Transformative Social Innovation as a Guideline to Enhance the Sustainable Development Goals’ Framework

Abstract

To achieve the objectives of reversing ongoing social and environmental degradation, there is an urgent need to accelerate efforts towards more sustainable and regenerative socio-technical systems. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations’ (UN) ambitious 2030 Agenda still face significant challenges. This article explores the role of innovation in accelerating efforts, emphasizing its social and transformative aspects related to governance issues. The research method includes an initial analysis of UN reports on governance challenges. Then, some gaps related to operational aspects are identified in the SDGs’ framework, through a process-oriented view proposed by the authors. The research problem examined from this analysis is whether transformative social innovation (TSI) could help improve the operationalization of SDG indicators. A systematic literature review shows that there are no well-established guidelines to promote TSI in the SDGs’ framework. Based on the findings, this article suggests some targets and indicators linked to TSI to enhance the SDGs’ framework. This study has theoretical and practical implications for future research on leveraging the means of implementation of sustainable development policies.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, there have been numerous warnings about socio-environmental risks [1,2,3], and records for global warming are being broken every year [4]. These are the result of historical processes that have concentrated power and wealth without regard for people and the environment, leading to growing social inequalities [5,6] and environmental degradation [7]. The urgency of the climate crisis highlights the need for companies, governments, and society to accelerate the adoption of sustainable socio-environmental practices to establish economically viable processes that are also socially and environmentally sustainable.

The concept of sustainability originally supported the possibility of continuous economic growth, although it required adapting systems and production processes to improve resource utilization patterns, ensuring future availability and equitable access to goods and services for the entire population [8].

At that time, the concept of eco-development also gained prominence, incorporating not only the balance between economic, social, and environmental aspects but also the territorial dimension. It emphasized that growth should be considered in terms of spatial distribution, instead of in terms of urban concentration, and should respect cultural diversity, acknowledging different possibilities for development strategies based on local cultural specificities [9].

The concept of the triple bottom line, which represented the need to balance economic, social, and environmental aspects of development [10], has recently been reported to be largely ineffective by its own author [11].

There is a sense of disappointment in how companies have embraced sustainability. The triple bottom line has often become a tool for companies to better balance trade-offs rather than fundamentally transforming their production systems and value propositions. The concept has failed as companies continue to prioritize short-term profits, making the planet and people secondary considerations. This sentiment is echoed in the emergence of the ESG concept (environmental, social, and governance), which faces similar challenges [12]. This perspective is supported by the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which indicates persistent trends of increasing carbon emissions and the degradation of natural and human environments, despite advancements in so-called sustainable practices [3].

The transformation of production and consumption systems presents significant complexity and challenges, which some authors have called ‘wicked’ [13]. Innovation processes focused on sustainability are essential levers to accelerate the transformation towards a more comprehensive and systemic view of development.

There has been increasing awareness throughout society about the complex and systemic view of development and its measures, beyond the strict economic point of view, represented by indicators such as gross domestic product (GDP). From the Human Development Index (HDI) to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), despite the conceptual and analytical evolution of development, there are still significant challenges in establishing more sustainable practices that could prevent extreme events associated with climate change.

The initial chapter of the SDGs 2023 report is titled ‘Promise in Peril’, emphasizing the need for greater commitment, solidarity, financing, and action. There have been moderate or severe deviations from the desired trajectory to meet half of the approximately 140 targets that can be assessed along with the 17 SDGs. Additionally, there has not been progress towards over 30% of these targets, or, even worse, markers of these targets have regressed below the 2015 baseline [14]. The following five key areas for urgent action proposed in the report position governments as the main actors in significant movements [14]:

-

Recommitment of governments to seven years of accelerated, sustained, and transformative action, both nationally and internationally;

-

Advances in concrete, as well as integrated and targeted policies and actions to eradicate poverty, reduce inequality and end the war on nature, with a focus on advancing the rights of women and girls and empowering the most vulnerable;

-

Strengthening of national and subnational capacity, accountability, and public institutions to deliver accelerated progress towards achieving the SDGs;

-

Recommitment of the international community to mobilize the resources and investment needed for developing countries to achieve the SDGs, particularly those in special situations and experiencing acute vulnerability;

-

Member States should facilitate the continued strengthening of the UN development system and boost the capacity of the multilateral system to tackle emerging challenges and address SDG-related gaps and weaknesses.

Humanitarian crises, such as military conflicts and refugee displacement, have hindered efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and address the effects of climate change, limiting progress towards achieving the SDGs [15]. Amidst geopolitical tensions, another challenge is to draw the attention of world leaders towards promoting the 2030 Agenda.

While government leaders play a fundamental role in accelerating efforts to tackle the challenge, this article explores a bottom-up perspective. Although using this approach alone might not be enough to reach the goals within the next seven years, it can serve as a stronger means to effect the necessary mindset change in the long term and help build sustainable profiles for new leaders.

The aim of this paper is to enhance the frameworks for promoting and evaluating development through the lens of transformative social innovation (TSI) indicators that can accelerate the achievement of the SDGs.

The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides a theoretical overview of innovation and its social and transformative aspects. Section 3 summarizes historical milestones in development measures and focuses on governance challenges. Section 4 comprises the methodology of the article, including (1) a critical analysis of UN reports about levers to accelerate the implementation of the SDGs; (2) a process-oriented approach to the SDGs, in the form of a strategic map that serves as a framework for identifying gaps in the implementation of the goals regarding TSI; and (3) a systematic literature review that examines experiences and indicators of TSI, as well as related concepts such as social innovation and transformative innovation, in relation to the SDGs. The discussion proposes guidelines for locating indicators at the foundation of the SDGs’ strategic map and new operational indicators and targets linked to TSI processes to facilitate the achievement of the goals. The paper’s concluding remarks emphasize its primary contributions and significant questions for future investigation.

2. Innovation and Transformative Change

Innovation refers to improvements in processes and products and the renewal or recreation of practices that generate greater value for existing processes and products [16]. As Schumpeter noted, innovation is the engine of economic growth [17]. However, this growth has caused various social and environmental distortions over the past centuries. Currently, we need to find an innovative solution that promotes development while also promoting sustainability and equity based on a differentiated perception of value.

There is a growing body of literature exploring possibilities for accelerating innovation with various perspectives that contribute to the transitions to sustainability [18], with emphasis on social participation at the local level.

The multilevel perspective [19] acknowledges that disruptive innovations are more likely to emerge within specific niches of society. It explores ways to transform innovations developed at the micro-level (by individuals and companies) into consistent processes of systemic change, progressing through large-scale institutional frameworks to promote the evolution of sociotechnical structures (production and consumption patterns, policies, and regulations) towards sustainability. Public policies should encourage the development and dissemination of new solutions from society, recognizing grassroots innovation as a source of innovation democracy [20].

The triple helix model [21] emphasizes the necessary interaction between universities, governments, and businesses to achieve successful development strategies through innovative processes. It also underscores the importance of social participation in the transition toward a sustainable and regenerative society. Zhou and Etzkowitz [22] proposed the concept of the twin triple helix to address the need for incorporating sustainability and society into the triple helix model. The twin triple helix involves universities, governments, and the public (society at large) operating alongside the structure of interaction between universities, governments, and companies. This model expands the scope of the triple helix to include the public as a key player in innovation. Universities play a crucial role in generating and promoting social innovations. Governments, on the other hand, must have the ability to translate society’s demands into public policies that serve the collective interest by establishing spaces for knowledge and consensus.

The transformative innovation perspective recognizes the evolution of the concept of innovation across three frames. The first frame focuses on the economic process of innovation, with the aim of improving the productivity, competitiveness, and profitability of firms. The second frame, which emerged in the 1980s, introduces the concept of national innovation systems. It considers the same goals from a national perspective within the context of international competition and globalization. The third frame, inspired by the SDGs, combines technological and social innovation to address societal problems [23].

Social innovation involves creating and implementing products, services, and organizations that can address social needs and establish new forms of relationships and institutions [24,25]. It serves as a foundation for sustainable development [26].

Previous studies have described social innovation as an ill-defined concept or a buzzword [27]. According to some scholars, it has ‘a broad and inconsistent range of meanings’ [28,29] or is a ‘container-concept without any agreed-upon definition’ [30].

Additionally, social innovation is viewed from a multilevel perspective [28]. Social innovations occur at different levels: micro/grassroots, meso, and macro. The micro/grassroots level focuses on solving local issues through social entrepreneurship. The meso level involves partnerships between public and private sectors to foster innovation on a broader scale. The macro level involves more profound changes in attitudes, values, policies, organizational structures, laws, and regulations [31,32].

As the concept is considered a quasi-concept due to the lack of agreement on its definition, effects, causal relations, and a common framework, there are still limits to the development of sound indicators [33]. For the purpose of this article, the understanding of social innovation as ‘innovation in social relations’ [34] is of particular interest because it highlights the importance of bottom-up decision making, inclusiveness, and the empowerment of previously excluded segments of the population [35].

The way people and institutions relate with each other may shift by altering the preferences and incentives of those in power, while considering the needs and interests of previously marginalized participants [36].

In recent years, the concept of transformative social innovation (TSI) has emerged as the “process through which social innovation contributes to transformative change and alters or replaces dominant institutions” in the social context. TSI represents an “irreversible and persistent adjustment in societal values, outlooks, and behaviors” [37,38].

Recent studies in the literature [39] have mapped community-led initiatives linked to SDGs, such as organic, regenerative, agroecological, and cooperative forms of food production at the local level (short food supply chains with direct links between production and consumption), ecovillages, community land, water, renewable energy and finance management, co-housing, and car sharing, among others. These initiatives are examples of TSI experiences and aim to institutionalize non-market logic experiences and new lifestyles and to pressure for transformative change by creating livelihood opportunities that are intrinsically linked with equity, sustainability, and ecological, social, and cultural regeneration. This includes new forms of connection and partnership in multi-actor and translocal networks.

The development of TSI indicators is still in its early stages and presents several challenges due to their inherent complexity [40]. A search on the Scopus and Web of Science databases yielded seven articles that matched the search string “’social innovation’ AND ‘indicator*’ AND ‘SDG*’”, but none of them addressed social innovation indicators. No matches were found for search strings that included the terms “transformative innovation” or “transformative social innovation” together with indicators and the SDGs.

The following section provides a summary of the development measures’ evolution. The purpose is to establish a foundation for further analysis of the gaps that need to be addressed in the SDGs’ framework.

3. Development Measures

In 1990, the Human Development Index (HDI) was created as one of the earliest initiatives to expand the concept of development beyond the economic point of view [41]. The HDI includes indicators of education and health in addition to economic growth, as measured by GDP. This approach was inspired by the work of Sen [42], who argued that development should be assessed based on people’s access to mechanisms that fulfill not only their material needs but also their cultural, environmental, social, and political needs.

In 2001, during the 56th session of the UN General Assembly, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were introduced [43]. These were a set of eight significant global goals adopted by member countries, expanding the scope of what was considered essential aspects of comprehensive development. The MDGs aimed to (1) eradicate hunger and poverty, (2) achieve universal primary education, (3) promote gender equality and empower women, (4) reduce child mortality, (5) improve maternal health, (6) combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases, (7) ensure environmental sustainability, and (8) develop a global partnership for development. These goals were further broken down into 20 targets and 60 indicators.

Although the MDGs faced criticism for their top-down creation and focus on poverty [44,45], it is important to acknowledge their political significance and the commitment they represented towards sustainable development goals. This commitment helped generate more attention and initiatives towards achieving the goals, although not all of them were fully accomplished in certain countries.

The MDGs were to be achieved by 2015 and were later reviewed and renewed. During the period between their launch and deadline, there were intense debates on measuring development beyond economic indicators. The Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress [46] report and the Bellagio Initiative [47] were significant milestones in promoting a systemic view of human progress. These initiatives focused on qualitative indicators and well-being as key concepts for evaluating the success of development strategies.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were formulated based on a much broader debate than the one that generated the MDGs [35] and inspired by global discussions on development measurement. The SDGs consist of 17 goals (

Table 1. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals—SDGs.

No Poverty No Hunger Good Health and Well-Being Quality Education Gender Equality Clean Water and Sanitation Affordable and Clean Energy Decent Work and Economic Growth Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure Reduced Inequalities Sustainable Cities and Communities Sustainable Consumption and Production Climate Action Life below Water Life on Land Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions Partnerships and Means of Implementation

Source: UN [48].

), 169 targets, and over 250 indicators, with a target completion horizon set for 2030. The 2030 Agenda represents a stronger political commitment of UN member countries to sustainable development.

Two of the SDGs (8 and 9) are more related to economic issues. When analyzing the sustainability aspects of these SDGs, through their targets and indicators, it is possible to identify weak links in terms of sustainable practices. For SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), just one target addresses sustainability explicitly (8.4—resource efficiency and decoupling of economic growth from environmental degradation). Five of them are related to equality and justice in job relations, and the ones related to economic issues do not point to transformative change in the economic system.

The same applies to SDG 9, as just one of the targets is explicitly related to sustainability (9.4—CO₂ emission per unit of value added). Other targets suggest some possible relations (9.5—expenditures in research and 9.c—mobile network access, although the relation is not mentioned), and others reproduce business-as-usual indicators, as even when targets use the term “sustainability” in their names, their indicators do not necessarily reflect this.

Other indicators, such as the Global Innovation Index (GII) [49], the Social Progress Index (SPI) [50], the World Happiness Index (WHI) [51], the Gross National Happiness (GNH) index [52], and the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) [53], also contribute to measuring development and progress beyond economic indicators. Each of these aspects brings specific development goals, most of which are closely related to the SDGs, the focus of this article.

4. Searching for Improvements in the SDGs’ Implementation

4.1. Methodological Steps

This sub-section describes the research instruments used to investigate the role of TSI in accelerating efforts towards more sustainable and regenerative socio-technical systems, as discussed in the introduction. Aiming to explore the social and transformative aspects of innovation related to governance issues, the methodology adopted includes several complementary and interconnected steps.

Firstly, from an initial analysis of UN reports on governance challenges, a process-oriented view of the SDGs is proposed by the authors to identify gaps in the Sustainable Development Goals’ (SDGs) framework in terms of operational aspects. This strategic map approach highlights the research problem to be examined, that is, whether transformative social innovation (TSI) indicators can help improve the operationalization of SDG indicators.

Then, a systematic literature review looks for established guidelines to promote TSI within the SDGs’ framework. This literature review also aimed to identify experiences and indicators that could serve as operational guidelines for the means of implementation of the SDGs. The findings of the literature review formed the basis for suggestions of targets and indicators linked to TSI, aiming to enhance the existing framework.

The following sub-sections detail each of the methodological steps adopted in this study, providing a thorough explanation of the procedures, selection criteria, and analyses used to achieve the presented results.

4.2. United Nations’ Propositions on Participation and Partnerships to Foster the SDGs

The 2023 Global Sustainable Development Report [6] proposes five levers to achieve the SDGs: governance, economy and finance, individual and collective action, science and technology, and capacity building. This paper focuses its analysis on governance, collective action, capacity building, and science and technology, with the latter being examined from a social perspective. The financial lever, which deals with the necessary funding for achieving the goals, is not considered in this analysis because it is beyond the scope of this article. The selected levers aim to contribute to SDG 17, called “means of implementation”.

For the governance aspect, the report highlights the significance of grassroots actors in political processes and stresses the need for ‘safe arenas’ to promote new and transformative alliances between traditional and new actors and to improve consensus-building methods.

In terms of individual and collective action, the report emphasizes the importance of engaging all individuals, regardless of their economic and social realities [14,54]. To achieve transformative change, it is necessary to utilize bottom-up social, technological, and institutional innovation, including indigenous knowledge and creativity at the grassroots level and in the informal sector [14,36,55,56]. This will enable the rest of the population to benefit from social innovations.

In science and technology, the UN report primarily focuses on digitalization processes and challenges in bridging connectivity gaps to enhance access to technologies and enable broader societal participation. Instruments that address the social aspects of technology and innovation are needed to improve societal organization. Emphasis is placed on international cooperation to enable research and development to address social, economic, environmental, cultural, and political aspects of transformation, although in reality, there are many difficulties in cooperation between countries.

In terms of capacity building, it is important to recognize that different goals and stages of transformation require distinct capacities. Specifically, the capacities to make strategic decisions and exercise foresight, to innovate and generate alternatives, to engage and negotiate across a broad set of actors, to identify and overcome impediments, and to learn and build resilience are highlighted as the most crucial skills needed in transition processes [14].

Furthermore, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) has released various documents designed to guide partnerships in addressing the SDGs. The “Partnership Accelerator 2030 Agenda” manuals [45,57,58] offer guidance on the types, circumstances, conditions, and methods of engaging stakeholders and structuring partnerships, along with case studies and tools to assess their alignment with the SDGs.

Table 2. Fundamental principles of partnerships.

Significant net value creation; Involvement of key stakeholders; Alignment of interests towards a shared vision; Sufficient compatibility of values for the context; Partners that are empowered and able to contribute; Senior-level commitment and a partnering mindset and skill set.

Source: UN DESA [45].

summarizes the key principles of the “SDGs Partnership Guidebook” [45].

The levers and the fundamentals to partnerships, as TSI practices, are considered vital for cultivating a cultural shift towards sustainability and expediting the implementation of the SDGs. However, when examined within the context of the SDGs’ framework, they are not specified as goals and targets to achieve or indicators to measure.

Given that decision makers typically refer to these guidelines when formulating public policies to address their objectives, this lack of specificity can pose an obstacle to more decisive actions.

4.3. SDGs Organized in a Process-Oriented View

Strategic maps [59] provide a process-oriented view that follows a logical sequence of activities that transforms resources (inputs) into immediate results (outputs), medium-term results or effectiveness (outcomes), and long-term results or effectiveness (impacts) [60,61]. The main goal is to deliver value to customers or citizens, depending on the focus of the map—a business or a government.

A holistic approach to business (or public policy) process management considers processes as supporting the overall strategy, considering cultural aspects and knowledge as well as skills in different domains [62].

According to the strategic maps’ method, companies prioritize their goals based on the following four perspectives: “learning and knowledge”, “internal processes”, “customers”, and “financial”.

This model is also used by various public organizations, to which the perspectives of learning and knowledge and internal processes are fundamental, but with society as their agent and beneficiary. In this case, the customer perspective is replaced by a focus on medium-term results for society (outcomes), and the financial perspective is replaced by a focus on strategic and long-term results for society (impacts), such as collective well-being or a reduction in inequalities, which is analogous to the search for shareholder value [60].

The “learning and knowledge” perspective focuses on aspects such as capacity building, training, internal communication, and team mobilization, which are applicable to both companies and the public sector.

The second perspective, “internal processes”, sets goals related to processes, standards, and supporting systems and technologies for business and government that are the direct results of learning and knowledge activities.

As citizens are both customers and stakeholders in a public view of the balanced scorecard, the customer and financial perspectives intend to deliver results for society, with the former characterized by direct or middle-term results (outcomes) and the latter by long-term or indirect results (impacts).

The customer perspective emphasizes areas such as marketing and sales, customer service, and distribution channels to businesses. In the public sector, this perspective is replaced by aspects that emphasize the results of the internal processes using quantitative indicators, such as economic growth and a sufficient supply of resources for life.

Finally, the financial perspective defines revenue, cost, and profitability goals that are supported by the previous goals. All these objectives are aimed at achieving the strategic goals of the organization as embodied in its mission and vision. From a public sector perspective, these goals can be translated into qualitative indicators and societal interests and missions, such as collective well-being, rather than shareholders’ interests.

Table 3. SDGs organized in a strategic map.

Correspondence to Conventional Strategic Map	Development Perspectives of the SDGs’ Strategic Map	SDGs
Financial/ Shareholder value	Development Impacts/ Long Term Results/ Stakeholder value	3. Well-being
		16. Peace and justice
		13. Global climate
		10. Reduced inequalities
		1. No poverty
Customers	Development Outcomes/ Middle Term Results	3. Good health
		2. Zero hunger
		8. Sustainable economic growth
		11. Sustainable cities and communities
		14. Life below water
		15. Life on land
		7. Affordable and clean energy
		6. Clean water and sanitation
Internal Processes	Development Outputs/ Process Results	12. Sustainable consumption
		12. Sustainable production
		2. Sustainable agriculture
		9. Sustainable industry, innovation and infrasctructure
		8. Decent work
Learning and Knowledge	Development Inputs/ Culture, Learning/ Governance	13. Climate action
		16. Strong institutions
		17. Means of implementation
		17. Partnerships
		5. Gender equality
		4. Quality education

Source: Own elaboration.

shows a strategic map approach to the SDGs, based on a process-oriented view and organized in layers corresponding to the four perspectives. Given that some SDGs cover multiple aspects, we divide the goals into parts assigned to different perspectives of the strategic map, with the corresponding SDG number indicated in the boxes.

For the learning and knowledge perspective, there are aspects related to education (SDG 4), as well as one of the indicators included in SDG 13 (i.e., 13.3—education for sustainability and global citizenship). Gender equality is also important to promote cultural and structural change towards sustainability [63].

In addition, analogous to the team building and communication aspect, the institutional themes related to SDGs 16 and 17 reinforce the education issue. Cultural change is based on better institutions, which are also a consequence of previous cultural change.

The internal process perspective (outputs) considers productive systems, including sustainable industry, infrastructure (SDGs 9 and 12), and sustainable agriculture (SDG 2). The innovation needed to transform these systems (SDG 9) and the issue of work in the context of sustainability (SDG 8) are also included. In addition, the aspect of sustainable consumption (addressed together with production in SDG 12) is considered, in which demand, supported by cultural change, feeds back into more sustainable production processes.

The development outcomes consider the results of the systemic changes presented in the internal processes perspective. These include improvements in the environment, including water and sanitation (SDG 6), aquatic life (SDG 14), and terrestrial ecosystems (SDG 15). Other dimensions include scaling-up clean energy (SDG 7), ending hunger (SDG 2), improving health (SDG 3), sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11), and economic growth resulting from all these prerequisites (SDG 8).

The development impact layer includes the strategic results of the above outcomes, such as reducing inequalities (SDG 10), eradicating poverty (SDG 1), peace and justice (SDG 16), improving climate conditions (SDG 13), and enhancing collective well-being (SDG 3).

This exercise allows for an understanding of the interconnectedness of the SDGs, with strategic goals being achieved through the operation of a complex system of activities in which no aspect can be neglected.

The strategic map proposed in Figure 1 shows that for the implementation of the SDGs, there should be more objectives, targets, and indicators linked to a cultural change that facilitates a new governance for sustainable development, considered in this paper as TSI practices.

The SDG indicators for this purpose are predominantly outcome-based indicators, many of which are based on political will and/or decisions to allocate more of the public budget to initiatives such as education and gender equality. The same is true for institutional goals, as indicators for strong institutions, partnerships, and means of implementation tend to focus on issues such as public safety and corruption in SDG 16 or macroeconomics in SDG 17.

Although the 2030 Agenda states that the SDGs will be implemented by national governments in close partnership with regional and local authorities (presumably including organized civil society) [64], research on indicators that address local action within the SDGs’ framework is still lacking.

While all these aspects are of paramount importance, from a process-oriented perspective, they require action at the grassroots level to ensure the conditions for their achievement.

These observations are corroborated by the UN documents dealing with governance and partnerships for development, as discussed above.

When analyzed within the framework of the strategic map proposed in Table 3, they emerge as the pillars of the systemic transformation defined by the SDGs. They are closely linked to cultural change, learning and knowledge, and new governance and need to be promoted in a coordinated manner.

4.4. TSI and SDGs: A Systematic Literature Review

To achieve the objective of searching for experiences and indicators that could strengthen the SDGs’ framework towards a TSI approach, a systematic literature review was conducted using the Web of Science and Scopus databases. It included titles, abstracts, and keywords, with no restrictions on publication date or source type (e.g., articles, books, and conference proceedings).

The first step was to search for the string (“SDG*” AND (“social innovation” OR “transformative innovation” OR “transformative social innovation”) AND “indicator*”), as previously presented in Section 2. There were only seven articles matching this search string, and none of them dealt with social innovation indicators, confirming previous studies pointing to the difficulty of formulating them [32]. To broaden the scope of the search, the term “indicator(s)” was then excluded, as shown in

Table 4. Literature review results.

Abbreviation	Search String	Returned	Selected by Titles	Selected by Abstract	Selected after Full Reading
TSI	“transformative social innovation” AND (“sustainable development goals” OR “sdg*”)	2	1	1	1
TI	“transformative innovation” AND (“sustainable development goals” OR “sdg*”)	18	13	8	5
SI	“social innovation” AND (“sustainable development goals” OR “sdg*”)	167	99	58	40
Generic	(“sustainab*” AND “innovat*” AND “governance” AND (“indicator” OR “assessment” OR “performance” OR “evaluat*”) AND (“territory*” OR “regional” OR “local”)	87	87	39	18
	Total	274	200	106	64

Source: Own elaboration and based on Petticrew et al. [65].

.

An additional string was included regarding the hypothesis of the existence of experiences related to TSI, but with different definitions. Thus, the string used generic terms expecting to produce the desired results.

The terms used were “sustainability”, “innovation”, “governance”, “indicator”, and “territory”, and the search string was as follows: (“sustainab*” AND “innovat*” AND “governance”) AND (“indicator” OR “assessment” OR “performance” OR “evaluat*”) AND (“territory*” OR “regional” OR “local”).

A first round of selection was based on the titles, from which the articles that fit the purpose of the review were selected. At the stage of reading the abstracts, the analysis focused on the relationship between the keywords and the subject of the paper, the mention of indicators related to the keywords (since the search with the inclusion of the term “indicator” did not return any texts) and the mention of governance issues, since the concept of TSI adopted in this article refers to innovation in social and institutional relations.

Excluding articles that were not fully available, the inclusion criteria in the final selection were the relevance of the keywords of the search strings to the articles, the mention of elements that could contribute to the construction of indicators (or the direct mention of indicators) related to the keywords, and an emphasis on governance issues. The only article found with the TSI string [39] was also found with the SI string, so it was eliminated in the SI selection.

4.5. Results

As shown in Figure 1, there is an increasing number of studies relating social innovation, transformative innovation, and TSI to the SDGs, even in the generic string. The articles that do not directly mention TSIs or SDGs can also be considered in this report, as they all deal with governance aspects of local sustainable development initiatives. This indicates the consistency of the selected sample.

The origin of the studies is still predominantly European, indicating a geographical concentration of research on the topic and a probable limitation due to search restrictions. There should be studies in local journals that are not available in English, which is a task for future studies.

The 64 articles were published in 39 different sources, of which 32 are journals, 3 are book articles, and 4 are event proceedings. One of the journals (Sustainability) is the source of 20 articles (31%), and five other journals appear with more than one article: International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology (3); Infectious Diseases of Poverty (2); International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education (2); Sustainable Development (2); and Environmental Policy and Governance (2). The other 33 sources generally deal with innovation, management, psychology, social sciences, and public policy.

In terms of methodology, 63% of the articles are based on field or case studies (corroborating previous studies) [30], while 20% are literature reviews, 9% are theoretical articles, and 8% use quantitative or inductive analyses. The higher number of field and case studies indicates the diversity of experiences in many areas related to the SDGs.

A general approach to TSI in relation to SDG indicators is present in 65% of the articles, indicating that TSI practices are considered as guidelines that can promote each of the SDGs. There are specific articles focusing on some SDGs, and a significant number of articles focus on governance issues, as shown in

Table 5. Specific SDGs mentioned (directly or not) in the TSI literature review.

Sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11)  Smart urban, rural, and regional landscapes; community development; localization of SDGs	[39,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81]
Education (SDG 4)
Role of universities	[82,83,84,85,86,87]
Sustainability labs	[88,89,90,91,92]
Design thinking methods	[93,94,95]
Sustainable leadership competencies	[96]
Health (SDG 3)	[97,98]
Food production (SDG 12)
Food supply chains	[99,100,101]
Smallholder farming	[102,103]
Energy (SDG 7)	[104,105]
Life below water (SDG 14)	[106]
Gender (SDG 5)	[63]
Governance, Institutions, Means of Implementation (SDG 16/SDG 17)	[23,79,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114]

Source: Own elaboration based on the literature review.

.

The literature review also found articles that focus on the general guidelines and methods linking TSI to the SDGs [28,30,115,116,117,118,119], a deeper theorization of TSI [120], decision support systems to enable social innovation and advance the SDGs [121], the social and solidarity economy as a driver of the SDGs [122], and critical concerns about the foundations of social innovation [35].

The literature confirms a growing interest in TSIs at the local level as a driver for sustainable community development and the achievement of the SDGs. The selected experiences aim to address societal problems through the reconfiguration of social relations and practices, with the active engagement and collaboration of local actors being crucial to their success. This is true not only at the local level, but also for integration at higher geographical scales [69].

The literature is still in the early stages of assessing how, by whom, and under what circumstances these processes of transformative governance [123] and social innovation are carried out [100], emphasizing the importance of bottom-up approaches [64,77,114,121] and the need to involve communities in defining their own strategies and practices for living more sustainably [120]. Tools for multi-stakeholder engagement to improve local sustainable practices have yet to emerge consistently [114]. It was not possible to identify clear and existing indicators that could be immediately suggested to the SDG framework.

Despite that, while acknowledging cultural, organizational, and path-dependent barriers to TSI [66,77,79], there is considerable convergence on the guidelines identified in the literature review. A content analysis shows that most of them relate to the activity level in the strategic map, supporting the idea that improvement in the SDG framework through TSI should focus on these aspects.

The results show that to accelerate the implementation of sustainable actions and achieve the SDGs through bottom-up strategies, the following key features are essential to consolidate arenas in which all key stakeholders are present and active:

• Communication processes can raise awareness and increase transparency and disclosure to stimulate participation [66,70,79,88,101];
• Capacity building for sustainable practices is fundamental to create a more sustainable culture and drive adaptation and systemic transformation [110,118,124], which is being developed through learning and transdisciplinary programs, in universities [82,83,84,86,87], and in communities [39,81,88,104,105,107];
• Some innovative tools for participation in sustainability arenas are also highlighted in the literature, such as design thinking experiences [93,94,95] and open laboratories [84,89,90,91].

All these aspects are emphasized as promoters of the civic engagement of the whole spectrum of stakeholders, including local civil society representatives, in debating and deciding on more sustainable strategies at the local level [66,70,71,76,81,97,104,112,113,114].

Private and public entrepreneurship for TSI [68,69,96,104,109,113] is needed to lead these processes and empower communities [110,124] to understand and work together for sustainability agendas, leading to stronger and more democratic institutions [116]. Beyond the ability to implement and scale-up local sustainable practices, the stronger social capital may put pressure on governments [117] to increase public budgets for the SDGs.

4.6. Discussion

Through these TSI guidelines extracted from the literature, a second strategic map is proposed in

Table 6. TSI indicators and guidelines extracted from the review in the form of a strategic map.

Development Inputs/Culture, Learning/Governance	13. Climate action	17. Partnerships
	16. Strong institutions	5. Gender equality
	17. Means of implementation	4. Quality education
Governance and Impact on Public Policies	Government leadership for sustainability
	Long-term sustainability planning in practice
	Social practices reconfigured
	Systemic view by governments
Secondary Results Expected—Outcomes	Inclusive governance and decision making
	Social capital increased
	Shared view developed
Primary Results Expected—Outputs	Stakeholder proactive engagement	Participation culture enhanced
	Empowerment	Broadness of participation
	Systemic view	Depth of interactions
	Sustainable culture enhanced
Basic Activities	Capacity building for sustainability
	Communication tools and methods for participation
	Stakeholder mapping and inclusiveness of all
	Local leadership, social entrepreneurship

Source: Own elaboration based on the literature review.

, in addition to the map in Table 3. Its main premise is that local TSI activities, essentially governance activities, are crucial to reaching critical mass and fostering advancements in the execution of public policies in favor of the SDGs.

This new map includes the basic activities related to the TSIs to improve the SDG framework as concepts to guide the construction of TSI indicators. Thus, if the first layer of the map on Table 6 is considered as the last layer of this new map, the main activities needed to potentialize the SDGs in terms of culture, learning, and governance are also organized in a process-oriented view.

When examining the SDGs more specifically in relation to the TSI guidelines, there are references to the importance of learning, engagement, and improved institutions in achieving sustainable development. However, a closer analysis of the targets and indicators confirms that not all of them adequately address the actions needed to achieve the goals, as shown in

Table 7. Targets and indicators related to learning, engagement, and institutions in the SDGs.

TARGETS	INDICATORS
4.7—By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship, and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development 13.3—Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning	4.7.1/13.3.1—Extent to which (i) global citizenship education and (ii) education for sustainable development are mainstreamed in (a) national education policies; (b) curricula; (c) teacher education and (d) student assessment
16.7—Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making at all levels	16.7.1—Proportions of positions in national and local institutions, including (a) the legislatures; (b) the public service; and (c) the judiciary, compared to national distributions, by sex, age, persons with disabilities and population groups
	16.7.2—Proportion of population who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive, by sex, age, disability, and population group
17.16—Enhance the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology, and financial resources, to support the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals in all countries, in particular developing countries	17.16.1—Number of countries reporting progress in multi-stakeholder development effectiveness monitoring frameworks that support the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals
17.17—Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships	17.17.1—Amount in United States dollars committed to public-private partnerships for infrastructure

Source: UN [28].

.

In relation to SDG 4 (quality education), it is crucial to strengthen curricula and provide teacher training to integrate sustainability issues and promote cultural change from early childhood. However, preliminary efforts are needed to build a consensus and overcome the challenges posed by traditional curricula, which may not prioritize sustainability. The review found much research on sustainability in higher education, which is consistent with the urgency of cultural change, but also indicates the need to strengthen research on sustainability education at earlier stages and on companies.

Regarding SDG 16 (Strong Institutions), the only indicator related to TSI focuses on the distribution of participation in decision-making processes based on gender, age, ability, and other factors, as well as the population’s perception of the inclusion of different groups. This indicator highlights the importance of inclusive and participatory governance structures. However, it only mentions institutions such as the legislature, public services, and the judiciary, whereas the TSI guidelines point to the importance of empowering civil society and the private sector and the inclusiveness of its institutions.

In addition, achieving the goals of SDG 16, such as reducing violence and corruption and improving human rights, also requires long-term educational and cultural processes. Again, education plays a crucial role in fostering a sense of citizenship, promoting values of transparency, accountability, and respect for human rights, and empowering individuals to actively participate in decision-making processes.

For SDG 17 (Partnerships and Means of Implementation), indicator 17.16.1, which measures reports of multi-stakeholder experiences, provides valuable insights into the mobilization of knowledge to support the achievement of the SDGs. However, it does not capture important aspects, such as investments in capacity building, cultural change, grassroots engagement, and empowerment, which are fundamental to effective transformative partnerships. Promoting partnerships based solely on financial investments in infrastructure overlooks the critical processes of mobilizing and structuring these partnerships.

As highlighted in the review results, there are no clear indicators or databases to access TSI practices identified even when looking for the SDGs and their relations with TSI. Other recognized development indexes, such as the Global Innovation Index, the Social Progress Index, the Worldwide Governance Index, the Happiness Index, and the Gross National Happiness Index also have several indicators pointing to social and environmental results, such as inclusiveness and equality of political power among SPI indicators [50] and community vitality and political participation among GNH indicators [52]. However, none of them address TSI aspects, i.e., basic activities that make social actors to move in sustainable directions.

To address these gaps,

Table 8. Suggested TSI indicators for the SDG framework.

	Suggested Indicators	Related SDG
Governance and Impact on Public Policies	Degree of acceleration for achieving the SDGs	General
	Money invested in sustainability public policies linked to the SDGs	17.17
	Money invested in institutional strengthening and educational programs towards participation	4.7	13.3	17.17
	Number of multistakeholder sustainability plans and degree of execution	17.16
Secondary Results Expected—Outcomes	% of public policies directly related to the SDGs	4.7
	Number of sustainability public policies created with the support of inclusive governance institutions	16.7	17.16
	Institutional density, measured by quantity and quality of institutional relations	16.7	17.16
Primary Results Expected—Outputs	% of decisions originating from proposals by civil society actors	16.7
	Active presence and deliberation of all important stakeholders in the meetings of deliberative instances	16.7	17.7
Basic Activities	% of local civil society representation in the composition of deliberative instances	16.7
	% of local civil society representation in the constitution of deliberative instances	16.7
	Number of people concluding capacitation to participation culture by origin (civil society, private sector, public sector in micro, regional and national scales)	4.7	13.3	16.7
	Number of people concluding capacitation to sustainable culture by origin (civil society, private sector, public sector in micro, regional and national scales)	4.7	13.3	16.7
	Number of people concluding capacitation to social entrepreneurship by origin (civil society, private sector, public sector in micro, regional and national scales)	4.7	13.3	16.7
	Development of efficient communication tools by number of institutional connections and remote deliberations	16.7	17.16
	Money invested in institutional strengthening and educational programs towards participation and sustainability	4.7	13.3	17.17

Source: Own elaboration.

proposes references to the elaboration of complementary targets and indicators within SDGs 4, 13, 16, and 17 that specifically address cultural, educational, and participation issues, drawing on insights from the literature review and filling the gap identified in the SDG framework. These proposed indicators aim to strengthen the process-oriented approach of the SDGs by capturing the actions needed for TSI and systemic change.

They are closely linked to fostering a culture of sustainability and promoting the participation and engagement of different stakeholders in the planning of public policies and business strategies, thereby facilitating a more systemic approach to sustainable development.

They are intended to measure progress and outcomes related to TSI initiatives, as a guide to monitor the pace at which the SDGs are being advanced.

As the proposition of new indicators surely raises questions on data generation, the suggested indicators followed standard guidelines for indicator formulation, including aspects of simplicity, relevance, usefulness, and feasibility of measurement and reporting, with the intention of being “signposts of what urgently needs to be addressed and where” [125] and to reach specific needs at the micro level. Thus, they are proposed in a small number and are meant to be easily quantifiable.

It begins with grassroots activities that mobilize resources to invest in strengthening actions for sustainable practices by improving institutional and networking capacities. Then, in a causal loop, they should promote government action to invest on a larger scale towards the same purpose.

As shown in Table 6, the basic activities are related to communication, education, and capacitation to sustainable practices, with an emphasis on inclusiveness and participation methods and technologies, which need local leadership and entrepreneurship focused on TSI. Simple and measurable indicators should be related to the importance given to fostering these activities, such as the money invested and people involved in sustainable education as well as the degree of interactions between societal actors in favor of transformative alliances.

Primary results such as empowerment and the development of sustainable and participation cultures should be measured by the effective presence and active participation of the most representative as possible social actors in these transformative arenas.

As outputs of these strengthened tools for discussion and deliberation, Table 6 shows concepts such as reconfigured social practices, increased social capital, broadness of participation, proactive engagement, and the depth of interactions. Simple indicators should be related to the degree of relationship that these institutions develop, both quantitatively and qualitatively. The product of the increased interactions can also be measured by the number of propositions that turn into public policies.

As a structural result, the guidelines extracted from the literature were associated with impacts on the political system, such as the dissemination of a more systemic view by the politicians, leading to a more sustainable leadership that drives new governance models and put into practice long-term planning based on sustainability. To effectively scale-up sustainable public policies elaborated by organized society at the grassroots level, the same indicator from the local perspective should be measured, representing the degree to which societal organization penetrates the state and affects the way budgets are allocated.

This complementary framework should be seen to improve the SDG framework so that the TSI guidelines are more rooted and measurable. They focus on the level of grassroots activities, as TSI activities address engagement and governance issues, aiming at a cognitive shift to a systemic view. As these types of activities are promoted, all SDGs can benefit from the promoted dynamics.

As already pointed out in the literature, one possible way to improve the theorization of TSIs is to link them to the SDGs [30]. In this article, a complementary proposal is to ensure that the SDGs are grounded in a process-oriented view of TSI activities, which are considered crucial for accelerating the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. This would not only strengthen the framework of the SDGs but also the efforts to theorize TSI.

5. Conclusions

While the principles of TSI and partnerships advocated by the UN are widely used in different experiences and there is a growing body of literature on TSI and its crucial role in accelerating the implementation of the SDGs, there is a lack of frameworks that link these guidelines to the formal SDG indicators’ framework.

The SDGs are obviously an advance in the way society should consider what is needed to achieve real development that increases the quality of life for all, according to the mantra “leave no one behind”. Nonetheless, as currently presented, the SDGs still have top-down characteristics and depend on governments and political will to be achieved.

The question of how to improve bottom-up strategies and the capacity of grassroots activities remains. But it is also unrealistic at present to expect that governments alone can manage to deal with social and environmental challenges without pressure from society. So, this article suggests some guidelines and indicators to make it clear in development frameworks that TSI should be incorporated in any strategy towards sustainable development.

Introducing prerequisites for bottom-up activities in a process-oriented view can be a way to further empower society to play a greater role in the SDGs, including facilitating the channeling of necessary resources. The UN reports already point to the need to improve the mechanisms to make things happen, which are related to governance structures. However, a clear definition of goals, targets, and indicators to improve partnerships is still lacking.

Aiming to fill the identified gap and facilitate the formulation of more effective public policies, this article proposed a process-oriented vision for the SDG framework that highlights the lack of TSI indicators. This was followed by a literature review, which made it possible to propose general guidelines for improving the SDG indicator framework. This improvement emphasizes grassroots activities that promote awareness, a systemic view, and a culture of sustainability in society.

These types of initiatives are crucial to promote better coordination between public, private, and social organizations to achieve sustainable development. These experiences highlight the importance of strong institutions and networks of committed individuals as catalysts for promoting sustainable practices in civil society organizations, businesses, and public policies.

From a theoretical point of view, the literature review reinforced the perception that the concept of (T)SI is still very fluid, considering that several local transformative governance experiences are not called as such but largely present the characteristics of TSI. This is probably because this type of initiative (to promote engagement and cooperation between social actors) is not new, but rather something old that has not been given a name [30]—indicating that the concept is not yet fully consistent.

Therefore, the literature review suggests that there is still much to be done in terms of the conceptual consolidation of local governance experiences for sustainable development. TSI seems to be a convergent concept. In future research, having the SDGs as a parameter should facilitate this consolidation [30] and expand the incentives for the multiplication of TSI initiatives and indicators in the most diverse areas and the SDGs, favoring their financing, implementation, and evaluation.

On the other hand, the inclusion of TSI guidelines in the SDG framework can also contribute to this theoretical consolidation. In terms of political enforcement, the SDGs can be considered more as a conceptual reference than as a set of indicators [39,126], and the introduction of TSI guidelines should favor their visibility, replicability (respecting local specificities), and commitment to press public policies.

In this way, a better organization of the TSI concept should allow for a greater critical mass to achieve a change in the way the SDGs are implemented. They still lack these kinds of indicators and the basic tasks of social organization, which the UN reports mention but do not go into detail on.

This article presents a first approach to what indicators and guidelines could be included in the SDG framework, as the results of the review did not return any study with this purpose. Future research can strengthen this conceptual elaboration to make the TSI indicators more operational, thus facilitating a growing role for civil society in the process of transitions to sustainability. To broaden the scope of these efforts and the range of experiences, more studies from the Global South would be welcome, since issues such as poverty, inequalities, and the impacts of climate change affect these countries in different ways—and thus their answers should be different as well.

At this historical moment, a climate catastrophe is already beginning to be considered inevitable, and the price to be paid for the social and environmental imbalances caused in the past might not be small. The spread of a sustainable culture, in which everyone can live in balance with each other and with nature, is still what can guarantee our adaptation to a new climatic reality and, in the long term, fulfill the objective of leaving no one behind.

Indeed, consolidating the necessary cultural change among political and business leaders remains a major challenge to achieving sustainable development. After all, leaders play a critical role in shaping policies, making decisions, and implementing large-scale actions that can have a profound impact on the course of sustainable development. However, to achieve this level of public engagement, the TSI literature and the framework proposed in this article suggest that changes in mindset could come from the grassroots level as a first step. These changes in mindset will hopefully create pathways for transformative investments [127] to overcome unsustainable practices and transition to a new paradigm.

To meet this challenge, it is important to deepen debates on sustainability within academia and civil society. Bringing visibility to TSI in the SDG framework should foster critical discussions about cultural change, raising awareness from an early age and generating knowledge. So, the process of changing perceptions can be accelerated, paving the way for the promotion of a broader understanding of the benefits of a just, sustainable, and peaceful world for all, as highlighted by SGD 16.