Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper seeks to develop the notion of a Natural Social Contract (NSC) to enable transformative governance based on co-evolution. In a nutshell, to quote, the NSC “involves the fine-tuning of top-down policy and visions with important bottom-up processes (…), and takes place in a hybrid sphere, in which there is room for collaboration between governments, businesses, knowledge institutions and civil society, among others, characterized by Penta-helix models and based on multiple value creation”. Because of this collaborative, polycentric approach, the papers draw on Evolutionary Governance Theory, and develops a perspective of “co-evolutionary steering of interrelated transitions”. The paper’s aspiration is clear and laudable; yet its elaboration is wanting. My recommendation therefore leans towards a strong ‘revise and resubmit’, based on these five points.

First, my main problem is that the paper reads as a compilation of manifestos, rather than one argumentative thread. From begin to end, the paper presents a mix of literature review and substantive argumentation, plus some examples. My recommendation is to set out a clearer agenda, in which the first part delves into the literature to explain the key issue, key concepts and key dilemmas, and a second part presents solutions and directions meeting the key questions and dilemmas. In brief, the paper warrants more focus, edge and structure.

A second point is the limited elaboration of the social contract, including the natural aspect. A social contract, as explained, consists of a consensual, value-based deal underpinning an institutional governance arrangement. Fig2. moreover, details many aspects. What remains unclear and implicit, however, is the form and operationalisation of such contract. How is the social contract articulated; how is consent manifested? How does one conceive and apply natural ‘design principles’ (669)? This also involves a question of scale: how do agreements at project level chime with societal notions of Social Contracts? How does a project mission contribute to a broader social contract? Much of the joining forces in the hybrid sphere between institutional domains may be primarily instrumental (pooling resources, aligning interests, preventing holdups), below the scope of an (aspired) social contract. What kind of hybrid practices gave shape to the latter? And how then is the aspect of nature taken on board?

A third point concerns the link between theory and practice. The paper’s general, theoretical story is very broad and ambitious, using an extensive, abstract and complex vocabulary. Much of this, moreover, is action-oriented, pointing out major carriers and direction of change. Two cases serve as quick illustrations, loosely underwriting some key statements. This presents, in my view, too much of a gap. The paper could do more to translate the general aspects of transformative governance into more specific project aspects, as an evaluative framework for debating the cases.

Fourth, the section on co-evolution warrants serious re-thinking. Rather than elaborating the notion and development of NSC, this section largely discusses co-evolutionary approaches, with emphasis on discursive aspects (e.g., metaphors, open concepts and master signifiers). While the section aims to uncover the generative mechanisms behind a ‘transition to a Natural Social Contract’, it lacks focus and thread. In the section, NSC is presented as a ‘master signifier’ (345) and the orientation of governance actors (536) towards the ‘well-being economy’ (Table 1); NSC is also associated with alternative business models (443) and integral and robust forms of transition (554-581); NSC is said to need horizonal governance as well as Transformative Social-Ecological Innovation (TSEI). This raises two basic problems. One, the definition and position of NSC in this conceptual medley remains vague. Two, the nature and form of evolutionary variation, selection and dynamics remain unclear. Co-evolution is now associated with all kinds of change-in-tandem, social-sustainable, different institutional actors, discursive items, etc. One wonders whether the notion of transformative change really warrant this evolutionary perspective.

Following on the latter, my final point concerns the relation between transformative change and NSC. One the one hand, the paper trumpets collaboration, joint principles and responsibilities, mutual trust, etc. On the other, the paper also refers to vested (eg ‘carbon’) interests (38, 619), strong voters’ resistance (574), policy holdups (507) and opposition from disadvantaged groups (118). I would suggest the paper can delve deeper into the question of how the NSC can help to meet and overcome such resistances, and to bring forces of change and resistance more in line in the story.

Source citations are sometimes unclear, as they refer to “cf.” items and lack page numbers

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I thank the opportunity to evaluate this article, which I really enjoyed reading. The article brings a current theoretical discussion, putting into dialogue the debates of sustainability and public governance, defending the idea of a co-evolutionary governance that can put into practice a "Natural Contract", as proposed by the authors. However, the paper in many parts takes an extreme normative tone that weakens its scientific contribution. It is important that the authors give more emphasis on the scientific evidences of what they defend and anchor their argumentation in such evidences, whether theoretical or empirical. In particular it is recommended:

1) Make the problematization clearer, exploring what motivates the proposed theoretical study and in which previous studies it is anchored. In particular, it is suggested to start from a systematic review on the studies that bring together co-evolutionary governance and the issue of sustainability, discussing what is the scientific advance of the proposition put forward here and how it enriches the current debate on these issues.

2) Remove from the problematization the "normative-prescriptive" tone starting from questions and nuisances that justify the study and from gaps in the literature. I am referring to universal and generalist statements with a "should be" tone that do not fit well with a scientific article, like the one in lines 51 to 54, among many others in the article.

3) Make clearer and more explicit how the article meets the proposed problematic and responds to the gaps found in the debate, including raising the limits of such proposition.

4) Further problematize the discussions/debates that are being mobilized in the article. The theoretical debates and the literature on "social contract", "public governance" and "sustainability" are vast and controversial. It is important that the authors also go into the challenges, the difficulties, the dilemmas in these debates. To mention just one aspect, the text makes little or no reference to the differences and nuances between the realities and contexts of the countries of the North and the South, nor to the relationship between sustainability and social inequalities or between sustainability and democracy. Only in these aspects it is possible to bring several elements that problematize the discussion and show that there is not a single path or model for building public governance that favors sustainability.

5) In terms of the debate on public governance it would be important to insert the discussion of co-evolutionary governance not only ideally, but also exploring the differences between this theoretical proposition and other forms of governance already discussed in the literature as collaborative governance (Ansell and Gash, 2015), for example. Such an approach could help to better see the authors' contributions and the difference of this contribution to what has already been discussed about public governance, a debate that is nowadays quite robust.

6) Empirical cases are very relevant, but are placed as "mere examples" without delving into the challenges and difficulties lived in practice. In this sense, it is not clear the relationship between the propositions presented by the authors in section 4 and the empirical or even theoretical evidences presented in the article. I suggest to improve the interface between the propositions presented and what comes before in the text.

We want to sincerely thank you for your interest in the Sustannability and for sharing your work with us. I hope this review will encourage your work and the improvement of the text.

Best regards

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents quite an interesting discussion.

The case at local and regional levels are well developed, but the discussion at international level seems poor, maybe the authors could exclude this mentioned focus o the Introduction

I'll suggest a format review in the figures and their quotations, as well as the box and the table. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper has much improved, also because its scope is clearer.  I am still puzzled about the selection aspect of EGT, notably the specific roles of metaphors, open concepts and master signifiers play here (as objects and agents of selection) - particularly now NCS has been presented as a master signifier. But that may be for a later argument. Language is generally okay. The argument could certainly be presented more succinctly, and there is a need for a light language wash ("with the? coevolution", "health care", "es"  etc....)

Author Response

See attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made a visible effort of revision, introducing new sections and discussing better the debates on which their arguments are based. I don't see a problem in a theoretical article to be normative, however some problems in the paper remain and it still need a revision to be published. Specialy it needs better clarity in terms
of focus and structure. Here are my recommendations:

1) The text puts in relation 03 new notions that need to be better related by the authors: evolutionary/transformative governance, transformative socioecological innovation and natural social contract. These notions are proposed by the authors and based on their previous work (since they rely on self-citation). Therefore, it seems essential to me to make it clear in each of the sections of the article that deal with these notions from where they start and how they relate to previous debates to support the authors' arguments. It is also essential to make a better connection between these notions, since the relationship between them is not evident per se.

2) In this sense, I recommend to start with the broader discussion of the natural contract (beggining of session 3), ending with the question of how to put in practice this social contract, what challenges (what is the main focus of this text). The line 160 present this question as: "The big question for steering is: how to initiate and accelerate system changes whose features are not perfectly clear and often times underdeveloped compared to the existing systems? This would make room to bring session 02 that addresses evolutionary/transformative governance to the TSEI.

2) The section 02 "Transformation pleas and approach to achieve this" can be improved. I recommend reviewing the title referring to the governance debate that is
addressed in the section, for example: "Transformative pleas and approaches of
governance to achieve this"...It is also important to better relate/
differentiate the evolutionary governance proposed by authors and the others
discussed in the literature (adaptive, reflexive, deliberative, collaborative,
etc.). The authors cite several debates/definitions/approaches, but do not
position themselves in relation to them, making clear what their
theoretical contribution. I suggest that the authors present the debate
and the different definitions and then present the notion of GE,
relating it to the TSEI.

3) The examples placed in section 03 could compose a section in itself, which sought to relate theory and practical examples (not cases), illustrating the proposed model. It will be nice to put forward the discussion of the conceptual variables of transformative governance proposed.

4) It remains not clear the relationship between the propositions presented by the authors in section 4 and the discutions in other sections. I suggest to improve the interface between the propositions presented and what comes before in the text, specialy linking with the contributions and limites of the proposal to face this challenges.

5) Formal aspects: The text needs a language revision and formatting of the figures to make them more readable. Avoid the excessive use of acronyms and review them throughout the text.

I thank the authors and the editor for this opportunity to review and discuss this interesting paper and I hope that my comments help to improve the paper. Best regards.

Author Response

See attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx