Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eist

Intermediating the energy transition across spatial boundaries:

Cases of Sweden and Spain
A. Van Boxstael*, L.L.J. Meijer, J.C.C.M. Huijben, A.G.L. Romme
Innovation, Technology Entrepreneurship & Marketing Group School of Industrial Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513,
5600 MB Eindhoven, the Netherlands

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Systemic intermediaries play an important role in shaping socio-technical transitions. However,
Systemic intermediary there is hardly any knowledge about contextual factors that enhance or inhibit systemic inter-
Energy transition mediary activities in transnational settings. This study draws on a case study of a European
Transnational intermediary in the energy transition field. The intermediary has been active in both transition-
Geography
progressive and less transition-oriented countries in Europe. In specific, we investigate the in-
Case study
termediary’s activities in Sweden and Spain. Due to local factors, the intermediary’s approach
was difficult to realize in Sweden. Most activities were performed with niche-actors or uni-
versities only, undermining systemic intermediation. By contrast, Spanish local factors favored
systemic intermediation, allowing the regime and niche levels to converge. The findings of the
study extend the literature by showing why intermediation in transition-progressive regions can
suffer and by highlighting that transnational intermediaries entering a transition-progressive
region must account for the local intermediation ecology when defining their role.

1. Introduction

Systemic intermediaries have been widely assumed to play an important role in shaping and accelerating sustainability transitions
(Howells, 2006; Kivimaa, 2014; Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2009). This pivotal role in transition processes gives rise to intermediary
activities that are very dynamic and complex (Kivimaa et al., 2019), especially when they go across sectoral or geographical
boundaries (Markard et al., 2012). A body of knowledge about systemic intermediaries is emerging, but it casts little light on
intermediation in challenging transnational settings (Kanda et al., 2020) or on the effect of multiple scales on systemic inter-
mediation.
Current literature on systemic intermediaries (Kivimaa, 2014; Kivimaa et al., 2019; van Lente et al., 2003) suggests that systemic
intermediaries act at the system level of a socio-technical system, that is, at and across the niche and regime levels. Moreover, they
interact between multiple kinds of actors, stakeholders and interests. Through actions like demand articulation and institutional
support, systemic intermediaries intend to create an institutional, economic and social space for alternative technologies (Hargreaves
et al., 2013; Kivimaa et al., 2019). To understand what activities a systemic intermediary can develop to create space and thereby
accelerate a transition of the socio-technical system, researchers are increasingly studying a wide variety of intermediary roles and
activities (Kanda et al., 2020; Kivimaa et al., 2019) and they show that these roles change over time (Kant and Kanda, 2019; Kivimaa
et al., 2019). Despite this growing academic interest, the body of knowledge about the systemic practices of an intermediary in

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: A.v.Boxstael@tue.nl (A. Van Boxstael), L.J.Meijer@tue.nl (L.L.J. Meijer), J.C.C.M.Huijben@tue.nl (J.C.C.M. Huijben),
A.G.L.Romme@tue.nl (A.G.L. Romme).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.02.007
Received 15 July 2019; Received in revised form 25 February 2020; Accepted 26 February 2020
2210-4224/ © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: A. Van Boxstael, et al., Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.02.007
A. Van Boxstael, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

relation to different contexts is still limited and invites in-depth empirical work (Hodson et al., 2013).
The research gap addressed in this study was further informed by recurring research calls to adopt a spatial perspective in
transition studies (e.g., Coenen et al., 2017; Coenen et al., 2012; Köhler et al., 2019; Raven et al., 2012; Garud and Gehman, 2012;
Wieczorek et al., 2015). The spatial perspective suggests that transitions are embedded in different geographical contexts (Hansen
and Coenen, 2015). In this respect, contextual factors bounded by a particular city, district or nation may have important implications
for the efficacy of a systemic intermediary. Also, now more than ever, transnationally designed directives and regulations for
electricity and renewables span various nations (Raven et al., 2012). As a consequence, the design of intermediation now exists at
multiple scales and contexts but the prior literature on intermediaries has largely focused on the regional and national level (e.g.,
Mignon and Kanda, 2018; Hodson et al., 2013). Hence, we set out to explore how different locations affect the roles of a systemic
intermediary in facilitating the energy transition.
To address this question, we investigate the intermediary work of a transnational body across two distinct locations (Spain and
Sweden). By doing so, we intends to complement extant theories of systemic intermediaries which do not fully capture where
transitions take place. These theories thereby hardly, if at all, address the spatial variety that may explain intermediary heterogeneity.
From a policy standpoint, this lack of knowledge is problematic because supra-national bodies like the European Union have invested
billions of Euros in intermediaries that operate across sectoral and national boundaries (EIT, 2019; Schiermeier, 2016).
To summarize, informed by the spatial perspective on sustainability transitions, our study investigates how boundary conditions
arising from different locations relate to a systemic intermediary’s role. The article adopts the following structure. Section 2 sum-
marizes the existing literature on systemic intermediaries in energy transitions and argues for the role of the spatial perspective in
theories on systemic intermediaries. Section 3 explains the research context and the methodology. Our findings in section 4 then
highlight the role diversity of the intermediary in our study and links this role diversity to contextual factors. In section 5, we discuss
our findings and discuss the contribution of this study to the literature on systemic intermediaries.

2. Literature: systemic intermediaries accelerating transitions

2.1. Systemic intermediaries in energy transitions

As one type in the broader category of innovation intermediaries (Howells, 2006; Kivimaa, 2014; Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2009; van
Lente et al., 2003), systemic intermediaries aim to stimulate socio-technical transitions (Kivimaa and Martiskainen, 2018; van Lente
et al., 2003). The multilevel perspective (MLP) implies that a socio-technical system consists of (networks of) actors such as individuals,
firms and other organizations; institutions in the form of societal and technical norms, regulations, standards of good practice; and
material artifacts and knowledge (Geels, 2004; Markard et al., 2012). The socio-technical change dynamic is made up of three levels:
the technological niche, the socio-technical regime and the landscape (Geels, 2002, 2005; Geels and Schot, 2007). Niches are the
protective space for radical and path-breaking technical alternatives that are yet too weak to compete with the current socio-technical
regime (Kemp et al., 1998). The regime refers to the well-established dominant practices and rules that influence niche development,
such as science, infrastructure, industry, policy, culture, social groups and established technologies – which together make a socio-
technical regime rather stable (Geels and Schot, 2007). The landscape level involves broader contextual developments that cannot be
directly influenced by any actors, such as ingrained cultural patterns and macro-economic and macro-political patterns (Geels, 2002).
A socio-technical transition, then, is a set of processes that lead to a fundamental shift in a socio-technical system by positioning and
growing a niche in a shifting regime (Geels and Schot, 2007; Markard et al., 2012).
Within a transition, systemic intermediaries have a comprehensive mission since they aim to “positively influence sustainability
transition processes by linking actors and activities, and their related skills and resources, or aim to connect visions and demands of
networks of actors with existing regimes in order to create momentum for socio-technical system change, to create new collaborations
within and across niche technologies, ideas and markets, and to disrupt dominant unsustainable socio-technical configurations”
(Kivimaa et al., 2019: 111). A systemic intermediary operates at all levels (i.e. niche, regime and landscape), by promoting an explicit
transition agenda and by taking the lead in aiming for changes at various levels (Kivimaa and Martiskainen, 2018; Kivimaa et al.,
2019). Moreover, it intermediates in networks instead of one-to-one intermediation, and it has the capacity and objective to influence
the entire socio-technical system (Kanda et al., 2019; van Lente et al., 2003). More recently, Kanda et al. (2020) suggested that
systemic intermediation, defined as the system-level activities of intermediaries, can occur between entities in a network, between
networks of entities and between actors, network and institutions.
The extant literature suggests that a systemic intermediary is endowed with a complex hybrid bundle of functions, also known as
multi-sided boundary-spanning functions (Boon et al., 2011; Hess, 2016; Smink et al., 2015). In this respect, a systemic intermediary
engages in a large scope of activities or functions during a transition process. Examples are the articulation of demands, visions and
expectations; strategy development; alignment of actors and possibilities; identification and mobilization of actors; organizing dis-
course and developing consensus; management of complex and long-term innovative projects; market formation, development of
positive externalities and resource mobilization; creating conditions for learning by doing and using, and feeding actors with tailor-
made information (e.g., Howells, 2006; Kivimaa et al., 2019; Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2009; van Lente et al., 2003). By initiating niche
experiments, systemic intermediaries can thus help create an institutional and social space for alternative technologies, models and
social constructs to emerge and to act as catalysts of innovation (Kivimaa et al., 2019).
Within this large scope of intermediary activities, Kivimaa (2014) has delineated four main roles for an archetypical intermediary
in sustainable transitions of socio-technical systems: an articulating (A) role, that is, supporting the articulation of expectations and
visions shared by many actors; a network-building (N) role, that is, building and managing social networks of multiple stakeholders

2
A. Van Boxstael, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

and participants; a learning (L) role, that is, supporting learning and exploration at multiple transition dimensions like technical
issues and user preferences, cultural meaning, infrastructure or regulations; and any other (O) role in the form of, for instance,
European policy implementation, project arbitration or accreditation. This role-based framework of Kivimaa (2014) suggests that a
systemic intermediary can connect niches to the wider socio-technical system by deploying a complex set of roles and activities and,
ideally, tailors and executes the set of roles and activities in relation to the exact needs of the wider socio-technical system. However,
various factors belonging to the old or newly emerging socio-technical system co-determine the efficacy of intermediary roles and
activities. Prior studies already introduced such determinants. We hence address these determinants in the following subsection.

2.2. Determinants of systemic intermediary activities

Previous work has served to identify various determinants affecting the activities that a systemic intermediary can perform in any
socio-technical transition. We shortly review the most commonly observed determinants external to the organizational boundaries of
the intermediary.
First, the activities of a systemic intermediary are often affected by the regime level of the socio-technical system (e.g., Hargreaves
et al., 2013; Hess, 2016; Ingram, 2015; Smink et al., 2015): an intermediary must help position any niche toward the well-established
socio-technical structure of the prevailing regime (Kivimaa et al., 2019; Markard et al., 2012). Yet, the regime level induces rigidities
and path-dependencies of existing, highly institutionalized system structures and consequently immobilizes the build-up of new,
more sustainable ones (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2014). The rigidities arise from “deep structures” that stabilize the existing socio-
technical system (Geels, 2014), involving a semi-coherent set of formal and informal regime rules (Geels, 2002) or established social
networks, skills, belief systems and incumbent market power (Geels et al., 2016). In many empirical cases of systemic intermediation,
the socio-technical elements developed by a niche do not easily “take off” in the regime, as the latter strongly contributes to (de)
legitimizing activities of systemic intermediaries. Often niche elements, while dependent on these old structures, may not get access
to infrastructure (e.g., Smink et al., 2015).
Second, the selection of activities by a systemic intermediary is typically determined by the temporal status of the socio-technical
system, which originates in ongoing adaptations to institutional, technological, policy, economic and social changes (Kivimaa et al.,
2019). This means that the intermediary’s activities themselves are temporal and evolve over time, resulting in systemic inter-
mediation of short-term projects, or of programs that are much more long-term and programmatic (Hodson et al., 2013). For instance,
Kivimaa and Martiskainen (2018) examined a long-term trajectory of a state-affiliated systemic intermediary to show that inter-
mediaries’ systemic functions are intertwined with changes in policy, mandates or funding.
Third, intermediaries appear to increasingly operate across spatial scales (Hermans et al., 2016), with intermediary activities
occurring at and across different (e.g., national, regional, city) scales (Hodson et al., 2013). Such scale complexity is further enhanced
by a growing number of transnationally designed directives and regulations for electricity and renewables that span various nations,
at the EU-level, for instance. Hence, regime conditions are partially placed at a transnational scale (Raven et al., 2012). These
observations have given rise to a research agenda that advocates a spatial perspective on sustainable transitions (Coenen et al., 2012).
Thus, we will elaborate a spatial perspective on systemic intermediary in the next subsection.

2.3. Spatial perspective on a systemic intermediary

Grounded in economic geography (Boschma and Frenken, 2006), the spatial perspective on sustainable transitions serves to
understand how transitions are embedded in different geographical contexts (e.g., Bergek et al., 2015; Hansen and Coenen, 2015;
Hodson et al., 2013; Markard et al., 2012; Köhler et al., 2019; Raven et al., 2012). This literature starts from the premise that
institutional variation underlies geographical differences in economic activity and performance (Hansen and Coenen, 2015). These
geographical differences manifest themselves in urban and regional policies, informal local institutions, local natural resource en-
dowments, local technological and industrial specialization, and consumer and local market formation (for an extensive review:
Hansen and Coenen, 2015).
In view of Granovetter’s (1985) notion of structural embeddedness, Coenen et al. (2012) highlighted that specific territorial and
institutional environments favor certain innovation activities and technological development paths over others. These authors cited
Edquist and Lundvall’s (1993) example of public-private coordination in joint industry-university research in Sweden versus the local
community/industrial district mode in user-producer learning in Denmark. Additionally, Raven et al. (2012) questioned whether
transnational interactions increasingly determine the arena for the creation and expansion of niches and regime shifts (see also:
Markard et al., 2012).
Furthermore, studies of intermediaries using an economic-geographical perspective have investigated geographical specificity
mostly in the boundaries of urban-regional heterogeneity. For example, by studying Greater London and Greater Manchester, Hodson
et al. (2013) argued that context-specific priorities do matter for the conceptual design and implementation of an intermediary’s
program. Likewise, Mignon and Kanda (2018) observed that intermediaries acting within a city engage in translating the transition
vision toward different local actors and in mediating between different stakeholders (including local ones), while intermediaries in
regional innovation clusters had a role in creating a collaboration platform and in promoting the innovation outside the cluster.
However, Raven et al. (2012) noted that transitions of socio-technical systems are not only bounded to regional or city levels, but that
socio-technical regimes can be transnational in a physical manner, in the institutions that constitute them, or in the economic and
technological base that supports them.
Taken together, our literature review reveals several elements about systemic intermediaries.

3
A. Van Boxstael, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

First, the literature suggests that regime rigidities can negatively impact the activities of an intermediary and that regime rigidities
particularly come from institutionalized system structures like technological and product regimes (research development produc-
tion), science regimes, policy regimes, socio-cultural regimes (societal groups, media) or users, markets and distribution networks
(e.g., Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2014; Geels, 2004, 2014; Geels et al., 2016).
Second, the literature suggests that systemic activities must match the temporal status of the socio-technical system. This requires
explicit attention in terms of the duration of intermediation (Hodson et al., 2013; Kivimaa and Martiskainen, 2018).
Third, previous work has addressed sustainable transitions from a spatial perspective (e.g., Bergek et al., 2015; Hansen and
Coenen, 2015; Markard et al., 2012; Hess, 2016; Raven et al., 2012). A few exemplary studies have used the spatial perspective on
sustainable transitions to theorize (Köhler et al., 2019) or to investigate variation between different regions to observe that each
region has its own unique endowment, affecting intermediation (Hodson et al., 2013). Yet, the scales of the regions in these studies
were relatively small (i.e. city-level or district-level), nor did the studies address the influence of emerging global or transnational
conditions that increasingly affect regional policies, management of local natural resource endowments, or local market formation.
Several authors have also called for research that serves to better understand (1) the ways in which systemic intermediaries are
organized (Mignon and Kanda, 2018; Kivimaa et al., 2019), (2) the different roles of an intermediary in various conditions and
settings (Hodson, 2013; Köhler et al., 2019; Kanda et al., 2019) and (3) the dynamic evolution of those roles (Kant and Kanda, 2019).
Given this theoretical background, this paper focuses on spatial differentiation affecting a systemic intermediary. It starts from the
observation that different places (however defined) exhibit niches, regimes and landscapes with different characteristics (Raven et al.,
2012).

3. Research context and method

3.1. Research context

This study investigates how locations affect the role of a systemic intermediary in facilitating the energy transition. We addressed
this research question in a case study of (the context of) EIT InnoEnergy, founded in 2010 with support of the European Institute of
Innovation and Technology (EIT). EIT InnoEnergy is a knowledge and innovation community that aims to tackle the energy transition
toward more renewable energy solutions. It concerns a European network of inter-organizational activities in various domains of the
energy transition: smart buildings and cities, smart electricity grids, nuclear instrumentation, energy for circular economy, energy for
transport and mobility, energy storage, energy efficiency, and renewable energy. Legally, EIT InnoEnergy is a shareholder company –
a Societas Europea – that is profit- but not dividend-oriented (InnoEnergy, 2015). It has a general assembly of around 30 shareholders
across the European Union and is led by an executive team headed by a CEO. The EIT annually performs external evaluations of EIT
InnoEnergy. When it was founded, EIT InnoEnergy implemented an organizational model with three core functions in accordance
with European ambitions: 1) an innovation function to support R&D of new products/services (R&D) in collaboration with industry
partners; 2) a business creation function to grow new business ideas into start-ups, and 3) an education function to train masters and
PhD candidates for renewable technologies and markets.
When we started our study in 2018, EIT InnoEnergy had established a European network with 430 project partners (e.g. gov-
ernments, universities and firms) and held a portfolio of finalized1 and ongoing (1) innovation projects, (2) start-up projects and (3)
education projects2 . Three distinct business units within EIT InnoEnergy managed the portfolio. The business units supported the
projects with tailor-made services like direct funding, in-kind benefits, knowledge services, and partnership access. EIT InnoEnergy
managed the portfolio across different European countries with offices in the Netherlands (InnoEnergy Benelux), Germany, France,
Poland, Spain (InnoEnergy Iberia) and Sweden (InnoEnergy Scandinavia). Each of these locations was set up with the intention to
engage around eight shareholders (i.e. incumbent actors like universities, firms or governments) directly as well as a larger group of
contributors more indirectly. Also, each local office was separately incorporated in a legal entity (according to the country’s national
law), giving all country managers a substantial discretion in leading their own three business units and managing their part of the
entire portfolio of projects and custom-tailoring services.
EIT InnoEnergy is an interesting case as a systemic intermediary for several reasons.
First, EIT InnoEnergy facilitates interactions between incumbent organizations like universities, industry leaders and government
(regime level) on the one hand and start-ups and innovation projects (niche level) on the other hand. It aims for change at all levels of
the socio-technical energy system by intermediating between multiple actors and interests at the regime and niche levels.
Second, since it was established, EIT InnoEnergy has promoted an explicit transition agenda and has presented itself as the future
leader in change, innovation and business creation in renewable energy across the entire EU. The official vision resembles a system-
level ambition: “To become the leading engine for innovation and entrepreneurship in sustainable energy.”
Third, EIT InnoEnergy operates through a complex pan-European shareholder network, instead of one-to-one intermediation. By
this network, EIT InnoEnergy’s customized services envisions support for learning and exploration at multiple transition dimensions.
Two operational offices, InnoEnergy Iberia and InnoEnergy Scandinavia were sampled as the empirical cases because of their
performance in the period until 2018. The two offices originated from the same initial intermediary framework and had the same
objectives, yet they reported differences in terms of network size, sub-portfolio (i.e. business creation and innovation projects),

1
In 2018: 98 patents filed; 120 products and services supported; and three Manufacturing facilities constructed.
2
The education activities fall outside the scope of this study.

4
A. Van Boxstael, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

network structure, intermediary activities and investor-partners. Appendix A provides an overview of the investor-partners of each of
the locations within EIT InnoEnergy.
InnoEnergy Iberia had its headquarters in Barcelona, Spain, and InnoEnergy Scandinavia in Stockholm, Sweden. Due to the
particular locations, a high percentage of each office’s activities were limited to the socio-technical systems in the two respective
countries, despite the original intention to intermediate in neighboring countries as well. Empirically, it means this study mainly
addresses the contextual factors in Spain and Sweden. By 2018, InnoEnergy Iberia had supported the creation of 44 start-ups,
attracted 14 shareholder-partners and developed various master and PhD programs. Among their innovation and business creation
projects were offshore test stations, wind enabling technology and data measurement equipment. These activities were located in
Spain.
In the period up to 2018, InnoEnergy Scandinavia facilitated the creation of 31 start-ups, attracted 4 shareholder-partners, and
developed various master and PhD programs. Examples of their innovation and business creation projects were small-scale power
generation, a battery cell production facility and a proprietary system for smart energy management. Here as well, the activities were
mainly conducted in Sweden.

3.2. Data collection

In total, we conducted thirty interviews. The first round consisted of twenty-four interviews with managers or CEOs of firms active
in the network of the two locations of EIT InnoEnergy. All respondents were sampled from the publicly available lists of partnerships
on the website of InnoEnergy. The selection was verified with staff members of EIT InnoEnergy. We sampled a variety of respondents
in terms of their firm’s sector, size, founding date and MLP-level (see Appendix B). Interviews were held between October 2018 and
May 2019 using a semi-structured interview guide: questions concerned the intermediary activities of the focal location, an as-
sessment of the regime and niche in this location, and the role of contextual factors like research, infrastructure, industry, policy,
cultural differences and market conditions. The semi-structured interviews lasted on average one hour, were held in English, tape-
recorded and transcribed.
A second round of six interviews was conducted at the InnoEnergy offices of the two locations. Three staff members at each
location were requested to share information about their intermediation failures and successes in the past, how they resolved failures,
and how they anticipated future challenges.

3.3. Data analysis

All interviews were inductively coded using a procedure involving multiple cycles (Gioia et al., 2013; Saldaña, 2015). First, we
coded the intermediary roles at the two locations. As our research question addresses the role of a systemic intermediary, we coded
the data regarding the two locations by following the academic conceptualization of systemic intermediaries by Kivimaa (2014), who
developed a typology of intermediary roles to contribute to niche internal processes: [1] an articulating role (A); [2] a network-
building role (N); [3] a learning role (L); and [4] any other roles (O). We coded the data regarding if and how these roles occurred at
each of the two locations. We observed all intermediary activities in the original interview transcripts and coded them according to
one of the four systemic intermediary roles.
Subsequently, we inductively coded contextual factors, using labels like local3 policy, infrastructure, culture, market and in-
dustry4, as well as EU-related policy and so forth. In a subsequent coding round, we started analyzing and comparing the (coded) data
across [1] the contextual factors and [2] the intermediary activities employed. We summarized this analysis in two separate tables
(Tables 2 and 3) for each location. Finally, we created Table 1 to highlight key contextual differences between the two locations (in
the Findings section, Table 1 will be presented before Tables 2 and 3).
All steps were performed using NVivo software. A high level of reliability of the coding outcomes was obtained by double-coding
the interview transcripts, involving one author and one research-assistant who independently coded the data and then compared and
discussed the main differences (Saldaña, 2015) with two other authors of this articles. To increase the validity of our findings, the
main coding results and comparative findings were further triangulated by way of additional interviews taking place within the
intermediary and several partner organizations. Additionally, secondary data such as newspaper articles, company presentations,
archival material, meeting notes, and board decision letters were used for triangulation purposes.

3
With “local” we refer to the area defined by the geographical boundaries of the Iberian or Scandinavian location (primarily involving Spain and
Sweden respectively).
4
The first code-labels (policy, infrastructure, culture, market and industry) were informed by the prior conceptualization of [1] Geels (2004) who
discussed technological and product regimes (research, development production), science regimes, policy regimes, socio-cultural regimes (societal
groups, media) and Users, markets and distribution networks; and [2] Hansen and Coenen (2015) who discussed urban and regional policies,
informal local institutions, local natural resource endowments, local technological and industrial specialization, and consumer and local market
formation. In addition, our data suggested additional code-labels concerning EU-level factors.

5
A. Van Boxstael, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Comparison between the Spanish and Swedish context: the interplay of intermediary roles and contextual factors.
SPANISH CONTEXT SWEDISH CONTEXT

Intermediary roles Contextual factors Intermediary roles Contextual factors

Articulation of vision (A)
- The participating actors
gradually develop an improved
understanding of the needs in the
energy transition
[+]a Spanish-position in EU: a need
to prove Spain as an EU-member:
acceptance of EU-vision (CI1)
[+] localb policy: weak start-up
policy (CI2); new Spanish
government increasingly attends to
renewable energy projects (CI3)
Articulation of vision (A)
- difficulty in articulating the need
of InnoEnergy in the local context
- dominant orientation towards R&
D, technology commercialization
is not widely accepted as an
explicit expectation
[-] local industry: incumbent firms
and existing agencies are engaging in
renewable energy and only want to
support ongoing R&D projects (CS1)
[+] local policy: existing “green”
politics and policies (CS2)
[-] local culture: strong, detailed
engineering mindset (CS5)

Building of social network (N)
- high influx of incumbent firms
- high influx of start-ups
- network interaction is
relatively high
[+] local policy: weak start-up and
investment policy (CI2)
[+] local industry: an existing 'cluster
network' (CI4)
[+] local culture: open, informal and
relationship-based culture (CI5)
[-] local infrastructure: weak
connections across Spain (CI6)
[-] local market: strong incumbent
dominance (CI7)
Building of social network (N)
- weak influx of incumbent firms
and start-ups; dominance of
universities and R&D partners in
projects
- moderate level of successful
business creation projects
compared to InnoEnergy overall
portfolio
- difficult to align economic-
oriented part of the EU-vision and
local R&D interests in ongoing
interactions
[-] local industry: incumbent firms
and existing agencies are engaging in
renewable energy and only want to
support ongoing R&D projects (CS1)
[-] local market: strong innovation
policy and performance and existing
international trade (CS3)
[-] local policy: historically well-
developed “triple helix” approach in
ongoing Swedish policies (CS4)
[-] local culture: strong, detailed
engineering mindset (CS5)

Learning and exploration (L)
- transnational benchmarking
- learning about policy shifts and
regulation frameworks
[+] local policy: weak start-up and
investment policy (CI2); new Spanish
government increasingly attends to
renewable energy projects (CI3)
[+] local culture: open, informal and
relationship-based culture (CI5)
Learning and exploration (L)
- learning conflicts: low versus high
TRL
- learning is relatively
unidimensional: focus on R&D
[-] local culture: strong, detailed
engineering mindset (CS5)
[-] local industry: trade secrets and
business confidential information
(CS6)
[-] local market(CS7): existing
business angel networks
[-] local university policy: no
university-managed IP-portfolio
(CS8)

Other (O)
- Intermediary brings branding
effects for the network actors
[+] local market: scarce financial Other (O) Not found in the data
resources (CI8) - Neutrality is an essential
requirement for actors
- It took time to evolve to a
reputational intermediary in the
local context

Notes: a [+] or [-] refers to the effect of the contextual factor on the systemic intermediary activities of InnoEnergy in the focal locations. [+] refers
to a contextual factor that supports the adoption of the intermediary activities; [-] refers to a contextual factor that inhibits the adoption of the
intermediary’s activities.
b
“Local” has a relative meaning here, that is, local in terms of the two specific locations.

4. Findings

4.1. Transnational intermediary: EIT InnoEnergy

Before we discuss the empirical results of each of the locations separately, we review the mission formulated at the EU-level
before EIT InnoEnergy was established. We do so because the intermediary activities at the two locations were strongly affected by
this initial mission and vision at the European level. EIT InnoEnergy was initiated as a knowledge and innovation community by EIT.
Its mission was to accelerate the energy transition toward more renewable energy solutions by building the so-called ‘knowledge
triangle’5 : the interaction and integration of research, innovation and education. The EIT board designed a set of KPIs accordingly. In
line with these KPIs, EIT InnoEnergy developed intermediary activities around three so-called ‘business lines’: (1) innovation, that is,

5
During the period from 2014 to 2020 the EIT should contribute to the objectives of the "Horizon 2020 – The Framework Program for Research
and Innovation" established by Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 (3) of the European Parliament and of the European Council ("Horizon 2020") by
integrating the knowledge triangle of higher education, research and innovation. Source: Official Journal of the European Union, L 347/174,
20.12.2013.

6
 Table 2
Spanish context: the interplay of intermediary roles and contextual factors.
INTERMEDIARY ROLES
(Kivimaa, 2014)
Articulation of needs, expectations and
requirements (A1)
Strategy development (A2)
Acceleration of the application and
commercialization of new technologies
(A3)
Advancement of sustainability aims (A4)
Creation and facilitation of new networks
(N1)
7
Gatekeeping and brokering (N2)
Configuring and aligning interests (N3)
Managing financial resources - finding
potential funding and funding activities
(N4)
Identification and management of human
resource needs (skills) (N5)
Knowledge gathering, processing,
generation and combination (L1)
Technology assessment and evaluation (L2)
Prototyping and piloting (L3)
EFFECTa SPANISH CONTEXT
Intermediary role in Spanish context
X Clear articulation of high TRL expectations
Strategic road-mapping is a standard part of each
project’s management
X Intermediary activities with focus on
commercialization are accepted
X Sun tax policy conflicted with sustainable aims for a
long time; but transition-oriented shift by 2018
X Existing and new relationships among a variety of
actors in function of a variety of projects (e.g. R&D
projects, business creation projects)
X Gatekeeping succeeds: a need for more start-up-
investment makes investor-partners accept the
gatekeeper’s role of InnoEnergy
X Intermediary is mostly confronted with oil and gas
company interests
InnoEnergy operates as a co-investment fund
Included in portfolio (especially in the education
business line of EIT)
X Transnational benchmarking on different knowledge
domains (e.g. national innovation policies)
Technology assessment and evaluation is a standard
part of each project’s management
High TRL; significant degree of prototyping
Spanish contextual factors
b
[+] Spanish positions in EU: a need to
prove Spain as EU-members: acceptance of
EU-vision (CI1)d
[+] localc policy: weak start-up policy,
weak investment policy (CI2)
[+] Local policy: new Spanish
Government increasingly attends to
renewable energy projects (CI3)
[+] Local industry: leveraging an existing
'cluster network' (CI4)
[+] Local culture: open, informal and
relationship-based culture (CI5)
[-] Local infrastructure: weak
infrastructure does not allow distant start-
ups to participate in the network (CI6)
[+] local policy: weak start-up policy,
weak investment policy, limited local
infrastructure (CI2)
[-] Local market: dominance of oil & gas
companies (CI7)
[+] local policy: weak start-up policy,
weak investment policy (CI2)
Representative quote
A. Van Boxstael, et al.
We are relatively new in the European Union. I mean, we
are not founding members. […] you have to prove that […]
you're good enough to be there. (IE6)
The new government is pushing very hard for changes in the
[energy] system. (IE4)
I found out yesterday that the embryo of InnoEnergy was
started in the cluster network. The [ES4] is a member of this
cluster network. So I think everything started there. (ES4)
They communicate indirectly, it's a very relational culture,
so your social capital with someone is far more important
[…]. (ES4)
We have a client, where we installed a prototype. We need
more or less seven hours to reach that place by train! There
are no airports. (ES1)
Spain is not a wealthy country. And Spanish investors are
not used to investing large amounts of money in start-up
companies. And they are very conservative. So it’s not easy
to start a company in the first seed capital round. It’s very
hard to raise money. (ES1)
In Spain the weight of the big companies is very big, it's hard.
So we have some very big companies controlled by, I don't
know, 20, 30 big families in Spain, that make the laws and
the regulations. (ES1)
We have no regulations as advanced as you have in the
Netherlands, Belgium or the UK in terms of the inside
management, the aggregation or in terms of the policies
related with energy markets. (ES2)
I spoke with the director of this equivalent agency in
Germany. They told me they have invested 4000 million,
four billion euros, last year for the same thing. (ES1)
(continued on next page)
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
 Table 2 (continued)

INTERMEDIARY ROLES EFFECTa SPANISH CONTEXT

(Kivimaa, 2014)
Intermediary role in Spanish context Spanish contextual factors Representative quote
A. Van Boxstael, et al.

Investments in new businesses (L4)
Communication and dissemination of
knowledge (L5)
Education and training (L6)
Provision of advice and support (L7)
Creating conditions for learning by doing
and using (L8)
Arbitration based on neutrality and trust
(O1)
Long-term project design, management and
evaluation (O2)
Policy implementation (O3)
Accreditation and standard setting (O4)
X Yes, higher number of start-ups realized than the [+] local policy: weak start-up policy, This is because the Spanish state doesn’t invest in start-up
mean average of all InnoEnergy locations weak investment policy (CI2) companies. There is a ministry and agency, Centro para el
Desarrollo Tecnológico Industrial that is an agency with an
annual budget of 20 million euros. (ES1)
X Mostly an open and informal approach in and across [+] local culture: open, informal and In Spain, it is easier to work with people. People are open, it
projects relationship-based culture (CI5) is very easy.
It is warmer, just a handshake, take a coffee together, speak
about business. (ES1)
Included in portfolio (especially in the education
business line of EIT)
Advisory is a standard part of each project’s
management
Conferences, consortium, public reports and flyers are
a standard part of each project’s management
Not expressed as a concern in the data
Contractually long-term commitment of the investor
partners
EU-level policy
X No formal accreditation but good informal branding [+] local market: scarce financial InnoEnergy gave us money but they also gave us another

8
effect through status and reputation of InnoEnergy resources (CI8) thing and that is the name, InnoEnergy, behind us. And this
(O4) branding, this brand, helped us to convince our next-step
investors. (ES1)
Creating new jobs (O5) Yes, part of the mission statement of InnoEnergy, but
number of jobs realized are not disclosed

Note:aEffect: An “X” means that the intermediary roles were affected by a contextual factor. A segment colored grey means that the data do not point at any interplay between the intermediary role and
the local context.
b
[+] or [-] refers to the effect of the contextual factor on the systemic intermediary activities of InnoEnergy in the focal locations. [+] refers to a contextual factor that supports the adoption of the
intermediary activities; [-] refers to a contextual factor that inhibits the adoption of the intermediary activities.
c
“Local” in this table refers to the focal location.
d
CI = Contextual factor of the Iberia InnoEnergy location (primarily Spain).
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
 Table 3
Swedish context: the interplay of intermediary roles and contextual factors.
INTERMEDIARYROLES (Kivimaa, 2014)
Articulation of needs, expectations and
requirements (A1)
Strategy development (A2)
Acceleration of the application and
commercialization of new
technologies (A3)
9
Advancement of sustainability aims (A4)
Creation and facilitation of new networks
(N1)
Gatekeeping and brokering (N2)
EFFECTa SWEDISH CONTEXT
Intermediary role in Swedish context
X Vision not clearly articulated: low TRL expectations
prevail in the communication but in 2013 the office
moves to high TRL causing much confusion among
network actors
Strategic road-mapping is a standard component of
each project
X Intermediary activities that focus on commercialization
face local resistance
X Regime shift towards renewable energy is already
ongoing
X Weak influx of incumbent firms and start-ups (only
universities)
Dominance of R&D partners and interactions
Only recently (2017) successful in creating new
networks (e.g. 'European Battery Alliance')
X Gatekeeper’s role suffers from weak influx of
incumbent firms and from incumbent shareholders
leaving network
Swedish contextual factors
b c
[-] local industry: incumbent firms only
want to support R&D projects & existing
ecology of incubation programs (CS1)d
[-] local industry: incumbent firms only
want to support R&D projects & existing
ecology of incubation programs (CS1)
[-] local culture: strong, detailed
engineering mindset (CS5)
[+] Local policy: existing 'green' politics
and policies. (CS2)
[-] local industry: incumbent firms only
want to support R&D projects & existing
ecology of incubation programs (CS1)
[-] local market: strong innovation policy
and performance and existing international
trade (CS3)
Representative quote
A. Van Boxstael, et al.
It was not really clear what the value proposition of
InnoEnergy was and a lot of people thought it was more
focused on the research side, so the lower TRL levels. (IE1)
We are getting a very high rank in all these international
comparisons. So, people in the system have been very …
you know, they had a high profile in terms of what they are
doing. We are good at it. We are best in class, so let’s do
more of that. Let’s pour more money into lower TRL. (IE1)
I thought the whole setup [of InnoEnergy] was big R&D
projects, but we all had a very specific challenge to
understand […], but in the third year the intermediary
tried to change the business model a bit [sic: from R&D to
the product commercialization], and here we saw that was
not possible for us […] (SE1).
Yes, you see that that there's a trend towards developing
until it's absolutely perfect, and there is a risk to fail or you
know, a fear of failing, that's quite deeply ingrained in the
Swedish culture perhaps. (IE2)
That we have global warming effects and that we have
greenhouse gas emissions which are probably not good for
the climate. That […] is commonly accepted. (SE8)
The Swedish Energy Agency is a financing agency that has
provided some funding and […] They provide benefits in
terms of the money that they are giving, but also in terms of
networking. (SE8)
InnoEnergy is co-managing the work plan for the European
Battery Alliance. (IE2)
[Company] is a good example. They don’t need our money.
Why should they work collaboratively […]? Here, I think,
we have not succeeded, actually. (IE1)
(continued on next page)
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
 Table 3 (continued)
INTERMEDIARYROLES (Kivimaa, 2014)
Configuring and aligning interests (N3)
Managing financial resources - finding
potential funding and funding
activities (N4)
Identification and management of human
resource needs (skills) (N5)
Knowledge gathering, processing,
generation and combination (L1)
Technology assessment and evaluation
(L2)
10
Prototyping and piloting (L3)
Investments in new businesses (L4)
Communication and dissemination of
knowledge (L5)
EFFECTa SWEDISH CONTEXT
Intermediary role in Swedish context
X Intermediary is mostly confronted with R&D interests
in the existing network; dominance of universities as
investor-partners
It is difficult to align economically-oriented part of the
EU-vision and local R&D interests in ongoing
interactions
InnoEnergy operates as an co-investment fund
Included in portfolio (especially in the education
business line of EIT)
X Largely affected by trade secrecy; R&D oriented
Technology assessment and evaluation is a standard
part of each project’s management
Low TRL; weak degree of prototyping
X Yes, but relatively lower number of start-ups realized
than the mean average of all InnoEnergy locations
X Project management suffers from communication
issues with investor-partners and secrecy in deal-
making and IP-ownership of students
Swedish contextual factors
[-] local policy: historically well-developed
triple helix approach in existing policies
(CS4)
[-] local culture: strong, detailed
engineering mindset (CS5)
[-] local industry: incumbent work with
trade secrets and business confidential
information (CS6)
[-] local culture: strong detailed engineering
mindset (CS5)
[-] local market: local incubators and
business angel network (CS7)
[-] local industry: incumbent work with
trade secrets and business confidential
information (CS6)
[-] local university policy: university are not
IP-owner of student invention and thus
cannot build a university-managed IP-
portfolio (CS8)
Representative quote
A. Van Boxstael, et al.
The government understood for a long time that in order to
be a prosperous country, we needed to engage in the
development of the global companies. And at that time,
between the forties and the seventies, it was set up. And
that’s actually the background of the whole Triple Helix
thing. (SE6)
Swedish engineering is very detailed in that sense. Yes, there
is a strong engineering culture. (SE3)
It has been very hard for many wave companies to get the
big utilities to buy in because of all the failures that have
occurred in the past. (SE3)
There already was a legal framework for how to
collaborate. (SE3)
So, we said, show us what is going: show us the business
game. How are you going to make money? If you cannot
show the product, we are going to stop the project. (IE1)
There are many local incubators. There are many business
angel networks. You also have governmental investment
funds. There is a whole bunch of players with different
approaches. (IE1)
They are actually very afraid of opening up. Trade secrets
and confidential business information are one of things that
we have to overcome in convincing them to participate.
(IE1)
Sweden allows the inventors to keep the patents, whereas in
most institutions worldwide the university would keep the
patent. So because they give the inventor the IP, the
inventor has now the ownership to actually take it forward
and make it into a company (SE11).
(continued on next page)
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
 Table 3 (continued)

INTERMEDIARYROLES (Kivimaa, 2014) EFFECTa SWEDISH CONTEXT

Intermediary role in Swedish context Swedish contextual factors Representative quote

A. Van Boxstael, et al.

Education and training (L6) Included in portfolio (especially in the education

Provision of advice and support (L7)
Creating conditions for learning by doing
and using (L8)
Arbitration based on neutrality and trust
(O1)
Long-term project design, management
and evaluation (O2)
Policy implementation (O3)
Accreditation and standard setting (O4)
Creating new jobs (O5)
business line of EIT)
Advisory is a standard part of each project’s
management
Conferences, consortium, public reports and flyers are
a standard part of each project’s management
X Neutrality is an essential requirement for actors Not found in the data We organized the meeting where all the partners could
meet. That was incredibly appreciated because when they
meet in a neutral arena, they get to know each other and
see the potential for collaboration. (SE6)
Contractually long-term commitment of the investor
partners
EU-level policy
X No formal accreditation; informal branding through Not found in the data The InnoEnergy brand is really strong today. And I think a
status and reputation (O4) lot of industrial companies […] are looking to InnoEnergy
as a reference for their pool of companies. That obviously
wasn’t the case in the beginning when InnoEnergy was
unknown. (SE3)
Yes, part of the mission statement of InnoEnergy, but
number of jobs realized are not disclosed

11
Notes:aEffect: An “X” means that the intermediary roles were affected by a contextual factor.
b
[+] or [-] refers to the effect of the contextual factor on the systemic intermediary activities of InnoEnergy in the focal location. [+] refers to a contextual factor that supports the adoption of
intermediary activities; [-] refers to a contextual factor that inhibits the adoption of intermediary activities.
c
“Local” in this table refers to the focal location.
d
CS = contextual factor of the Scandinavian InnoEnergy location (primarily Sweden).
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
A. Van Boxstael, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

R&D projects and technology commercialization by incumbent players; (2) business creation, that is, start-up development by new
firms and incumbent players; and (3) education6 . Each location within EIT InnoEnergy would be able to customize these broad
business lines in response to the needs of their local participants.
Table 1 provides an overview of the four main types of systemic intermediary roles (Kivimaa, 2014) and relates these roles to
contextual factors. Tables 2 and 3 depict in more detail how systemic intermediary roles (Kivimaa, 2014) were performed at the two
locations. These results imply that both locations engaged in a wide variety of systemic intermediary roles. From our data analysis, it
becomes clear that specific contextual factors influenced how the roles could be performed in the two contexts. In Spain, we observed
eight contextual factors which mostly support the implementation and development of intermediary activities. In the Swedish
context, we likewise identified eight contextual factors that appear to mostly inhibit the implementation and development of in-
termediary activities. In the next sections, we discuss the findings for each location.

4.2. Spanish contextual factors affecting intermediary roles

The data analysis showed that the intermediary’s role in Spain arose from the interaction with local7 policy, local market, local
culture, local infrastructure and local industry conditions.

4.2.1. Articulation of expectations and vision (A)

The Iberian office communicated a clear focus (A1) on projects at a high technology readiness level (TRL), following the original
EIT vision regarding InnoEnergy. Specifically, the Iberian office responded to the strong need for more technology commercialization
and business creation in the Spanish renewable energy market. This focus on technology commercialization and business creation
was translated into strategic roadmaps (A2) and business plans for market introduction (A3), and in the acceptance procedures of
each project. Yet, the articulation of a transition-oriented vision (A) evolved at a gradual pace and the advancement of sustainability
aims (A4) in the Spanish location was impeded for a long time:
Three years ago, I think, there were still companies that were not convinced about the energy transition like renewables and
electrification of the companies. There were many companies that were doing it, but some companies like in the oil and gas industry
were still playing their game and trying to, not to deny it, but they did not think that it could be as clear as it is today. (IE4)
Interviewees related the gradual pace to a national “sun tax policy”, a law that heavily taxed the return of power by private solar
panels to the grid, and hence favored gas and oil production (supply) and consumption (demand) over the consumption of solar
energy. This policy was mentioned by many interviewees as a barrier to the advance of the intermediary’s sustainability aims, for
example:
‘(…) but there are companies that are largely based on fossil fuels, and they really want to continue working on that. They are
looking for more efficient solutions that will allow them to still continue running on the energy they are promoting, which is gas.’
(SE10)
At a later stage, two contextual conditions appeared to facilitate the acceptance of the transition-oriented vision of the inter-
mediary in the Spanish location. A new local policy (CI3) for stimulating the commercialization of renewable energy was developed
by the Spanish government elected in 2018. Also, the newness of especially the Spanish EU-membership (CI1) implied that many
actors in the Spanish InnoEnergy location felt they needed to “prove” themselves in the EU and were thus open and positive toward
EU-activities; for example:
I think that today, nobody in Europe has any doubt that the energy transition will happen, and it will probably happen sooner
than what some of them were expecting. So then everybody knows that they have to change, and the most traditional companies,
those that are coming from oil and gas or even the utilities that have a lot of traditional generation and so on, for them it's very clear
now that they have to change in that.’ (IE5)

4.2.2. Building of social networks (N)

The creation and facilitation of networks (N1) in and around the Spanish region had been highly successful in terms of density and
number of participants. The network consisted of various regime actors (e.g. incumbent firms, universities, governmental agencies)
linking a wide variety of innovation projects (e.g. R&D, new start-ups). Furthermore, InnoEnergy Iberia played a central gatekeeper’s
role (N2) in the region: this InnoEnergy office was rather successful in acquiring eight regime partners and in easily re-connecting
with them throughout the subsequent years to work on new start-ups and innovation projects.
The building of a social network (N) in the Spanish context apparently benefited from several local conditions. The local
InnoEnergy network could draw on an existing ‘cluster network’ of technical universities (CI4) from the early beginning. This social
network was further supported by an open and informal culture (CI5). Several interviewees also noted that there were few investment
funds and start-up facilities in Spain (CI2) and that InnoEnergy Iberia thus was an important actor to turn to for investment capital
and start-up support services. A weak Spanish economy, with low investments in innovation after the 2008 financial crisis, made
many start-ups look for funds which supported the growth in intermediary activities:
Because InnoEnergy is funded by the European Union, a lot of public funding was made available for innovation in the sustainable
energy sector. This could be the reason why many companies and entrepreneurs joined the movement, because not many other

6
The education activities fall outside the scope of this study.
7
“Local” has a relative meaning: i.e. local in terms of the two specific countries.

12
A. Van Boxstael, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

options [such as bank loans] were available (IE4).

Despite a substantial number of start-ups and R&D projects initiated by InnoEnergy Iberia, its intermediary role suffered from a
weak local infrastructure (CI6) like insufficient train and flight connections across Spain and Portugal. It meant that the local in-
frastructure, or actually lack thereof, made it difficult for staff members of InnoEnergy Iberia to reach firms or potential partners that
were located far away from the Iberian office. Vice versa, it also meant that start-ups founded in more distant locations were often
hindered in joining activities and projects initiated by InnoEnergy.
The data, however, suggests that Iberia InnoEnergy was truly challenged in addressing and aligning interests of the different
actors (N3), especially in its early years: while developing several intermediary activities, InnoEnergy faced a strong dominance of the
large oil and gas firms in Spain (CI7). Especially the Spanish oil and gas firms formed a powerful, highly consolidated industry that
continued to lobby for (e.g. political support for) fossil fuels. Nevertheless, these incumbent firms were motivated to participate in the
network of InnoEnergy, because by actively participating they could explore the (potential) commercial value of new energy tech-
nologies.

4.2.3. Learning processes and exploration (L)

Technology assessment (L2), prototyping and piloting (L3), investment in new businesses (L4), education and training (L7)
appeared to be at the heart of InnoEnergy’s project management approach. The data also indicate that the Iberian office of
InnoEnergy was able to gather (L1) and disseminate knowledge (L5) on business creation and technological innovation. In this
respect, InnoEnergy’s learning was quite multidimensional: the actors involved learned about relevant issues like technology man-
agement and start-up management in the evolving energy sectors or the wider market conditions for renewable energy. Overall,
InnoEnergy supported the Spanish actors in their learning and exploration efforts (L), for example by developing transnational
relationships and initiating transnational benchmarking. Such transnational benchmarking made the Spanish actors learn about their
own weak investment and start-up policies as well as international policy shifts and regulatory frameworks.

4.2.4. Other (O)

Trust and neutrality were apparently not a key concern. Several interviewees mentioned they trusted (O1) InnoEnergy. The seven-
year contractual participation by investor-partners was also instrumental in securing a long-term commitment (O2). Moreover,
InnoEnergy Iberia did not intend to operate as a formal accreditation agency, but did create an important reputation effect around
their projects (O4). This helped project managers in their efforts to convince stakeholders with scarce resources to come on board
(CI8):
“[The intermediary offers the start-ups] a good, validated deal flow. If they [e.g. banks] are ready to invest in a company, we
validate them. It’s like a stamp, it’s about the risk, because we then have the whole process of accelerating them.” (IE5)

4.3. Swedish contextual factors affecting intermediary roles

The analysis of the Swedish data served to identify which contextual factors co-shaped the roles of InnoEnergy Scandinavia: local
policy, infrastructure, culture, market, and industry. The influence of the contextual factors on the intermediary’s role in Sweden
appeared to be mostly negative.

4.3.1. Articulation of expectations and vision (A)

The data shows that InnoEnergy Scandinavia especially intermediated toward the articulation of needs and visions (A1) con-
cerning a focus on projects at a low TRL in collaboration with research institutes and universities. A few years after it started,
InnoEnergy Scandinavia tried to engage its key stakeholders in projects focusing on higher TRL-levels (A2-A4), in line with the initial
EIT mission. In doing so, InnoEnergy’s staff faced substantial resistance from key actors in their networks.
The data analysis showed that the articulation of a transition-oriented vision (A) occurred against the background of a political
scene that already had a rather green orientation (CS2): Sweden had relatively advanced policies in place, like a policy reducing
carbon dioxide:
I think that Sweden has moved past the boundaries of green political parties. Green politics are commonly accepted. As a
consequence, we don’t need to fight for defending batteries: it's better than fossil-based fuels. (SE8)
This meant that potential participants for InnoEnergy’s programs already had access to various support measures and already
engaged in many transition-oriented activities, like R&D focused on renewable energy (CS3). Our data analysis clearly implies that
EIT’s vision was not perceived as novel. Swedish actors actually found it rather difficult to position InnoEnergy Scandinavia in the
ongoing energy transition efforts in the region. Moreover, several interviewees referred to a cultural condition, a “Scandinavian
engineering mindset” (CS5), involving a meticulous approach with deep attention to quality control and product performance:
In our company, we have the idea that the machine has to be very close to perfect before being put in the ocean, otherwise we will
just have another failure. It's this realization, rather than the shortest time to the market with a workable product, that matters. The
least risk and the least money to get there is actually by doing these detailed steps. It actually takes ten years to take these steps. (SE3)
Similar issues often appeared in discussions between potential project partners and the intermediary. For example, many in-
dustrial actors wanted InnoEnergy to help them in their R&D efforts, whereas the intermediary focused on new business development
beyond the direct interests of these incumbents:
It led to conflict. We had a lot of, you know, really tough discussions. Because people [at InnoEnergy] actually didn’t understand
why we were oriented on commercialization. (IE1)

13
A. Van Boxstael, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

4.3.2. Building of social networks (N)

The successful creation and facilitation of networks (N1) by InnoEnergy Scandinavia was also evident from the number of R&D
participants (e.g. university or R&D departments of incumbent firms), but evolved slowly in comparison to the Spanish network.
Moreover, after several years the Swedish location lost its industrial stakeholders (N2). By 2017, InnoEnergy Scandinavia reoriented
its funding toward activities with high TRL-levels. This inhibited the alignment of interests (N3). The (only) two industrial stake-
holders ended their participation and stopped investing in new projects (N4), leaving InnoEnergy Scandinavia in a relatively weak
position toward industry, as their only shareholders were now universities.
The building of a social network (N) in the Swedish context was affected by the local market (CS3), local policy (CS4), local
industry (CS1) and cultural conditions (CS5). Many Swedish policies and market dynamics arose from a historically well-developed
triple helix approach (CS4). Accordingly, many mutual partnerships among various kinds of regime actors were already established
via strong connections between universities, governments and companies, which together sought to create value by stimulating cross-
industry innovations. It also meant that InnoEnergy Scandinavia could not easily (continue to) commit energy incumbents and other
non-academic partners to their network. Incumbent firms did not see the added value of InnoEnergy’s activities, compared to various
existing national policies, market conditions (favoring R&D), and existing incubators and business angel networks (CS7):
There are many local incubators. There are many business angel networks. You also have governmental investment funds. There is
a whole bunch of players with different approaches. (IE1)

4.3.3. Learning processes and exploration (L)

InnoEnergy Scandinavia experienced major difficulties in gathering (L1) and disseminating knowledge (L5). Many intermediation
projects and related activities by stakeholders in InnoEnergy were subject to company trade secrecy (CS6), thus restricting collective
learning. Moreover, in contrast to universities elsewhere, the policies of the Swedish universities involved (CS8) offering students
direct ownership of their ideas and inventions: the student, rather than the university, thus had non-disclosure power, making it
difficult for external parties to access the students’ inventions. More generally speaking, the need for non-disclosure inhibited broader
learning and knowledge dissemination in the network:
I mean [SE1] is good example. They are a 1.5-billion-dollar company. They don’t need InnoEnergy’s money. […] Why should they
work collaboratively, where they have to reveal secrets and share IT and stuff like that? So, they don’t want to. They are actually very
afraid of opening up about trading secrets and confidential business information. Because of that, there’s a long list of things that we
are trying to overcome to convince them. And here, I think, we have not succeeded, actually. (IE1)

4.3.4. Other (O)

Despite the difficulties to attract project partners (outlined earlier), many Swedish actors did value InnoEnergy as an inter-
mediary, primarily because of its arbitration activities (O1) and InnoEnergy’s international brand recognition (O4), which supported
international access to other niches and regime actors in Europe.

5. Discussion on transnational systemic intermediaries

Drawing on a case study of a European intermediary, we explored how two different contexts affect the role of this intermediary
in the energy transition. By investigating two different contexts, our study serves to explore whether and how contextual factors
impact a systemic intermediary’s activities. Both the Spanish and Swedish office of InnoEnergy are embedded within a single
European organization that provides intermediation services for niche as well as regime actors in the ongoing energy transition. Our
results show that, in the eight years since InnoEnergy was established, the two locations have developed quite distinct intermediary
roles and activities – despite a central EU-driven orientation.
InnoEnergy Scandinavia operated in a region defined by strong “green” politics and policies and an energy industry that was
already transforming. Moreover, the Swedish context involved a culture with trust-based relations developing slowly, a meticulous
engineering-oriented mindset, strong innovation policies arising from its triple helix tradition, a strong international trade position,
and a substantial focus on trade secrets and business confidentiality. Table 1 reviews the Swedish contextual factors and displays their
effects on the intermediary’s roles (Kivimaa et al. 2014). Even though InnoEnergy Scandinavia aimed to enforce the existing ties
between government, universities and businesses, this office of InnoEnergy was confronted with local market, policy and industrial
conditions that were already highly supportive of transition-oriented activities. As a result, this InnoEnergy office could not easily
attract investor-partners. Its attempt to approach intermediation systemically in the Swedish context involved a rather long time
horizon, requiring extensive local research and engagement. It meant that for several years, most intermediary activities were
performed with niche-actors or universities only. This strongly undermined the systemic nature of InnoEnergy’s intermediary role in
that particular area. Also, the existence of other intermediary agencies in Sweden further challenged the legitimacy of InnoEnergy.
For instance, one governmental organization in Stockholm, which had emerged earlier from the Swedish Triple Helix policy, was
more appreciated by regional niche and regime actors. The appreciation for this established intermediary arose from a less bu-
reaucratic approach toward funding schemes, strong connections to local research institutes, and a shared cultural disposition toward
‘keeping promises’. InnoEnergy, as newcomer, could not immediately offer the same terms.
By contrast, InnoEnergy Iberia operated in conditions characterized by a strong motivation of many local actors to prove the
(benefits arising from) EU-membership of Spain. Moreover, the Spanish economy was weak, its energy industry was dominated by
several strong regime actors, the start-up infrastructure was weak, the culture was highly informal and relationship-oriented, there
were hardly any financial resources, and traditional energy policies and regulations were changing slowly (if at all). These contextual

14
A. Van Boxstael, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

conditions favored many of InnoEnergy Iberia’s intermediary activities. Table 1 reviews the Spanish factors identified in the data
analysis and displays their effects. Interestingly, quite early after it was established, the office leveraged an existing consortium of
governmental actors in its network. Moreover, many incumbent firms (largely focused on fossil energy) were confronted with new
governmental regulations favoring renewable energy, which fueled InnoEnergy’s intermediary activities across the regime and niche
levels.
Our study explicitly sought to understand how contextual factors impact the role of a systemic intermediary. Taken together, our
findings point to two divergent consequences of the local context in each of the regions we studied. In Spain, the contextual factors
generated role confirmation of the intermediary, as most contextual factors supported the activities that InnoEnergy introduced in this
region. The pre-designed intermediary activities oriented toward both the niche and regime level were rather positively accepted by
local actors, resulting in a dense intermediary network.
The contextual factors of Sweden, on the other hand, generally generated role ambiguity within the intermediary and its network.
With role ambiguity, we refer to the observation that the office faced the need to redefine its activities in Sweden, as the respon-
sibilities and intermediary activities defined at the EU-level were somewhat negatively received by the local actors. Swedish regime
actors that already participated in ongoing transition-shifts expressed that they did not comprehend the introduction of a new
intermediary. The role ambiguity also meant that the local office initially struggled to adequately capture what its responsibilities
would be.
Furthermore, based on the insights arising from Table 1, we identify two new roles for a systemic intermediary. First, in view of
the predominantly negative contextual effects observed in Sweden (see last column, Table 1), we argue that a systemic intermediary
may do well to invest in a variety of social network building activities with regime actors. Our case included regime actors as
shareholders in the intermediation process, but may have overlooked forms of network building with regime actors that are more
informal and more incremental in nature. Second, given the learning activities in Spain (see first and second column, row L in
Table 1), we argue that a systemic intermediary may have an important international benchmarking function. In our study, the
Spanish actors observed that they had learned a lot from the transnational intermediary, especially about their own restrictive
investment and start-up policies, progressive international policy shifts, and regulation frameworks. These local actors then decided
to act upon those benchmarks.

5.1. Contribution to the literature

First, our study extends the intermediation literature (Howells, 2006; Kivimaa, 2014; Kivimaa et al., 2019) with a spatial per-
spective (Hansen and Coenen, 2015). Our study has attended to the relationship between multiple spatial levels. This spatial attention
responds to prior research that argued how energy transitions are generally defined as grand challenges, involving complex problems
with far-reaching societal implications without a clear solution (Coenen et al., 2015). These grand challenges require transnational
policies and global leadership (Ansari et al., 2013) as well as systemic efforts to exploit international complementarities and part-
nerships across many (increasingly specialized) firms, universities and other actors (Boschma and Frenken, 2006). EIT InnoEnergy
was established by the EU in a time characterized by ongoing globalization, envisioning a European network approach of inter-
organizational partnerships. Our study confirms the assumption that a transnational intermediary operating across different regions
can form an important arena for the creation and expansion of niches, generating the conditions for regime-shifts (Raven et al., 2012).
In addition, our study identifies particular role tensions.
Prior studies have linked effective intermediation to context dependencies such as national economic, social and political con-
ditions (Callon, 1998; Garud et al., 2010; Kern and Rogge, 2018). Within this line of reasoning, Hodson et al. (2013) raised awareness
to an important dilemma in intermediary management arising from context-specific effects: intermediation appears to require
priorities that are set by actors outside local settings, while these priorities are not instantly legitimate in these settings. Resolving this
dilemma by working solely on context-based priorities often leads to a misfit with the broader priorities and policies (Hodson et al.,
2013). In our study, the local Swedish regime affected the EU-initiated intermediary activities stronger than the transnationally
designed activities did. Thus, local institutions, policies and regulations may strongly undermine the efficacy of a transnational
intermediary.
Second, our study extends the extant literature (e.g., Kivimaa et al., 2019; Kivimaa and Martiskainen, 2018) by showing that
systemic intermediation suffers from local competition with other intermediaries and has thus important competitive and colla-
borative implications for the design of intermediaries. Prior work by Kivimaa and Martiskainen (2018) already noted that an ecology
of intermediaries is not necessarily a “seamlessly functioning network”, since each intermediary has its own interests. Our case study
reflects these prior findings as the Swedish office had difficulty to create added value, relative to the ongoing intermediation efforts
by established incubators and business angel networks. Our findings indicate that the Spanish office more easily accelerated the
energy transition because this intermediary experienced less competition from other local intermediaries. Our study hence confirms
that it is of strategic importance for a new systemic intermediary to map and understand the extant ecology of intermediation in the
region (Kivimaa et al., 2019). Also, a new systemic intermediary is an actor that needs to consider and continually adapt its strategic
position within the existing and shifting ecology. In that respect, future research might draw on Kanda et al. (2020) to explicitly
consider the regional fit of the intermediary’s system-level design. Specifically, instead of trying to establish one’s own network (as
InnoEnergy did), future research can investigate whether transnational intermediaries are not better off by mediating in-between
existing networks of other intermediaries (i.e. system level 2, according to Kanda et al., 2020) or in-between actors, their networks,
and institutions (i.e. system level 3, according to Kanda et al., 2020).
Third, our study deepens extant knowledge on regime engagement (e.g., Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2014; Geels, 2014; Smink

15
A. Van Boxstael, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

et al., 2015) in transition-progressive settings. Particularly, the findings regarding the Swedish office in our case study suggest that
regime engagement may be more difficult to accomplish in a region that is already transition-oriented. Although the Swedish case
exhibited substantial ongoing regime engagement in developing and commercializing renewable energy, InnoEnergy’s office could
not link those regime actors to its network, implying that the regime requirements need more tailor-made attention, one that In-
noEnergy could not offer with its activity portfolio. To cope with transition-progressive conditions, the Swedish office allocated a lot
of its resources toward learning and understanding what some of the regime actors wanted (Boon et al., 2011). This observation
about contextual learning resonates with scholars advocating systemic intermediaries to prioritize and redefine their activities on an
ongoing basis (Kivimaa et al., 2019) and engaging in active learning to rethink assumptions about their own transition logic when
new information and evidence about the local conditions becomes available (Ansari et al., 2013; Manders et al., 2020). Also, our
finding that transition-progressive Swedish regime actors affected intermediation efficacy negatively appears to confirm that eco-
system thinking and designing – the act of aligning the value creation across all actors in the socio-technical system – may be an
important dynamic capability for a systemic intermediary (Walrave et al., 2018). Future research thus needs to investigate how a
transnational intermediary should manage role prioritization, active learning and ecosystem thinking in more transition-progressive
regions.

5.2. Conclusion and policy implications

In this paper, we explored how a transnational systemic intermediary facilitates the energy transition in two fundamentally
different contexts. Our study shows that contextual factors appear to have co-shaped the intermediary’s activities in these two
regions. In the Swedish context, most activities were performed with niche-actors or only a few universities. The office had difficulties
to reach and convince a substantial number of regime actors, which strongly undermined the systemic intentions of this intermediary.
By contrast, several contextual conditions in Iberia favored systemic intermediary activities, allowing the regime and niche levels to
converge. Therefore, our study identified strong context-dependencies in how a transnational intermediary operates, and thus implies
that a systemic intermediary should seek to (1) acquire a strategic overview of system changes (Hodson et al., 2013; Kivimaa et al.,
2019) and (2) understand interrelationships across scales of governance (Raven et al., 2012; Hermans et al., 2016) and then de-
termine a suitable system-level approach (Kanda et al., 2020).
A potential limitation of our study is that our findings about the two new roles arise from nested cases. Future research thus needs
to assess whether the observed patterns (e.g., role ambiguity) are also present in other intermediation settings.
Future research might also benefit from investigating the effects of an ecology of intermediaries more profoundly to fully com-
prehend the extent to which such competition affects the acceleration of a transition process. Moreover, future work in this area can
study systemic intermediation in other transition-progressive regions, to more deeply understand how transitions can be further
stimulated and how lapses or reversions are best prevented.
For policy makers, our study provides interesting findings with regard to how a systemic intermediary operates as a policy tool
(Hodson et al., 2013; Kivimaa and Martiskainen, 2018). The findings on regime engagement and disengagement suggest that policy-
makers need to profoundly address the (local) regime conditions when initiating transition projects. Our study, however, also sug-
gests that efforts to understand the prevailing regime conditions may be very resource-intensive: the two local offices of InnoEnergy
were able to identify key regime actors, but convincing them to actively engage in intermediation efforts appeared to be a lengthy
experimental process, with some large incumbents eventually withdrawing. Future work on systemic intermediation may seek to
investigate how the engagement and retention of regime actors is best promoted and managed.

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by EIT InnoEnergy SE. The authors thank Mathijs Driessen for his help in coding the data.
This work further benefitted from discussions with Madis Talmar, our colleague, and, from discussions guided by Joel Gehman,
Candy Jones and Bernard Leca during the 35th EGOS-colloquium in Edinburgh. The authors are also grateful to the editor, the guest
editor, Paula Kivimaa, and three anonymous reviewers.

Appendix A. Investor-partners in InnoEnergy Scandinavia and Iberia

Partners of InnoEnergy Scandinavia

Industry Type FTE Founded Interviewed as

1 STU Research Higher Education 1001-5000 1827 SE6

2 UPS Research Higher Education 5001-10000 1477 –
3 ALT Research Higher Education 1001-5000 2010 –
4 NTU Research Higher Education 5001-10000 1996 –
5 LCA (discontinued its partnership in 2018) Utilities Private 10000+ 1889 SE1
6 VTF (discontinued its partnership in 2017) Utilities Private 10000+ 1909 –

16
A. Van Boxstael, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Partners of InnoEnergy Iberia

Industry Type FTE Founded Interviewed as

1 IBD Renewables & Environment Private 10000+ 1840 –

2 ACC Renewables & Environment Private 10000+ 1861 –
3 CML Farming Private 1001-5000 2010 –
4 ENG Oil & Energy Private 1001-5000 1969 –
5 NTG Oil & Energy Private 10000+ 1843 –
6 GLP Oil & Energy Public 5000-10000 1999 ES6
7 PRG Oil & Energy Private 51-200 2008 –
8 EDE Education Management Higher Education 501-1000 1958 ES4
9 USR Research Higher Education 1001-5000 1968 ES11
10 CMT Research Public 1001-5000 1951 –
11 IRC Research Public 51-200 2008 –
12 TCN Research Public 1001-5000 2010 ES12
13 RIS Research Public 51-200 2008 ES7
14 END Utilities Private 10000+ 1944 –
15 EUS Utilities Private 10000+ 1976 ES3
16 CCO Construction Private 5001-10000 1891 ES2

Appendix B. Overview of interviews

Label Industry FTE Founded Role (MLP) Sector

Interviews in network of InnoEnergy Scandinavia

SE1 Utilities/ Electrical Manufacturing 10000+ 1889 Regime (Large) Private
SE2 Autonomous Systems, Health Care and Care 11-50 2015 Regime (SME) Public
SE3 Renewables and Environment 11-50 2009 Niche (SME) Private
SE4 Utilities 1001-5000 1906 Regime (Shareholder) Private
SE5 Nanotechnology 2-10 2017 Niche (Start-up) Public
SE6 Higher Education 1101-5000 1827 Regime (Shareholder) Academic
SE7 Marine Biogas 2-10 2009 Niche (Start-up) Private
SE8 Battery/ Electrical Manufacturing 51-200 2016 Niche (SME) Private
SE9 Water Treatment and Sustainable Energy 2-10 1971 Niche (Start-up) Private
SE10 Electrical Manufacturing, Automation, Robotics 2-10 2013 Niche (Start-up) Public
SE11 Water Treatment and Sustainable Energy 2-10 2014 Niche (Start-up) Public
SE12 Algae, Biofuels 2-10 2013 Niche (Start-up) Public
Interviews at InnoEnergy Scandinavia
IE1 Renewables and Environment 201-500 2010 Intermediary Public-Private
IE2 Renewables and Environment 201-500 2010 Intermediary Public-Private
IE3 Renewables and Environment 201-500 2010 Intermediary Public-Private
Interviews in network of InnoEnergy Iberia
ES1 Renewables and Environment 11-50 2014 Niche (SME) Private
ES2 Construction 5000-10000 1891 Regime (Shareholder) Private
ES3 Utilities 10000+ 1976 Regime (Shareholder) Private
ES4 Education Management 501-1000 1958 Regime (Shareholder) Academic
ES5 Renewables and Environment 2-10 2017 Niche (Start-up) Private
ES6 Oil & Energy 5000-10000 1999 Regime (Shareholder) Public
ES7 Research 51-200 2008 Niche (SME) Public
ES8 Finance, Industry, Distribution, and Knowledge 10000+ 1956 Regime (Large) Private
ES9 Renewables and Environment 2-10 2017 Niche (Start-up) Private
ES10 Construction 10000+ 1913 Regime (Large) Private
ES11 Higher Education 51-200 1994 Niche (SME) Academic
ES12 Research 1001-5000 2010 Regime (Shareholder) Public
Interviews at InnoEnergy Iberia
IE4 Renewables and Environment 201-500 2010 Intermediary Public-Private
IE5 Renewables and Environment 201-500 2010 Intermediary Public-Private
IE6 Renewables and Environment 201-500 2010 Intermediary Public-Private

References

Ansari, S.S., Wijen, F., Gray, B., 2013. Constructing a climate change logic: an institutional perspective on the “tragedy of the commons.” Organ. Sci. 24, 1014–1040.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0799.
Bergek, A., Hekkert, M., Jacobsson, S., Markard, J., Sandén, B., Truffer, B., 2015. Technological innovation systems in contexts: conceptualizing contextual structures
and interaction dynamics. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions 16, 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.07.003.
Boon, W.P.C., Moors, E.H.M., Kuhlmann, S., Smits, R.E.H.M., 2011. Demand articulation in emerging technologies: intermediary user organisations as co-producers?
Res. Policy 40, 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.006.

17
A. Van Boxstael, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Boschma, R.A., Frenken, K., 2006. Why is economic geography not an evolutionary science? Towards an evolutionary economic geography. J. Econ. Geogr. https://
doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbi022.
Callon, M., 1998. Introduction: the embeddedness of economic markets in economics. Sociol. Rev. 46, 1–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954x.1998.tb03468.x.
Coenen, L., Benneworth, P., Truffer, B., 2012. Toward a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions. Res. Policy 41, 968–979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.
2012.02.014.
Coenen, L., Hansen, T., Rekers, J.V., 2015. Innovation policy for grand challenges. An economic geography perspective. Geogr. Compass 9, 483–496. https://doi.org/
10.1111/gec3.12231.
Edquist, C., Lundvall, B.A., 1993. Comparing the Danish and Swedish systems of innovation. In: Nelson, R. (Ed.), National Innovation Systems. Oxford University Press,
New York.
EIT, 2019. European Institute of Innovation and Technology. website available at:. European Commission 2011. Innovation Union, Brussels: European Commission.
https://eit.europa.eu./.
Fuenfschilling, L., Truffer, B., 2014. The structuration of socio-technical regimes - Conceptual foundations from institutional theory. Res. Policy 43, 772–791. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.010.
Garud, R., Gehman, J., 2012. Metatheoretical perspectives on sustainability journeys: evolutionary, relational and durational. Res. Policy 41, 980–995. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.07.009.
Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., Karnøe, P., 2010. Path dependence or path creation? J. Manage. Stud. 47, 760–774. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.
00914.x.
Geels, F.W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy 31, 1257–1274. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8.
Geels, F.W., 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Res.
Policy 33, 897–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015.
Geels, F.W., 2005. Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
72, 681–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2004.08.014.
Geels, F.W., 2014. Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Theory Cult. Soc. 31, 21–40.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276414531627.
Geels, F.W., Kern, F., Fuchs, G., Hinderer, N., Kungl, G., Mylan, J., Neukirch, M., Wassermann, S., 2016. The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: a
reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (1990-2014). Res. Policy 45, 896–913.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.015.
Geels, F.W., Schot, J., 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res. Policy 36, 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003.
Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G., Hamilton, A.L., 2013. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: notes on the gioia methodology. Organ. Res. Methods 16, 15–31.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151.
Granovetter, M., 1985. Granovetter - economic action and the problem of embeddedness. Am. J. Sociol. 91, 481–510. https://doi.org/10.2307/2780199.
Hansen, T., Coenen, L., 2015. The geography of sustainability transitions: review, synthesis and reflections on an emergent research field. Environ. Innov. Soc.
Transitions 17, 92–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2014.11.001.
Hargreaves, T., Hielscher, S., Seyfang, G., Smith, A., 2013. Grassroots innovations in community energy: the role of intermediaries in niche development. Glob.
Environ. Change 23, 868–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.008.
Hermans, F., Roep, D., Klerkx, L., 2016. Scale dynamics of grassroots innovations through parallel pathways of transformative change. Ecol. Econ. 130, 285–295.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.07.011.
Hess, D.J., 2016. The politics of niche-regime conflicts: distributed solar energy in the United States. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions 19, 42–50. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.eist.2015.09.002.
Hodson, M., Marvin, S., Bulkeley, H., 2013. The intermediary organisation of low carbon cities: a comparative analysis of transitions in Greater London and Greater
Manchester. Urban Stud. 50, 1403–1422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013480967.
Howells, J., 2006. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Res. Policy 35, 715–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005.
Ingram, J., 2015. Framing niche-regime linkage as adaptation: an analysis of learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture across Europe. J. Rural Stud.
40, 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.06.003.
InnoEnergy, 2015. In: InnoEnergy, K. (Ed.), KIC InnoEnergy. The European Company for Innovation, Business Creation and Education in Sustainable Energy, . https://
www.steinbeis-europa.de/files/kic_ie_corporate_brouchure.pdf.
Kanda, W., Río, Pdel, Hjelm, O., Bienkowska, D., 2019. A technological innovation systems approach to analyse the roles of intermediaries in eco-innovation. J. Clean.
Prod. 227, 1136–1148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.230.
Kanda, W., Kuisma, M., Kivimaa, P., Hjelm, O., 2020. Conceptualising the systemic activities of intermediaries in sustainability transitions. Environ. Innov. Soc.
Transitions. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.01.002.
Kant, M., Kanda, W., 2019. Innovation intermediaries: what does it take to survive over time? J. Clean. Prod. 229, 911–930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.
04.213.
Kemp, R., Schot, J., Hoogma, R., 1998. Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management. Technol.
Anal. Strateg. Manage. 10, 175–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329808524310.
Kern, F., Rogge, K.S., 2018. Harnessing theories of the policy process for analysing the politics of sustainability transitions: a critical survey. Environ. Innov. Soc.
Transitions 27, 102–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.11.001.
Kivimaa, P., 2014. Government-affiliated intermediary organisations as actors in system-level transitions. Res. Policy 43, 1370–1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
respol.2014.02.007.
Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., 2018. Innovation, low energy buildings and intermediaries in Europe: systematic case study review. Energy Effic. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12053-017-9547-y.
Kivimaa, P., Hyysalo, S., Boon, W., Klerkx, L., Martiskainen, M., Schot, J., 2019. Passing the baton: how intermediaries advance sustainability transitions in different
phases. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions 31, 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.001.
Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., 2009. Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: insights from the Dutch agricultural sector.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 76, 849–860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.10.001.
Köhler, J., Geels, F.W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F., Avelino, F., Bergek, A., Boons, F., Fünfschilling, L., Hess, D., Holtz, G., Hyysalo,
S., Jenkins, K., Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., McMeekin, A., Mühlemeier, M.S., Nykvist, B., Pel, B., Raven, R., Rohracher, H., Sandén, B., Schot, J., Sovacool, B.,
Turnheim, B., Welch, D., Wells, P., 2019. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: state of the art and future directions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions
31, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004.
Manders, T.N., Anna Wieczorek, A.J., Geert Verbong, G.P.J., 2020. Complexity, tensions, and ambiguity of intermediation in a transition context: the case of con-
necting Mobility. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions 34, 183–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.01.011.
Markard, J., Raven, R., Truffer, B., 2012. Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects. Res. Policy 41, 955–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
respol.2012.02.013.
Mignon, I., Kanda, W., 2018. A typology of intermediary organizations and their impact on sustainability transition policies. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions 29,
100–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.07.001.
Raven, R., Schot, J., Berkhout, F., 2012. Space and scale in socio-Technical transitions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions 4, 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2012.
08.001.
Saldaña, J., 2015. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (No. 14). Sage, pp. 223.
Schiermeier, Q., 2016. Multibillion-euro innovation hub slammed by auditors. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.19753.

18
A. Van Boxstael, et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Smink, M., Negro, S.O., Niesten, E., Hekkert, M.P., 2015. How mismatching institutional logics hinder niche-regime interaction and how boundary spanners intervene.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 100, 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.004.
Van Lente, H., Hekkert, M., Smits, R., Van Waveren, B., 2003. Roles of systemic intermediaries in. Int. J. Innov. Manage. Technol. 7, 1–33.
Walrave, B., Talmar, M., Podoynitsyna, K.S., Romme, A.G.L., Verbong, G.P.J., 2018. A multi-level perspective on innovation ecosystems for path-breaking innovation.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 136, 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.04.011.
Wieczorek, A.J., Raven, R., Berkhout, F., 2015. Transnational linkages in sustainability experiments: a typology and the case of solar photovoltaic energy in India.
Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions 17, 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.01.001.

19