Socio-Technical Transitions To Sustainability: A Review of Criticisms and Elaborations of The Multi-Level Perspective

COSUST-905; NO.
OF PAGES 15
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: a review of

criticisms and elaborations of the Multi-Level
Perspective
Frank W Geels
This article discusses the socio-technical transition literature, functions or end-use services [1]. This unit of analysis is
particularly the Multi-Level Perspective, which investigates the important because mobility (especially automobile and air
fundamental changes in (energy, transport, housing, agro-food) transport), nutrition (especially meat and dairy), and
systems that are needed to address persistent sustainability domestic energy consumption (heating/cooling, lighting,
problems. The article positions the MLP within the wider washing, showering, appliances) account for 70–80% of
academic debate on sustainability transformations, and environmental impacts in industrialized countries [2].
reviews criticisms and seven recent elaborations of the MLP Addressing persistent and worsening environmental pro-
with regard to: (1) politics and power, (2) cultural discourse and blems (such as climate change, biodiversity loss, resource
framing struggles, (3) grassroots innovation, (4) multiple depletion) therefore requires fundamental changes in
transition pathways, (5) incumbent firm resistance and these systems, which are conceptualized in shorthand as
reorientation, (6) destabilization and decline, (7) policy analysis. ‘socio-technical’ since the fulfilment of societal functions
Mobilizing insights from the wider social sciences, these involves not only technologies, but also situated consumer
elaborations have nuanced and differentiated the practices, cultural meanings, public policies, business
understanding of socio-technical transitions to sustainability models, markets, and infrastructures [3].
and made the MLP the central pillar of a multi-facetted,
cumulative research programme with a broad empirical Combining ideas from evolutionary economics, sociology
evidence base. of innovation, and neo-institutional theory [1,4,5], the
MLP emphasizes the importance of radical innovations,
Address while also understanding socio-technical transitions as
Sustainable Consumption Institute & Manchester Institute of Innovation enacted by multiple social groups (e.g. firms, consumers,
Research, Alliance Manchester Business School West, Room 8.050, The
University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom
social movements, policymakers, researchers, media,
investors), who engage in multiple activities (e.g.
Corresponding author: Geels, Frank W (Frank.geels@manchester.ac.uk) exploration, learning, debate, negotiation, power struggle,
conflict, investment, coalition building, goal-setting) in
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2019, XX:xx–yy
the context of rules and institutions, including belief
systems and norms.
This review comes from a themed issue on The state of knowledge
on social transformations (SoK)
Socio-technical transitions research emerged in the early
Edited by Sarah Moore
2000s in the field of innovation studies, was initially
tested and refined through several dozen historical
Received: 12 February 2019; Accepted: 21 June 2019 case studies of transitions (in mobility, heating, power,
agro-food, water, sanitation, music), and has subsequently
been widely applied to analyses of unfolding and future
sustainability transitions, for example, renewable electric-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.009 ity [6,7], biomass district heating [8], electric vehicles
1877-3435/ã 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. [9,10], agro-ecology [11], plant-based milk [12], and urban
mobility [13]. The MLP has therefore become one of the
core frameworks of the Sustainability Transitions
Research Network [14,15,16]. The MLP has been used
to analyze both green technologies and social innovations
such as alternative food networks [17], bike sharing [18],
Introduction less-meat initiatives [19], community energy [20],
This paper describes the socio-technical transitions telework [21], mobile money systems [22], and care
approach, especially the Multi-Level Perspective farming [23].
(MLP), and reviews criticisms and recent elaborations.
The MLP is one approach among others in the academic The conceptual framework has been elaborated in the
debate on social transformations to sustainability, focusing past 15 years, as a result of reflections on varied case
on transitions in systems (for example, energy, transport, studies, responses to criticisms, and incorporation of
housing, agro-food systems), which provide societal insights from the wider social sciences. Successive
www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2019, 20:1–15
Please cite this article in press as: Geels FW: Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: a review of criticisms and elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective, Curr Opin Environ Sustain (2019),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.009
COSUST-905; NO. OF PAGES 15
2 The state of knowledge on social transformations (SoK)
sections of this paper aim to briefly describe the MLP, Figure 1

review criticisms and seven conceptual elaborations, and
draw conclusions. The paper starts by positioning the Biosphere
MLP in the wider intellectual debate on transformations
to sustainability, noting both some fair and some Society
Geographical systems
misguided criticisms.
Positioning socio-technical transitions

research in the wider sustainability Resource Provision systems Waste
transformation debate systems systems
While the diverse and burgeoning literature on transforma-
tions to sustainability emphasizes the need for fundamental Distribution systems
changes in systems and structures, there are multiple
schools and conceptual approaches, which scholars have
tried to map in various ways — in terms of core dimensions
of transformation, kinds of systems, and understanding of Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
change processes.
Complementary systems [27, p. 239].
Firstly, focusing on core dimensions, Schneidewind and
Augenstein [24] distinguish idealist/cultural, institutional-
ist/political and technological innovation schools of
thought. Along similar lines, O’Brien [25] distinguishes a sustainability projects that empower marginalized actors
practical sphere (technologies and concrete behaviors or and question dominant narratives), and transformative adap-
practices), a political sphere, and a personal/cultural sphere tation (which suggests that adaptation strategies should not
(beliefs, worldviews, values). While some transformation just accommodate change, but also create new alternatives).
approaches focus on one sphere, others also accommodate They assess that: “Transition approaches and social-
interactions between them. ecological transformation approaches have been perhaps
the ‘boldest’ in hypothesising trajectories of change.
Secondly, focusing on kinds of systems, Loorbach et al. [26] ( . . . ) Sustainability pathways and transformative adapta-
distinguish three approaches: socio-technical systems tion approaches are less focused on conceptualizing mecha-
(e.g. energy, mobility, water, waste), socio-institutional nisms and trajectories of change per se, and more focused on
or socio-economic systems (e.g. education, labor, finance) applying a critical perspective to ideas of transformations”
and socio-ecological systems (e.g. forestry, fisheries, agri- [28, p. 9–10]. Feola [29, p. 385] characterizes some
culture). This resonates with Røpke [27], who distinguishes transformation approaches (socio-technical transitions,
resource and waste systems (where nature interacts with socio-ecological regime shift, socio-metabolic transitions,
society), provision (or socio-technical) systems that social practice theory) as analytical-descriptive and
“transform energy and resources and render them useful change-oriented using “substantive, non-prescriptive and
for final consumption” (p. 238), distribution systems that theoretically grounded concepts of transformation which
affect the social provision of goods and services to parts of identify patterns and units and their relationships”. Three
the population (e.g. labor market, tax system, monetary other approaches (transformative adaptation, progressive
system), and geographical systems, which refer to gover- transformation, deliberate transformation) are characterized
nance and economic jurisdictions (e.g. cities, national as solution-oriented, which “value creativity, problem
economies). Røpke also provides a schematic summary solving and participatory processes” but “lack a rigorous
(Figure 1), which suggests that socio-technical provision conceptualization of transformation” [29, p. 386]. Brand
systems drive increasing production and consumption [30, p. 24–25] likewise distinguishes approaches that use
patterns, which cause environmental resource and transformation as analytical concept (aimed at “eliciting a
pollution problems. ‘Distribution’ and ‘geographical’ clearer understanding of different transformative
systems shape, enable and underpin provision systems dynamics”) or strategic concept (characterized by the “wish
through regulations, knowledge and financial flows, to transform away from unsustainability”).
incentives, and so on.
Most of these mapping exercises acknowledge socio-
Thirdly, focusing on change processes, Patterson et al. [28] technical transitions research as a relevant approach,
distinguish four approaches: socio-technical transitions while also articulating some fair criticisms. Firstly, while
(focused on co-evolving technological, social, institutional the MLP often takes technology and other innovations as
and economic changes), socio-ecological systems (focused an analytical entrance point, it is a multi-dimensional
on resilience and regime shifts between basins of attraction), approach because the analytical strategy of following
sustainability pathways (focused on local bottom–up innovation trajectories, described further below,
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2019, 20:1–15 www.sciencedirect.com
Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: a review of criticisms and elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective Geels 3
intrinsically draws attention to various actors and strug- large-scale transformations of socio-ecological systems
gles rather than privileging one social group or dimension towards sustainability”.
as disciplinary approaches (e.g. political science, business
studies, cultural studies, social movement theory) tend to Multi-Level Perspective on socio-technical
do. O’Brien [25], for instance, suggests that the MLP transitions
starts in the practical sphere, but also acknowledges As a process theory, the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP)
political and cultural spheres. The criticism that the has both a ‘global model’ component (consisting of three
“transitions literature tends to focus on artifacts and analytical levels and several temporal phases), which
technologies” [31] and does not acknowledge conflict, describes the overall course of socio-technical transitions,
politics or culture is therefore misleading. This criticism and a ‘local model’ component, which addresses-specific
not only misses the MLP-based studies of social activities and causal mechanisms in multi-level
innovations, but also overlooks the point that technology interactions [39].
is a fruitful entrance point for studying ‘society in the
making’ [32,33]. This analytical strategy does not imply Existing energy, agro-food and mobility systems are
a supply side focus, because studying technologies over stabilized by the alignments between technologies, poli-
time involves following them from invention and cies, user patterns, infrastructures, and cultural discourses
innovation to diffusion, societal embedding and actual that have been created in previous decades [40]. System
use [34], including socio-cultural and political struggles in elements are reproduced, maintained and incrementally
different phases. improved by incumbent actors, such as firms, engineers,
users, policy-makers and regulators, and special-interest
Secondly, because the MLP focuses on transitions in groups. The perceptions and actions of these social groups
socio-technical (‘provisioning’) systems, Røpke [27] fairly are shaped by entrenched shared rules and institutions,
criticizes the approach for not addressing socio-ecological which are called socio-technical regimes [5].
or distribution systems. Because of the limited focus
on distribution systems, another fair criticism is that Innovation in existing systems and regimes is mostly
socio-technicaltransitions research says less about social incremental and path-dependent because of various
sustainability (e.g. inequality, poverty, work conditions) lock-in mechanisms [41]:
than about environmental sustainability, although there
is emerging research on justice and distributional Techno-economic lock-in mechanisms: (a) sunk invest-
consequences of sustainability transitions [35,36]. ments (in competencies, factories, infrastructures) that
create vested interests against transitional change, (b)
Thirdly, the socio-technical transitions approach is very low cost and high-performance characteristics of existing
much oriented towards understanding change processes, technologies due to economies of scale and decades of
drawing on, among other things, Schumpeterian evolu- learning-by-doing improvements.
tionary economics in emphasizing radical innovation and Social and cognitive lock-in mechanisms: (a) routines
‘waves of creative destruction’. In fact, this intellectual and shared mind-sets that ‘blind’ actors to develop-
heritage helps explain why the MLP understands large- ments outside their focus [42], (b) ‘social capital’
scale change as ‘transition’ (since the diffusion of radical resulting from alignments between social groups, (c)
innovation tends to have discontinuous and disruptive user practices and life styles, which have become
effects). A fair criticism, however, is that transitions organized around particular technologies (e.g. car-
scholars tend to say less about sustainability outcomes or dependent mobility practices).
impacts [37]. Assuming that ‘green’ innovations are Institutional and political lock-in mechanisms: (a)
intrinsically positive, they rarely address how much existing regulations, standards, and policy networks
sustainability improvement they offer and if this would favor incumbents and create an uneven playing field
be sufficient to address persistent environmental pro- [43]; (b) vested interests use their access to policy
blems at the speed required. Such outcome assessments networks to water down regulatory change and hinder
are thus often left to life-cycle analysts or modellers. radical innovation [44].
A clear strength is that the MLP is underpinned by a

broad and deep empirical evidence base, which makes it
less vulnerable to Feola’s [29, p. 377] criticism that the Radical innovations tend to emerge in small niches at the
transformation concept suffers from a “lack of empirical periphery of existing systems, through pioneering activities
grounding” and to O’Brien and Signa’s [38, p. 40)] of entrepreneurs, start-ups, activists or other relative
observation of an analytical gap between local initiatives outsiders [45]. The degree of radicality of niche-innovations
and large-scale transformation, noting that there many depends on how much they deviate from the existing system
studies of the former, but few of the latter: “there are on technical, social, business model or infrastructural
(as yet) relatively few empirical examples of successful dimensions.
Niches form ‘protected spaces’ that shelter radical inno- characterized by much uncertainty, competing claims and
vations from mainstream market selection and nurture promises, and high rates of failure and pioneer burn-out
learning and development processes [46]. Table 1 pro- [50].
vides some examples of radical niche-innovations (with
varying degrees of maturity and radicality) that could While there are presently many sustainability experi-
form the seeds of sustainability transitions in various ments [48], local projects [51], urban experiments
domains. [52], and living laboratories [53], an important challenge
is to “overcome the current fragmentation of initiatives,
The developments of and interactions between green and their tendency to remain isolated or short-lived,
niche-innovations and existing socio-technical systems which ultimately reduces their potential for lasting and
are influenced by the wider context or socio-technical wide-ranging change” [54, p. 237]. Additionally, green
landscape [39], which includes both slow-changing devel- niche-innovations often face other challenges that may
opments (e.g. demographics, cultural repertoires, societal hinder their development. For example:
concerns, geo-politics, macro-economic trends) and exter-
nal shocks (e.g. wars, financial crises, accidents, oil price they tend to be more expensive than existing technol-
shocks). ogies because they do not (yet) benefit from economies
of scale and decades of incremental improvements;
The MLP [14,39,47] suggests that transitions come about markets for radical innovations are not ‘ready-made’
through the interplay between processes at niche, system, and there may be deep uncertainties about users and
and landscape levels. Although transition specifics vary their specific preferences [34];
between domains and countries, the general multi-level radical innovations often suffer from the ‘liability of
dynamic is that: (a) niche-innovations gradually build up newness’, and may be perceived as strange, unreliable,
internal momentum, (b) niche-innovations and landscape or unfamiliar, which reduces their cultural legitimacy,
changes create pressure on the system and regime, and (c) social acceptance, and access to financial resources [55].
destabilization of the regime creates windows of oppor-
tunity for niche-innovations, which then diffuse and
disrupt the existing system (Figure 2). In the second phase, innovations establish a foothold in
one or more market niches, which provides a more reli-
Socio-technical transitions take several decades and can able flow of resources. The innovation stabilizes into a
be divided into four phases with different core activities ‘dominant design’ if sequences of projects build on each
and struggles. The first phase is characterized by experi- other through the circulation of experiences, learning
mentation and trial-and-error learning with radical niche- processes, and dedicated aggregation activities such as
innovations [46,48]. R&D laboratories, real-world codification, standardization, and model building, which
experiments and demonstration projects initially act as articulate best practices, product specifications, and
concrete carriers of niche-innovations [49], allowing pio- design guidelines [49]. Technical knowledge circulation
neers to learn about the techno-economic performance, and aggregation are often done by engineering commu-
socio-cultural acceptance and political feasibility of radi- nities, standardization committees or industry associa-
cal innovations in concrete settings [45]. The first phase is tions that act on behalf of the field as a whole. Energy
Table 1
Examples of radical niche-innovations in mobility, agro-food and energy domains
Mobility Agro-food Energy (electricity, heat)

Radical technical innovation Battery-electric vehicles, (plug- Permaculture, agro-ecology, Renewable electricity (wind,
in) hybrid electric vehicles, artificial meat, plant-based milk, solar, biomass, hydro), heat
biofuel cars; hydrogen cars manure digestion pumps, passive house, biomass
stoves, smart meters
Grassroots and social innovation Car sharing, bike clubs, modal Alternative food networks, Decentralized energy production
shift to bicycles and buses, tele- organic food, less-meat (‘prosumers’), community
working, tele-conferencing initiatives, urban farming energy, energy cafés
Business model innovation Mobility services, car sharing, Alternative food networks, Energy service companies,
bike sharing organic food back-up capacity for electricity
provision, vehicle-to-grid
electricity provision
Infra-structural innovation Intermodal transport systems, Efficient irrigation systems, District heating system, smart
compact cities, revamped urban agro-forestry, rewilding, multi- grids, bio-methane in
transport systems (tram, light- functional land-use reconfigured gas grid
rail, metro)
Figure 2
Socio-technical
landscape
(exogenous
context) Landscape developments
put pressure on existing system,
which opens up, New system
creating windows influences
Markets, user of opportunity for niche-innovations. landscape
preferences
Industry
Socio- Science
technical Policy
system Culture
Technology
Socio-technical system is Radical innovation breaks through, taking
locked in. System elements change advantage of ‘windows of opportunity’. This
incrementally along trajectories triggers adjustments in socio-technical system.
External
influences
on niche Dimensions become aligned,
dynamics. and stabilise in a dominant design.
Internal momentum increases because of
price/performance improvements, support
from powerful actors, shared visions.
Niche-
innovations
New entrants pioneer radical innovations on fringe of existing system.
High degree of uncertainty, trial-and-error, entry and exit.
Learning processes occur on multiple dimensions (technology, markets,
consumer practices, cultural meaning, infrastructure requirements).
Time
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
(exerimentation) (stabilisation) (diffusion, disruption) (institutionalisation,
anchoring)
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions (substantially adapted from Ref. [47: 1263]).
Figure 3
Codified Emerging
Shared rules (problem agendas, search heuristics, technological
field level expectations, abstract theories, technical models)
knowledge trajectory
Aggregation
Framing, learning
coordinating
Situated, tacit
knowledge in
local projects
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Innovation trajectory emerging from sequences of local projects (adapted from Ref. [49, p. 379]).
agencies or innovation agencies can also act as These socio-cognitive activities help to gradually stabi-
‘intermediary actors’ [56] in circulation and aggregation lize innovation trajectories (Figure 3).
processes, because they engage with multiple projects
and can compare projects, extract and codify general Innovation may also happen in user practices, as
lessons, and provide these as inputs for new projects. consumers ‘domesticate’ radical innovations and
transform them from unfamiliar things to familiar Criticisms and elaborations of the Multi-Level
objects embedded in the routines and practices of Perspective
everyday life [34]. The articulation of positive cultural Over the years, the MLP has been criticized on various
visions is also important to help legitimate innovations counts — for example, for giving limited attention to
and attract further support. Innovations may, however, politics and power [14,28] and cultural meanings [37],
also be opposed by social groups who experience narrowly focusing on technological innovation [31],
negative side effects or feel insufficiently consulted overprivileging bottom–up disruption pathways [61],
in decision making. Such opposition may result in mis-portraying incumbent actors as inert and only
controversy and stalemate, which can hinder further engaged in incremental innovation [62], underaddressing
progression, as happened with biofuels, onshore wind destabilization and decline [63], and insufficiently ana-
turbines and carbon capture and storage (in some lyzing policy-relevant dimensions and processes [64]. In
countries) [57]. response to these criticisms, scholars have elaborated the
MLP in various ways, enriching the framework with ideas
In the third phase, the radical innovation diffuses from various social sciences and differentiating the
into mainstream markets, on the one hand driven by understanding of change processes. These elaborations,
niche-internal drivers such as price/performance which have generated productive research substreams,
improvements, economies of scale, development of are briefly discussed below.
complementary technologies, and support from pow-
erful actors, and, on the other hand, taking advantage Politics and power
of structural windows of opportunity created by land- To elaborate the MLP’s political dimension, scholars
scape developments that pressure the regime, leading have started to mobilize insights from political science
to tensions and regime destabilization (represented by theories to conceptualize the political dynamics that
diverging arrows in Figure 1). The diffusion phase underlie policy developments at regime and niche levels.
is often characterized by struggles between niche- Political economy ideas have been used to elaborate
innovations and the existing regime on multiple resistance strategies of incumbent actors, distinguishing
dimensions. There is economic competition between instrumental, discursive, material, and institutional forms
new and existing technologies, which is influenced by of power relations between large firms and policymakers
the institutions that shape markets and economic [65]. Sabatier’s advocacy coalition framework has been
frame conditions. There are business struggles between mobilized to conceptualize policymaking as a power
new entrants and incumbents, which may lead to the struggle between dominant coalitions (adhering to estab-
downfall of existing firms [58]. There may be political lished policy frames and governance styles that help
conflicts and power struggles over agenda setting, stabilize socio-technical regimes) and new coalitions
problem framing, and adjustments in subsidies, taxes, (e.g. policy entrepreneurs who advocate new frames
and regulations [59]. These struggles involve policy and policies that stimulate niche-innovations) [66].
actors (bureaucrats, ministers, advisory committees, Lockwood et al. [67] and Roberts and Geels [68]
political parties, parliaments), but also wider interest combined historical institutionalism with the MLP to
groups, which often have differential degrees of access conceptualize major policy change as the outcome of
to policy networks. Cultural and discursive struggles political struggles between multiple groups (incumbent
about the framing of problems and solutions are likely, firms, start-ups, professional experts, mass publics, media,
as social groups have different views and interpreta- political parties, civil servants), which are shaped by
tions, which find expression in contested public institutional frameworks that provide some groups
debates [60]. (incumbent actors) more access to policymakers than
others (new entrants, challengers). Major policy change
There is no guarantee that niche-innovations will inev- thus involves shifts in the balance of power between
itably win these struggles. Radical innovations may fail groups and changes in ‘policy regimes’ (including access
to build up sufficient momentum or suffer setbacks. rules and institutional procedures). Kern and Rogge [69]
Tensions in existing regimes may be contained, such systematically discuss how five policy process theories
that ‘windows of opportunity’ for niche-innovations do (advocacy coalition, multiple streams, punctuated
not (sufficiently) materialize. Or incumbent actors may equilibrium, discourse coalitions, policy feedback) relate
successfully counter-mobilize and thwart niche- to the MLP, distinguishing both policy-internal concepts
innovations. (e.g. policy entrepreneurs, policy learning, policy net-
works, party politics, issue framing, deliberation, coalition
In the fourth phase, the new socio-technical system building, power struggles) that relate to niche and regime
replaces (parts of) the old one, and becomes levels, and external influences (e.g. elections, changes in
institutionalized and anchored in regulatory programmes, governing coalitions, socio-economic dislocations, wars,
user habits, views of normality, professional standards, focusing events, national mood, interest groups, media
and technical capabilities. attention) that relate to the landscape level.
Cultural discourse and framing struggles Grassroots innovation

To develop the role of cultural meanings in the MLP, A stream of transition research has started to investigate
scholars have started to mobilize ideas from discourse theory, grassroots innovations, which “operate in civil society
which emphasizes the importance of frames, narratives, and arenas and involve committed activists experimenting
storylines in shaping socio-political interpretations of pro- with social innovations as well as using greener tech-
blems, actors, innovations, and transition pathways [7,70]. nologies” [74, p. 585]. Enacted by local volunteers and
Framing problems like climate change as ‘market failure’ activists, grassroots innovations differ from market-based
conveys different meanings, and suggests different social innovations (Table 2), because they foreground moral
and policy responses, than a ‘planetary boundary’ framing. values and collective aspirations, aim to change social
Niche-innovations such as solar-PV are framed differently practices and ‘ways of living’, are highly contextual, and
by regime incumbents (who emphasize high costs, drain on are often developed in response to local problems [75,76].
economic development, and system integration problems)
than niche-advocates (who emphasize climate mitigation, Despite the groundswell of grassroots innovations, anal-
potential new business growth, new energy paradigm) [7]. yses with the niche development framework [75,77] and
Cultural dynamics in transitions are thus seen as contested MLP [19,76] identified multiple internal challenges: (a)
processes, in which competing groups articulate different their reliance on voluntary commitments of dedicated
storylines and narratives on public stages (e.g. public champions makes them vulnerable to the departure of
debates, media, newspapers) with the aim of influencing key people and high turnover of volunteers [77], (b)
the interpretations and views of relevant audiences (wider aggregation and cumulative learning between projects
public, policymakers) who provide public support, is more difficult, because grassroots movements (GMs)
protection or financial resources [55]. tend to “engage in informal learning, mainly due to a lack
of intermediary actors. Most GMs do not document their
The societal appeal of niche and regime storylines vary tacit knowledge, such as the institutional learning, skills,
during transitions, depending on framing struggles and how and training that their members possess” [78, p. 67]; the
they score on various salience dimensions [60]: empirical fit variability and context-specificity of local projects may
(how storylines fit with perceived facts about the world), also complicate the articulation of ‘best practice’ lessons,
experiential commensurability (how storylines resonate (c) some grassroots innovations do not aspire to scale up
with the lived experience of its audience), macro-cultural and grow [75,78], because advocates favor proximity
resonance (how storylines fit with broader cultural reper- transaction (e.g. direct sales of agricultural products) or
toires), actor credibility (perceived knowledgeability and cater exclusively to a local community.
trustworthiness of actors promoting a storyline). Positive
salient discourses can enhance the cultural appeal and Grassroots innovations may also face contextual
social acceptance of niche-innovations [7,60] and challenges such as legal and regulatory mis-matches with
underpin stronger support policies. Negative discourses, the broader regime [79]. Commitments to radical values
on the other hand, may create social acceptance problems may also complicate access to mainstream funding
for niche-innovations, as is happening with carbon capture sources [78] or limit wider societal resonance. UK
and storage, onshore wind turbines, and smart meters in Meat-Free Mondays initiatives, for instance, did “not
some countries [57,71], but can also destabilize existing succeed in translating the idea of eating less meat in
regimes [72,73], as appears to be happening with diesel cars any significant way into the mainstream, principally
and coal in some countries. Discourse and narratives are also because their demands are too radical” [19, p. 189].
important to interpret landscape shocks such as the Limited wider resonance may be due to grassroots mem-
Fukushima accident, which was framed differently in bership, which, despite their inclusive ethos, is often not
Japan, Germany, and the UK, leading to different socio- very diverse. Participants of transition towns, for instance,
political responses to nuclear power [70]. are overwhelmingly white, middle-class, highly educated,
Table 2
Comparing the characteristics of market-based and grassroots innovations [74, p. 92]
Market-based innovations Grassroots innovations

Context Market economy Social economy
Driving force Profit: Schumpeterian rent Social need; ideological
Niche protection Market rules are different: tax and subsidies temporarily Values are different: alternative social and cultural
shelter novelty from full forces of the market expressions enabled within the niche
Organizational form Firms Voluntary associations, co-ops, informal community groups
Resource base Income from commercial activity Grant funding, voluntary input, mutual exchanges, limited
commercial activity
and not representative of the demographics in their wider gradual efficiency improvements in the appliance regime
geographic community [80]. (e.g. refrigerators), shifts from incandescent light bulbs to
CFLs and LEDs, energy storage innovations (e.g. batter-
So, while early grassroots research was highly optimistic ies, flywheels, compressed air, pumped hydro), smarter
and tended to “overlook discontinued responses in favor grids (that enhance flexibility and grid management),
of successful ones” [81, p. 232], subsequent research has demand response (e.g. new tariffs, smart meters, intelli-
started to provide more balanced analyses of both success gent loads), network expansion (to increase capacity and
factors and challenges [78,81,82]. connect remote renewables) and new business models
(such as capacity markets to ensure system security).
Multiple transition pathways
Moving beyond singular, bottom–up disruption transitions, Likewise, low-carbon reconfiguration of the land-based
scholars have developed more differentiated views of personal mobility system may involve incremental fuel
transition pathways, leading to various typologies. Combin- efficiency improvements, electric vehicles, battery-charging
ing regime-internal versus external (niche) provision of infrastructures (perhaps even vehicle-to-grid configura-
resources (knowledge and production factors) and high tions), self-driving vehicles, car-sharing, urban congestion
versus low coordination, Smith et al. [61] distinguish four charges, modal shift towards trains and cycling (which in the
pathways: (a) purposive transition (high coordination, UK have both almost doubled since 1990), and integrated
external resources), (b) endogenous renewal (high transport systems with strong modal connections between
coordination, regime-internal resources), (c) reorientation train, bus and tram regimes facilitated by smart-cards [13,86].
of trajectories (low coordination, regime-internal resources)
and (d) emergent transformation (low coordination, exter-
Incumbent firm resistance and reorientation
nal resources). Geels and Schot [39] differentiate four
Because of their commitments to existing socio-technical
transition pathways depending on temporality and
systems, incumbent firms often oppose sustainability
kinds of MLP-alignments: (a) technological substitution
transitions [65]. Drawing on the institutional entre-
(competing niche-innovation replaces regime, after land-
preneurship and corporate political strategy literatures,
scape pressure destabilizes regime), (b) regime transforma-
transition scholars have investigated a range of political
tion (incumbent actors reorient in response to gradually
resistance strategies that incumbent firms can use to
increasing landscape pressure), (c) regime reconfiguration
hinder sustainability transitions [65,87–89], for example,
(symbiotic niche-innovation is incorporated in regime,
information and framing strategies (sponsoring favorable
followed by knock-on effects and innovation cascades that
research, contesting scientific findings, emphasizing
gradually alter system architecture), and (d) de-alignment
uncertainties, shaping policy debates), financial incentives
and re-alignment (rapid landscape pressure destabilizes
strategies (financially supporting politicians), organized
regime, which creates space for multiple emerging
pressure strategies (creating fake grassroots organizations
niche-innovation, followed by re-alignment of a regime
or mobilizing employees, suppliers, customers to pressure
around one of them).
their representatives), direct lobbying strategies (through
lobbyists, company executives, industry associations),
Transition pathway research has also given rise to a
confrontational strategies (litigation, threatening policy-
comparative research stream that uses the MLP to
makers with plant closures, layoffs, or relocation).
explain why the speed and character of unfolding transi-
Resistance to sustainability transitions may be formida-
tions varies between countries, for example, electricity
ble, because incumbent firms in coal, oil, car, electricity,
transitions in the UK, Germany, and Japan [6,83], electric
and agro-food industries are politically powerful and
mobility in the UK and Germany [9], bio-based economy
among the largest in the world.1
in Germany and Italy [84], mobile money systems in
Kenya and Nigeria [22].
But although incumbent firms are often locked-in to
existing regimes, they can also play more productive
To move beyond singular disruptive innovation
roles in sustainability transitions. Moving beyond
pathways, which arguably characterize many sustainabil-
Schumpeter’s dichotomy (new entrants do radical
ity transition studies, some transition scholars have
innovation and incumbents do incremental innovation),
started to make socio-technical ‘whole-system’ analyses
transition scholars have started to develop more nuanced
to investigate how entire systems may be reconfigured
understanding, in which incumbent firms like automakers
through combinations of multiple niche-innovations and
or utilities can reorient towards green niche-innovations
multiple (sub)regime developments. CO2-emissions in the
UK power sector, for instance, decreased by 65% between
1990 and 2016 because of multiple supply, demand, and 1
The top 10 of the 2016 Global Fortune 500 list contained five oil
infrastructure changes [85], including renewable energy companies (China National Petroleum, Sinopec Group, Royal Dutch
niche-innovations (wind, solar-PV, biomass), a modal Shell, Exxon Mobil, BP), two automakers (Volkswagen, Toyota) and
regime shift from coal-fired to gas-fired power stations, one electricity utility (State Grid).
such as electric vehicles or large-scale wind parks and denial, (2) incremental responses to problems, (3)
[6,62,89] if they see emerging economic opportunities increasing doubts and tentative diversification, (4) aban-
or are stimulated by attractive financial incentives, forced doning regime templates and attempted reorientation, (5)
by legislation, or pushed by public opinion. Reorientation dissolution (in case that reorientation is ‘too little, too
of their financial assets, technical competencies, and late’). The temporal interplay between (various) external
political capital may accelerate sustainability transitions. pressures and endogenous responses is likely to generate
different destabilization patterns, which forms a fruitful
Destabilization and decline research avenue.
To move beyond the innovation focus, transition scholars
have also started to investigate the flipside of innovation Policy analysis
journeys, namely regime destabilization and decline [63], Early socio-technical transition researchers emphasized
which can be a consequence or enabler of transitions. that policymakers cannot steer sustainability transforma-
With regard to consequences, the diffusion of niche- tions from an outside cockpit, because they depend on
innovations may lead to the decline of established other actors for knowledge, resources, innovation, legiti-
systems and industries such as coal in the United States macy, and consent, and because transitions are open-
[90]. Because negative effects on jobs, (local) tax revenue ended, uncertain, and contested processes [61]. Drawing
or communities often create resistance to sustainability on governance literatures, they therefore suggested that
transitions, policymakers should help alleviate negative policymakers should orchestrate and facilitate social inter-
consequences by providing compensation (e.g. redun- actions, discussions, learning processes, foresight, and
dancy payments, early retirement benefits) or assisting information exchange. Exemplifying this view on steering,
reorientation (e.g. skills upgrading, retraining, regional the Strategic Niche Management (SNM) approach argued
innovation policies) [91]. that policymakers should stimulate radical innovation
not just with R&D funding, but also with real-world
With regard to enabling effects, destabilization and experiments and projects (which enable multi-dimensional
phase-out of existing regimes and systems may accelerate learning processes), the articulation of ambitious and
sustainability transitions by creating ‘space’ for the appealing sustainability visions, and the orchestration of
diffusion of niche-innovations [92,93]. Although still transformative coalitions that also include new entrants
quite rare, phase-out policies have gained political such as NGOs, cities, start-ups, and users [45,46].
salience with regard to incandescent light bulbs, nuclear
power (in Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Taiwan, Subsequent research elaborated and operationalized
South Korea), unabated coal-fired power stations these ideas in various ways. First, a burgeoning literature
(in Finland, the Netherlands, Quebec, UK) and petrol has started to investigate different kinds and roles of
and diesel cars (in Norway, Ireland, the Netherlands, experiments such as demonstrating the techno-economic
Slovenia, France, UK). Phase-out policies can take many feasibility of radical sustainability innovations; showcas-
forms [94], including bans or regulations, removal of ing their social and user appeal; opening up new transition
implicit or explicit subsidies, or targeted financial pathways; involving citizens and communities in on-the-
incentives. ground actions; and stimulating the creation of new
networks [28,31,32,51]. Second, an active research stream
The dynamics of destabilization involve both increasing explores the various activities of intermediary actors and
external pressures and the gradual erosion of commitment policy implementation agencies in sustainability transitions,
of incumbent actors to existing regime templates [62,95]. for example, collecting, comparing, aggregating, and dis-
Economic external pressures, which erode the financial seminating lessons from local projects; facilitating new
resource base of existing industries, can come from connections between actors; and translating on-the-
landscape shocks (like macro-economic recessions) or ground implementation lessons to national policymakers
from competing niche-innovations, both of which [56,77,97]. Third, scholars are investigating the roles of
were involved in the decline of German utilities [96]. long-term policy visions, missions, and foresight in
Socio-political external pressures, which erode the sustainability transitions, for example, imagining
legitimacy and political support for existing industries, alternative pathways, providing long-term directionality,
can come from social movement protests, persistent and formulating more specific policy targets, which
negative storylines, changing government coalitions, enable action and accountability [98–100]. Fourth,
and frustration of policymakers (about lack of industry research on ‘empowerment’ explores the socio-political
compliance or continued need for subsidies) [72,73]. activities (e.g. coalition building, framing strategies)
Incumbent actors are often slow in responding to through which niche advocates aim to change broader
increasing external pressures, due to mis-perceptions or regime rules and policies [101,102,103].
protection of sunk investments [96]. As external pressures
increase, the endogenous enactment of destabilization SNM-related research has only to a small extent engaged
often proceeds along several phases [63]: (1) blindness with ‘traditional’ policy instruments (such as information
campaigns, environmental regulations, performance stronger policies that may accelerate sustainability transi-
standards, environmental taxes, cap-and-trade policies, tions [68,104,111]. First, external shocks or crises can create
feed-in-tariffs, purchase subsidies, low-interest loans, such conditions [68,112], but their effect depends on inter-
capital grants, investment subsidies), because of its focus pretations and pre-existing contexts. The 2011 Fukushima
on early transitions phases and its adherence to (network) accident, for instance, led to nuclear phase-out and energy
governance approaches [59,104]. But as interest is moving transition policies in Germany, but not in the UK [70].
towards diffusion of niche-innovation, scholars have Second, the mobilization of coalitions may exert pressure
started to investigate the importance of policy mixes on policymakers [66,87,102,103,113]. Climate marches,
[94,105–107], which combine instruments from schoolchildren protests, scientists’ letters, and green tech-
multiple policy approaches (Table 3). Policy instruments nology companies are promising beginnings, but they are
from the network governance approach tend to be most arguably not yet aligned into strong coalitions. Third, shifts
important in early transition phases of system transitions in public opinion and pervasive narratives may legitimize
to stimulate learning, network building and visioning. stronger policy support for niche-innovations or discredit
Once niche-innovations have stabilized, regulatory and incumbent regimes and legitimize withdrawal of support
financial instruments from the other two policy [72,73]. Regime de-legitimization created conditions for
approaches become more important to stimulate diffusion phase-out policies of coal and diesel cars (in some countries).
and pressure the regime [104]. Fourth, the maturation of niche-innovations may provide
feasible solutions that policymakers can push [66,114].
Transition-oriented policy mix research not only moves For example, price/performance improvements of wind
attention away from single instruments, but also enables turbines and solar-PV, accompanied by positive discourses
investigation of synergies and mis-matches between poli- and industry lobbies, are creating conditions for stronger
cies. Its findings suggest that, in most sectors and countries, support policies for renewable electricity. Fifth, economic
policy instruments are currently not implemented with or socio-political regime destabilization may weaken
sufficient strength or consistency [94,106]. “A key obstacle the resistance of incumbent organizations against stronger
to the effectiveness and acceptability of core climate policies policies [104].
is the number of regulatory and policy frameworks outside
the climate policy portfolio that are not aligned with climate Policymakers need not passively wait for these conditions
objectives” [108, p. 22]. Consequently, the pace of envisaged to emerge. The recent policy feedback literature
sustainability transitions is still relatively slow, except per- [68,107,115] suggests that policy actors can actively
haps in the electricity sector, compared to the urgency of the nurture the emergence of these conditions by introducing
environmental problems [109]. With regard to clean energy policies that facilitate new coalitions, stimulate public
progress, for instance, the IEA [110] showed that only 4 out of debate, improve niche-innovations, and constrain
38 energy technologies (solar-PV, LEDs, electric vehicles, regimes, which then gradually create the conditions for
and data centres) are ‘on track’ to meet long-term climate, stronger policies.
energy access, and air pollution goals.
Returning to Røpke’s [27] plea for investigating
Transition scholars have therefore also started to investigate complementary systems, transition scholars have not
processes and conditions that facilitate the introduction of yet systematically analyzed policy reform in distribution
Table 3
Stylized summary of different policy approaches (adapted from Ref. [104])
Classic steering (top–down) Market model (bottom–up) Interactive network governance

Social relationships Hierarchical, command-and-control Arms-length relations between Mutually dependent interactions
relations, with government responsible policymakers and other actors between policymakers, firms and
for steering markets and society societal actors
Government roles Government sets goals, selects Policymakers shape framework Policymakers moderate, orchestrate,
solutions, and enforces implementation conditions (rules, incentives), but let and facilitate social interactions,
autonomous actors self-organize via discussions, learning processes and
markets information exchange, aimed at
collectively defining problems and
exploring solutions
Scientific disciplines Classical political science Neo-classical economics Sociology, innovation studies, neo-
institutional theory
Policy instruments Regulations, laws, performance Subsidies, taxes, fiscal incentives, Sector-level round tables, public private
standards, targets, state-led investment grants, loans partnerships, demonstration projects,
programmes experiments, foresight conferences,
public debate
systems and geographical (governance and economic) systems), social sustainability (e.g. inequality, poverty) or
systems. More work could thus be done on the following sustainability outcomes. Other criticisms have led to concep-
topics: tual elaborations of the MLP, some of which the article has
reviewed. After a first phase of exploring the phenomenon of
Horizontal policy coordination. This is important [64], socio-technical transitions and initial testing of the ‘global’
because the diffusion of green innovations often perspective, these elaborations have arguably inaugurated a
involves adjustments in sectoral policies (transport, second phase in which a community of scholars has started to
energy, agro-food) and cross-cutting policies (fiscal, elaborate the MLP in many ways, making it into a more
education, industrial). differentiated and cumulative research programme.
More open and inclusive governance style. Instead of
managing sustainability transitions only as a techno- Such conceptual elaborations and enrichments are epistemo-
economic challenge (involving technical experts, political logically possible, because the MLP is a middle-range theory
elites, and incumbent firms), policymakers should also [124], in which the aggregate (‘global’) niche-regime-
involve citizens, NGOs and wider publics [116], which landscape model describes the phenomenological outlines
may unleash bottom–up grassroots and community initia- of transitions, while acknowledging openness with regard to
tives and alleviate social acceptance problems [57]. the conceptualization of more detailed activities and mecha-
More interventionist policy paradigm. The accelera- nisms (‘local model’). Although initial conceptualizations of
tion of sustainability transitions and deliberate reorien- activities and mechanisms build on evolutionary economics,
tation of economic activities towards sustainability sociology of innovation, and neo-institutional theory, it was
goals probably requires a shift from a neo-liberal policy noted that they “could benefit from including insights from
paradigm (characterized by a hands-off policy style and auxiliary theories” [124, p. 30]. As demonstrated above,
tinkering with framework conditions) towards a subsequent elaborations have indeed mobilized insights from
stronger role for policymakers in shaping markets, across the social sciences.
stimulating innovation, infrastructure investment,
and re-embedding big business [117,118]. Because the MLP provides a framework for strategic thinking
Financial reform. The diffusion and upscaling of green about long-term transformative change, environmental policy
niche-innovation will require large financial resources. organizations [109,125–127] and environmental NGOs have
Investment gap estimates suggest that additional started to use it in recent years. The Smart CSOs Lab, an
annual investments of $3.3–4.9 trillion/year are needed international network of activists, civil society leaders, and
to realize the Sustainable Development Goals [119] funders uses it to identify leverage points for the Great
and $650–900 billion/year (in the 2010–2050 period) to Transition (http://www.smart-csos.org/); Forum for the Future,
limit climate change to two degrees [120], and $1.38– a non-profit organization working with business and govern-
3.25 trillion (in the 2016–2035 period) to limit climate ment, uses the MLP to guide their ‘system change for
change to 1.5 C [109]. Unleashing these large sums is sustainability’ program (https://www.forumforthefuture.org/
likely to require reforms of the financial system, such as navigating-system-change); and the WorldWildlife Fund
changes in the fiduciary duties, disclosure responsibili- [128] uses it to assess low-carbon transitions in South Africa,
ties and accounting rules of credit rating agencies, drawing particular attention to political economy consider-
commercial banks, insurance companies, and pension ations related to coal dependence. Socio-technical transition
funds [121], or more structural reforms that discourage research thus not only forms an interesting academic
short-term speculative investments (e.g. a financial approach, but also increasingly informs real-world stake-
transactions tax) and stimulate long-term investment holders working on sustainability transformations.
in the real economy [122], increase the role of national
promotional banks (e.g. through green investment Conflict of interest statement
banks) or broaden the mandate of central banks to Nothing declared.
include sustainability transitions [123].
Acknowledgements
I want to thank Sarah Moore, Susanne Moser and two reviewers for their
Conclusions helpful comments on drafts of this article.
Socio-technical transition research and the MLP provide a
distinctive approach in the broader transformations to sus- References and recommended reading
tainability debate. It provides a ‘big picture’ integrative Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
approach that accommodates multiple actors and dimensions, have been highlighted as
and ranges from local projects to niche-innovations to sectoral of special interest
regimes and broader societal contexts. Some critics have of outstanding interest
rightly identified unresolved limitations in the approach, such
1. Geels FW: From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-
as the limited attention given to socio-ecological systems, technical systems: insights about dynamics and change from
‘distribution systems’ (e.g. labor markets, tax, and monetary sociology and institutional theory. Res Policy 2004, 33:897-920.
2. Ivanova D, Stadler K, Steen-Olsen K, Wood R, Vita G, Tukker A, a more sustainable regime of meat provisioning. Int J Sociol
Hertwich EG: Environmental impact assessment of household Agric Food 2014, 21:189-208.
consumption. J Ind Ecol 2016, 20:526-536.
20. Hölsgens R, Lübke S, Hasselkuß M: Social innovations in the
3. Elzen B, Geels FW, Green K (Eds): System Innovation and the German energy transition: an attempt to use the heuristics of
Transition to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy. Edward the multi-level perspective of transitions to analyze the
Elgar; 2004. diffusion process of social innovations. Energy Sustain Soc
2018, 8:8.
4. Farla J, Markard J, Raven R, Coenen L: Sustainability transitions
in the making: a closer look at actors, strategies and 21. Hynes M: Developing (tele)work? A multi-level sociotechnical
resources. Technol Forecast Soc 2012, 79:991-998. perspective of telework in Ireland. Res Transp Econ 2016,
57:21-31.
5. Fuenfschilling L, Truffer B: The interplay of institutions, actors
and technologies in socio-technical systems – an analysis of 22. Lepoutre J, Oguntoye A: The (non-)emergence of mobile money
transformations in the Australian urban water sector. Technol systems in Sub-Saharan Africa: a comparative multilevel
Forecast Soc 2016, 103:298-312. perspective of Kenya and Nigeria. Technol Forecast Soc 2018,
131:262-275.
6. Geels FW, Kern F, Fuchs G, Hinderer N, Kungl G, Mylan J,
Neukirch M, Wassermann S: The enactment of socio-technical 23. Hassink J, Grin J, Hulsink W: Enriching the multi-level
transition pathways: a reformulated typology and a perspective by better understanding agency and challenges
comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low- associated with interactions across system boundaries. The
carbon electricity transitions (1990–2014). Res Policy 2016, case of care farming in the Netherlands: multifunctional
45:896-913. agriculture meets health care. J Rural Stud 2018, 57:186-196.
7. Rosenbloom D, Berton H, Meadowcroft J: Framing the sun: a 24. Schneidewind U, Augenstein K: Three schools of transformation
discursive approach to understanding multi-dimensional thinking: the impact of ideas, institutions, and technological
interactions within socio-technical transitions through the innovation on transformation processes. GAIA 2016, 25:88-93.
case of solar electricity in Ontario, Canada. Res Policy 2016,
45:1275-1290. 25. O’Brien K: Is the 1.5 C target possible? Exploring the three
This paper elaborates the role of political conflict in socio-technical spheres of transformation. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2018,
transitions and the Multi-Level Perspective, focusing on discursive strug- 31:153-160.
gles between multiple actors over pros and cons of particular innovations.
26. Loorbach D, Frantzeskaki N, Avelino F: Sustainability transition
8. Dzebo A, Nykvist B: A new regime and then what? Cracks and research: transforming science and practice for societal
tensions in the socio-technical regime of the Swedish heat change. Annu Rev Environ Resour 2017, 42:599-626.
energy system. Energy Res Soc Sci 2017, 29:113-122.
27. Røpke I: Complementary system perspectives in ecological
9. Mazur C, Contestabile M, Offer GJ, Brandon NP: Assessing and macroeconomics — the example of transition investments
comparing German and UK transition policies for electric during the crisis. Ecol Econ 2016, 121:237-245.
mobility. Environ Innov Soc Trans 2015, 14:84-100.
28. Patterson J, Schulz K, Vervoort J, Van der Hel S, Widerberg O,
10. Berkeley N, Bailey D, Jones A, Jarvis D: Assessing the transition Adler C, Hurlbert M, Anderton K, Sethi M, Barau A: Exploring the
towards battery electric vehicles: a Multi-Level Perspective on governance and politics of transformations towards
drivers of, and barriers to, take up. Transp Res Part A Policy sustainability. Environ Innov Soc Trans 2017, 24:1-16.
Pract 2018, 106:320-332.
29. Feola G: Societal transformation in response to global
11. Levidow L, Pimbert M, Vanloqueren G: Agroecological research: environmental change: a review of emerging concepts. Ambio
conforming—or transforming the dominant agro-food
2015, 44:376-390.
regime? Agroecol Sustain Food 2014, 38:1127-1155.
30. Brand U: “Transformation” as a new critical orthodoxy: the
12. Mylan J, Morris C, Beech E, Geels FW: Rage against the regime:
niche-regime interactions in the societal embedding of plant- strategic use of the term “Transformation” does not prevent
multiple crises. GAIA 2016, 25:23-27.
based milk. Environ Innov Soc Trans 2019, 31:233-247.
13. Moradi A, Vagoni E: A multi-level perspective analysis of urban 31. Temper L, Walter M, Rodriguez I, Kothari A, Turhan E: A
mobility system dynamics: what are the future transition perspective on radical transformations to sustainability:
pathways? Technol Forecast Soc 2018, 126:231-243. resistances, movements and alternatives. Sustain Sci 2018,
13:747-764.
14. Smith A, Vob J-P, Grin J: Innovation studies and sustainability
transitions: the allure of a multi-level perspective and its 32. Callon M: Society in the making: the study of technology as a
challenges. Res Policy 2010, 39:435-448. tool for sociological analysis. In The Social Construction of
Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and
15. Markard J, Raven R, Truffer B: Sustainability transitions: an History of Technology. Edited by Bijker WE, Hughes TP, Pinch T.
emerging field of research and its prospects. Res Policy 2012, MIT Press; 1987:83-103.
41:955-967.
In accordance with a sample of 540 articles, this paper provides an 33. Latour B: Technology is society made durable. In A Sociology
excellent overview of the new field of sustainability transitions, discussing of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination.
conceptual approaches, their origins, topics and publication outlets. Edited by Law J. Routledge; 1991:103-131.
16. Köhler J, Geels FW, Kern F, Markard J, Onsongo E, Wieczorek A, 34. Lie M, Sørensen KH (Eds): Making Technology our Own:
Alkemaade F, Avelino F, Bergek A, Boons F et al.: An agenda for Domesticating Technology into Everyday Life. Scandinavian
sustainability transitions research: state of the art and future University Press; 1996.
directions. Environ Innov Soc Trans 2019, 31:1-32.
35. Jenkins K, Sovacool BK, McCauley D: Humanizing
17. Bui S, Cardona A, Lamine C, Cerf M: Sustainability transitions: sociotechnical transitions through energy justice: an ethical
insights on processes of niche-regime interaction and framework for global transformative change. Energy Policy
regime reconfiguration in agri-food systems. J Rural Stud 2018, 117:66-74.
2016, 48:92-103.
36. Sareen S, Haarstad H: Bridging socio-technical and justice
18. Tuama DÓ: Ripples through the city: understanding the aspects of sustainable energy transitions. Appl Energy 2018,
processes set in motion through embedding a public bike 228:624-632.
sharing scheme in a city. Res Transp Bus Manage 2015, 15:15-
27. 37. Gillard R, Gouldson A, Paavola J, Van Alstine J: Transformational
responses to climate change: beyond a systems perspective
19. Morris C, Kirwan J, Lally R: Less meat initiatives: an initial of social change in mitigation and adaptation. WIRES Clim
exploration of a diet-focused social innovation in transitions to Change 2016, 7:251-265.
38. O’Brien K, Signa L: Transformations in socio-ecological 56. Kivimaa P, Boon W, Hyysalo S, Klerkx L: Towards a typology of
systems. Perspectives on Transitions to Sustainability. European intermediaries in sustainability transitions: a systematic
Environment Agency; 2018:29-45. review. Res Policy 2018, 48:1062-1075.
39. Geels FW, Schot JW: Typology of sociotechnical transition 57. Devine-Wright P, Aas O, Sovacool BK, Labelle RA, Batel S: A
pathways. Res Policy 2007, 36:399-417. conceptual framework for understanding the social
acceptance of energy infrastructure: insights from energy
40. Geels FW, Sovacool BK, Schwanen T, Sorrell S: storage. Energ Policy 2017, 107:27-31.
Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonisation.
Science 2017, 357:1242-1244. 58. Christensen C: The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies
Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business School Press; 1997.
41. Klitkou A, Bolwig S, Hansen T, Wessberg N: The role of lock-in
mechanisms in transition processes: the case of energy for 59. Meadowcroft J: What about the politics? Sustainable
road transport. Environ Innov Soc Trans 2015, 16:22-37. development, transition management, and long term energy
This interesting paper distinguishes different lock-in mechanisms of transitions. Policy Sci 2009, 42:323-340.
existing socio-technical regimes, and suggests that varying combinations
and strengths have strong influences on potential transition pathways. 60. Roberts C, Geels FW: Public storylines in the British transition
from rail to road transport (1896–2000): discursive struggles in
42. Nelson RR: Bounded rationality, cognitive maps, and trial and the Multi-Level Perspective. Sci Cult 2018, 27:513-542.
error learning. J Econ Behav Org 2008, 67:78-89.
61. Smith A, Stirling A, Berkhout F: The governance of sustainable
43. Walker W: Entrapment in large technology systems: socio-technical transitions. Res Policy 2005, 34:1491-1510.
institutional commitments and power relations. Res Policy
2000, 29:833-846. 62. Berggren C, Magnusson T, Sushandoyo D: Transition pathways
revisited: established firms as multi-level actors in the heavy
44. Normann HE: Policy networks in energy transitions: the cases vehicle industry. Res Policy 2015, 44:1017-1028.
of carbon capture and storage and offshore wind in Norway.
Technol Forecast Soc 2017, 118:80-93. 63. Turnheim B, Geels FW: Regime destabilisation as the flipside of
This paper introduces ‘policy network’ theories into the sustainability energy transitions: lessons from the history of the British coal
transitions literature to analyze the political dimensions of policy-making. industry (1913-1997). Energ Policy 2012, 50:35-49.
It also draws insightful conclusions about relations between firms, policy-
makers, and political parties. 64. Weber M, Rohracher H: Legitimizing research, technology and
innovation policies for transformative change: combining
45. Kemp R, Schot J, Hoogma R: Regime shifts to sustainability insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective
through processes of niche formation: the approach of in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework. Res Policy 2012,
strategic niche management. Technol Anal Strateg 1998, 41:1037-1047.
10:175-196.
65. Geels FW: Regime resistance against low-carbon energy
46. Schot JW, Geels FW: Strategic niche management and transitions: introducing politics and power in the multi-level
sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research perspective. Theory Cult Soc 2014, 31:21-40.
agenda and policy. Technol Anal Strateg 2008, 20:537-554.
66. Markard J, Suter M, Ingold K: Socio-technical transitions and
47. Geels FW: Technological transitions as evolutionary policy change: advocacy coalitions in Swiss energy policy.
reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a Environ Innov Soc Trans 2016, 18:215-237.
case-study. Res Policy 2002, 31:1257-1274. This stimulating article enriches the Multi-Level Perspective with
Sabatier’s advocacy coalition framework to better understand how policy
48. Sengers F, Wieczorek AJ, Raven R: Experimenting for change in transitions results from struggles between niche and regime
sustainability transitions: a systematic literature review. related coalitions.
Technol Forecast Soc 2019, 145:153-164.
This excellent review critically discusses the wide-ranging literature on 67. Lockwood M, Kuzemko C, Mitchell C, Hoggett R: Historical
transition experiments, distinguishing different kinds and roles. It also institutionalism and the politics of sustainable energy
provides some critical reflection on the limitations of experiments in transitions: a research agenda. Environ Plann C 2017,
stimulating transitions. 35:312-333.
49. Geels FW, Raven RPJM: Non-linearity and expectations in 68. Roberts C, Geels FW: Conditions for politically accelerated
niche-development trajectories: ups and downs in Dutch transitions: historical institutionalism, the multi-level
biogas development (1973-2003). Technol Anal Strateg 2006, perspective, and two historical case studies in transport and
18:375-392. agriculture. Technol Forecast Soc 2019, 140:221-240.
50. Olleros F: Emerging industries and the burnout of pioneers. J 69. Kern F, Rogge K: Harnessing theories of the policy process for
Prod Innov Manag 1986, 1:5-18. analysing the politics of sustainability transitions: a critical
survey. Environ Innov Soc Trans 2018, 27:102-117.
51. Pesch U, Spekkink W, Quist J: Local sustainability initiatives: This analytical paper reviews five policy process theories, and discusses
innovation and civic engagement in societal experiments. Eur their relevance for sustainability transitions and transition theories.
Plan Stud 2019, 27:300-317.
70. Hermwille L: The role of narratives in socio-technical
52. Fuenfschilling L, Frantzeskaki N, Coenen L: Urban transitions—Fukushima and the energy regimes of Japan,
experimentation & sustainability transitions. Eur Plan Stud Germany, and the United Kingdom. Energy Res Soc Sci 2016,
2019, 27:219-228. 11:237-246.
53. Bulkeley H, Coenen L, Frantzeskaki N, Hartmann C, Kronsell A, 71. Hielscher S, Sovacool B: Contested smart and low-carbon
Mai L, Marvin S, McCormick K, van Steenbergen F, Voytenko energy futures: media discourses of smart meters in the
Palgan Y: Urban living labs: governing urban sustainability United Kingdom. J Clean Prod 2018, 195:978-990.
transitions. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2016, 22:13-17.
72. Roberts C: Discursive destabilisation of socio-technical
54. Turnheim B, Kivimaa P, Berkhout F (Eds): Innovating Climate regimes: negative storylines and the decline of the American
Governance: Moving Beyond Experiments. Cambridge University railroads. Energy Res Soc Sci 2017, 31:86-99.
Press; 2018.
This timely book critically investigates the high hopes placed on local 73. Rosenbloom D: Framing low-carbon pathways: a discursive
projects and experiments, and suggests that more attention should be analysis of contending storylines surrounding the phase-out
paid to the embedding of experimental outcomes in practices, rules, and of coal-fired power in Ontario. Environ Innov Soc Trans 2018,
norms. 27:129-145.
55. Lounsbury M, Glynn MA: Cultural entrepreneurship: stories, 74. Seyfang G, Smith A: Grassroots innovations for sustainable
legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Manag J development: towards a new research and policy agenda.
2001, 22:545-564. Environ Polit 2007, 16:583-603.
75. Seyfang G, Hielscher S, Hargreaves T, Martiskainen M, Smith A: A Contributing to the policy mix literature, this excellent paper suggests that
grassroots sustainable energy niche? Reflections on sustainability transitions policy should not only stimulate ‘green’ innova-
community energy in the UK. Environ Innov Soc Trans 2014, tions, but also destabilize existing regimes.
13:21-44.
95. Kuokkanen A, Nurmi A, Mikkila M, Kuisma M, Kahiluoto H,
76. Gernert M, El Bilali H, Strassner C: Grassroots initiatives as Linnanen L: Agency in regime destabilization through the
sustainability transition pioneers: implications and lessons for selection environment: the Finnish food system’s
urban food systems. Urban Sci 2018, 2:23. sustainability transition. Res Policy 2018, 47:1513-1522.
77. Hargreaves T, Hielscher S, Seyfang G, Smith A: Grassroots 96. Kungl G, Geels FW: Sequence and alignment of external
innovations in community energy: the role of intermediaries in pressures in industry destabilization: understanding the
niche development. Global Environ Change 2013, 23:868-880. downfall of incumbent utilities in the German energy transition
(1998-2015). Environ Innov Soc Trans 2018, 26:78-100.
78. Hossain M: Grassroots innovation: the state of the art and
future perspectives. Technol Soc 2018, 55:63-69. 97. Mignon I, Kanda W: A typology of intermediary organizations
This review evaluates research on grassroots innovations and activist and their impact on sustainability transition policies. Environ
initiatives. While the bottom–up groundswell is promising for sustain- Innov Soc Trans 2018, 29:100-113.
ability transitions, it also finds that the literature is often rather normative,
and based on positive single cases. 98. Mazzucato M: Mission-oriented innovation policies:
challenges and opportunities. Ind Corp Change 2018,
79. White R, Stirling A: Sustaining trajectories towards 27:803-815.
sustainability: dynamics and diversity in UK communal
growing activities. Global Environ Change 2013, 23:838-846. 99. Quitzow R: Assessing policy strategies for the promotion of
environmental technologies: a review of India’s National Solar
80. Smith A: The transition town network: a review of current Mission. Res Policy 2015, 44:233-243.
evolutions and renaissance. Soc Mov Stud 2011, 10:99-105.
100. Sovacool BK: Visions of Energy Futures: Imagining and Innovating
81. Feola G, Nunes R: Success and failure of grassroots Low-Carbon Transitions. Routledge; 2019.
innovations for addressing climate change: the case of the
transition movement. Global Environ Change 2014, 24:232-250. 101. Smith A, Raven R: What is protective space? Reconsidering
niches in transitions to sustainability. Res Policy 2012,
82. Dana LP, Gurau C, Hoy F, Ramadani V, Alexander T: Success 41:1025-1036.
factors and challenges of grassroots innovations: Learning
from failure. Technol Forecast Soc [In press]. 102. Kern F, Verhees B, Raven R, Smith A: Empowering sustainable
niches: comparing UK and Dutch offshore wind
83. Cherp A, Vinichenko V, Jewell J, Suzuki M, Antal M: Comparing developments. Technol Forecast Soc 2015, 100:344-355.
electricity transitions: a historical analysis of nuclear, wind
and solar power in Germany and Japan. Energy Policy 2017, 103. Raven R, Kern F, Verhees B, Smith A: Niche construction and
101:612-628. empowerment through socio-political work. A meta-analysis
of six low-carbon technology cases. Environ Innov Soc Trans
84. Imbert E, Ladu L, Tani A, Morone P: The transition towards a bio- 2016, 18:164-180.
based economy: a comparative study based on social network Contributing to the niche development literature, this paper summarizes
analysis. J Environ Manag 2019, 230:255-265. findings from six cases about socio-political ‘empowerment’ activities
through which niche advocates aim to shape wider (regime-level) selec-
85. McMeekin A, Geels FW, Hodson M: Mapping the winds of whole tion environments.
system reconfiguration: analysing low-carbon
transformations across production, distribution and 104. Roberts C, Geels FW: Conditions and intervention strategies for
consumption in the UK electricity system. Res Policy 2019, the deliberate acceleration of socio-technical transitions:
48:1216-1231. lessons from a comparative multi-level analysis of two
historical case studies in Dutch and Danish heating. Technol
86. Geels FW: Low-carbon transition via system reconfiguration? Anal Strateg 2019, 31:1081-1103.
A socio-technical whole system analysis of passenger
mobility in Great Britain (1990–2016). Energy Res Soc Sci 2018, 105. Rogge KS, Reichardt K: Policy mixes for sustainability
46:86-102. transitions: an extended concept and framework for analysis.
Res Policy 2016, 45:1620-1635.
87. Hess DJ: Sustainability transitions: a political coalition
perspective. Res Policy 2014, 43:278-283. 106. Kern F, Kivimaa P, Martiskainen M: Policy packaging or policy
patching? The development of complex energy efficiency
88. Smink MM, Hekkert MP, Negro SO: Keeping sustainable policy mixes. Energy Res Soc Sci 2017, 23:11-25.
innovation on a leash? Exploring incumbents’ institutional
strategies. Bus Strateg Environ 2015, 24:86-101. 107. Edmondson DL, Kern F, Rogge KS: The co-evolution of policy
mixes and socio-technical systems: towards a conceptual
89. Penna CCR, Geels FW: Climate change and the slow framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions.
reorientation of the American car industry (1979–2011): an Res Policy [In press].
application and extension of the Dialectic Issue LifeCycle
(DILC) model. Res Policy 2015, 44:1029-1048. 108. OECD: Aligning Policies for a Low-Carbon Economy. Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2015.
90. Mayer A: A just transition for coal miners? Accountability
frames, community economic identity, and just transition 109. IPCC: Global warming of 1.5 C. Intergovernmental Panel on
policy support among local policy actors. Environ Innov Soc Climate Change. 2018.
Trans 2018, 28:1-13.
110. IEA: Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2018. International Energy
91. Spencer T, Colombier M, Sartor O, Garg A, Tiwari V, Burton J, Agency; 2018.
Caetano T, Green F, Teng F, Wiseman J: The 1.5 C target and
coal sector transition: at the limits of societal feasibility. Clim 111. Sovacool B: How long will it take? Conceptualizing the
Policy 2018, 18:335-351. temporal dynamics of energy transitions. Energy Res Soc Sci
2016, 13:202-215.
92. Rogge KS, Johnstone P: Exploring the role of phase-out
policies for low-carbon energy transitions: the case of the 112. Capoccia G, Keleman D: The study of critical junctures: theory,
German Energiewende. Energy Res Soc Sci 2017, 33:128-137. narrative, and counterfactuals in historical institutionalism.
World Polit 2007, 59:341-369.
93. Davidson DJ: Exnovating for a renewable energy transition. Nat
Energy 2019, 4:254-256. 113. Meckling J, Kelsey N, Biber E, Zysman J: Winning coalitions for
climate policy. Science 2015, 349:1170-1171.
94. Kivimaa P, Kern F: Creative destruction or mere niche support?
Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Res 114. Schmidt TS, Sewerin S: Technology as a driver of climate and
Policy 2016, 45:205-217. energy politics. Nat Energy 2017, 2:17084.
115. Rosenbloom D, Meadowcroft J, Cashore B: Stability and climate 123. Campiglio E, Dafermos Y, Monnin P, Ryan-Collins J, Schotten G,
policy? Harnessing insights on path dependence, policy Tanaka M: Climate change challenges for central banks and
feedback, and transition pathways. Energy Res Soc Sci 2019, financial regulators. Nat Clim Change 2018, 8:462-468.
50:168-178. This excellent paper argues not only that climate change forms a serious
risk for the financial system (especially insurance companies and fossil
116. Hajer M, Nilsson M, Raworth K, Bakker P, Berkhout F, de Boer Y, fuel stocks), but also that climate mitigation will require deep and struc-
Rockström J, Ludwig K, Kok M: Beyond cockpit-ism: four tural reforms of the financial system, including the roles and mandates of
insights to enhance the transformative potential of the national promotional banks and central banks.
sustainable development goals. Sustainability 2015, 7:1651-
1660. 124. Geels FW: The multi-level perspective on sustainability
transitions: responses to seven criticisms. Environ Innov Soc
117. Kern F, Kuzemko C, Mitchell C: Measuring and explaining Trans 2011, 1:24-40.
paradigm change: the case of UK energy policy. Policy Polit
2014, 42:513-530. 125. EEA: Sustainability Transitions: Now for the Long Term. European
Environment Agency; 2016.
118. Crouch C: Making Capitalism Fit for Society. Polity Press; 2013.
119. UNDP: Financing the 2030 Agenda: An Introductory Guidebook for 126. Flemish Environment Agency: Megatrends: far-reaching, but
UNDP Country Offices. United Nations Development Programme; 2018. also out of reach? How do megatrends influence the
environment in Flanders?. Flanders Environment Report. 2014.
120. Campiglio E: Beyond carbon pricing: the role of banking and
monetary policy in financing the transition to a low-carbon 127. Finnish Environment Institute: Transition Towards Zero Energy
economy. Ecol Econ 2016, 121:220-230. Buildings: Insights on Emerging Business Ecosystems, New
Business Models and Energy Efficiency Policy in Finland. SYKE
121. European Commission: Action Plan: Financing Sustainable Publications; 2019.
Growth. Brussels: COM; 2018, 97.
128. WWF: Transition Realism: The Implications of Rent-Seeking to
122. Mazzucato M: Innovation, the state and patient capital. Polit Q Achieve South Africa’s Low-Carbon Technology. South Africa:
2015, 86:98-118. World Wildlife Fund; 2017.

Socio-Technical Transitions To Sustainability: A Review of Criticisms and Elaborations of The Multi-Level Perspective

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Socio-Technical Transitions To Sustainability: A Review of Criticisms and Elaborations of The Multi-Level Perspective

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COSUST-905; NO.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: a review of

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2019, 20:1–15

2 The state of knowledge on social transformations (SoK)

sections of this paper aim to briefly describe the MLP, Figure 1

Positioning socio-technical transitions

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2019, 20:1–15 www.sciencedirect.com

A clear strength is that the MLP is underpinned by a

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2019, 20:1–15

4 The state of knowledge on social transformations (SoK)

Examples of radical niche-innovations in mobility, agro-food and energy domains

Mobility Agro-food Energy (electricity, heat)

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2019, 20:1–15 www.sciencedirect.com

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2019, 20:1–15

6 The state of knowledge on social transformations (SoK)

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2019, 20:1–15 www.sciencedirect.com

Cultural discourse and framing struggles Grassroots innovation

Comparing the characteristics of market-based and grassroots innovations [74, p. 92]

Market-based innovations Grassroots innovations

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2019, 20:1–15

8 The state of knowledge on social transformations (SoK)

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2019, 20:1–15 www.sciencedirect.com

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2019, 20:1–15

10 The state of knowledge on social transformations (SoK)

Stylized summary of different policy approaches (adapted from Ref. [104])

Classic steering (top–down) Market model (bottom–up) Interactive network governance

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2019, 20:1–15 www.sciencedirect.com

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2019, 20:1–15

12 The state of knowledge on social transformations (SoK)

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2019, 20:1–15 www.sciencedirect.com

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2019, 20:1–15

14 The state of knowledge on social transformations (SoK)

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2019, 20:1–15 www.sciencedirect.com

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2019, 20:1–15

You might also like