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Kennedy, E.H.; Givens, J.E. Eco-habitus or Eco-powerlessness? Examining Environmental Concern across Social Class. Sociol. Perspect. 2019, 62, 646–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Brien, K.L.; Wolf, J. A values-based approach to vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2010, 1, 232–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. The competitive advantage of corporate. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2002, 80, 56–68. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- 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]
- Susskind, L.; Cruikshank, J. Anticipate the problems of following through. In Breaking Robert’s Rule: The New Way to Run Meetings, Build Consensus, and Get Results; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 130–132. [Google Scholar]
- Huntjens, P.; de Man, R. Water Diplomacy: Making Water Cooperation Work. Policy Brief. 2017. Available online: https://www.planetarysecurityinitiative.org/sites/default/files/2017-04/PB_Water_Diplomacy_WG_4.pdf (accessed on 25 October 2021).
- Velter, M.; Bitzer, V.; Bocken, N.; Kemp, R. Boundary work for collaborative sustainable business model innovation: The journey of a Dutch SME. J. Bus. Models 2021, 9, 36–66. [Google Scholar]
- Ashford, N.A.; Hall, R.P.; Arango-Quiroga, J.; Metaxas, K.A.; Showalter, A.L. Addressing Inequality: The First Step beyond COVID-19 and towards Sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Polanyi, K. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, 2nd ed.; Beacon Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Sandel, M. Niet Alles Is te Koop: De Morele Grenzen van Marktwerking; Uitgeverij Ten Have: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Mayntz, R. Governing Failures and the Problem of Governability: Some Comments on a Theoretical Paradigm. In Modern Governance. New Government-Society Interactions; Kooiman, J., Ed.; SAGE: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Peter, B.G.; Pierre, J. Multi-Level Governance and Democracy: A Faustian Bargain? Bache, I., Flinders, M., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2004; pp. 75–92. [Google Scholar]
|Institutional Design Principle||Explanation|
|Adaptive, reflexive and deliberative approaches to governance||Governance taking account of ambivalence, complexity, uncertainty, and distributed power in societal change.|
|Equal and fair (re-)distribution of risks, costs and benefits||Through the involvement and strong representation of groups and stakeholders who will be affected or are particularly vulnerable.|
|Arrangements for collective decision-making||To enhance the participation of groups and stakeholders in decision-making processes.|
|Reflexive monitoring||This provides a foundation for reflection and social learning, while at the same time supporting accountability.|
|Conflict prevention and resolution mechanisms||Prevention and resolution of conflicts is possible through a variety of mechanisms, such as appropriate benefit sharing arrangements, mutual gains approach, timing and careful sequencing, transparency, building trust, and sharing or clarifying tasks, powers and responsibilities.|
|Embedded activities/polycentric governance||Governance and management at a level of scale that does the most justice to the complexity of socio-ecological systems. For example, in European law this is similar to the principle of subsidiarity: social and political issues should be addressed at the most immediate or local level.|
|Policy learning||By exploring uncertainties, considering alternatives and ‘reframing’ problems and solutions, as well as policy experimentation: a deliberate and coordinated activity (e.g., pilot projects) to develop and test new policy alternatives.|
|Key Characteristics||Old Economy/Social Contract||Well-Being Economy/Natural Social Contract|
|Overarching goal of the social contract||Protection (e.g., of property rights), maintenance of order, individual freedom||Broad welfare, through human security, social and environmental justice and planetary health. Well-being is pursued in less materialistic ways.|
|Worldview||Anthropocentric. People work for pay which allows us to consume.||Ecocentric or Earth-centric (people and society as part of larger ecosystem, that of planet Earth). Labour is a source of uplifting instead of a drag.|
|Vision of individual||Homo Economicus: a rational person who pursues wealth|
for his own self-interest; individual isolated from others.
|Homo Ecologicus: a model of human behaviour that is characterised by ecological consciousness and care for the well-being of others and the natural environment. It does not deny that people can be selfish and driven to material gains (Homo Economicus) but says that this denies another reality, of people being social and dependent on nature for their well-being.|
|Development paradigm||Neoliberalism: government is responsible for creating the underlying conditions that the free market requires in order to flourish||Hybrid sphere: collaboration between governments, businesses, knowledge institutions, civil society, and an important role for citizenship, characterized by penta-helix models and based on multiple value creation.|
|Policy concerns||Security and economic opportunity||Empowerment, social justice based on equity, environmental security and justice, planetary health|
|Response to climate change||Green growth and green technology (mostly large scale). Carbon capture and storage as important solution.||Cooperatives and platforms to ensure that costs and benefits of energy transition are fairly distributed|
|Innovation models||Triple Helix, shared value creation||Penta helix models based on multiple value creation, and Presencing/Theory U (Based on the work of Claus Otto Scharmer.)|
|Basis for social relations||Utilitarian||Mutual respect, solidarity, togetherness, social and environmental stewardship|
|Vision of society||Individualistic||Society is a social-ecological system, and individual considered in relation to social environment (human life is group life) and natural environment|
|View on the natural environment||Ecosystem is a black box; Natural resources to be used exclusively by humans, to serve the needs of humanity||Earth is the whole of which humans are subservient (but impactful) parts. Institutional and economic design based on natural design principles.|
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© 2022 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).