Energy Research & Social Science 106 (2023) 103295

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Research & Social Science

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

Original research article

Social innovation and global citizenship: Guiding principles for sustainable,

just and democratic energy transition in cities
Marcelo Segales a, b, Richard J. Hewitt c, d, *, Bill Slee e
a
Social Impact Officer at MEAL Unit for domestic programmes, Save The Children, Calle Doctor Esquerdo, n◦ 138, 2ª planta., 28007 Madrid, Spain
b
Area of Studies and Social Innovation, Fundación Tomillo, Calle Albuñuelas, 15, 28041 Madrid, Spain
c
Institute of Economy, Geography, and Demography, Centre for Human and Social Sciences, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), C. de Albasanz, 26, 28037
Madrid, Spain
d
Transport, Infrastructure, and Territory Research Group (t-GIS), Geography Department, Faculty of Geography and History, Universidad Complutense de Madrid
(UCM), C/ Profesor Aranguren, s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain
e
Emeritus Fellow, The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, Scotland, UK

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this paper, we examine the relationship of global citizenship to social innovation and propose a set of guiding
Energy transition principles to facilitate sustainable, just and democratic energy transitions in cities. We applied a participatory
Energy democracy research approach beginning with interviews with stakeholders with expertise in citizenship, participation, or
Social innovation
energy research and policy to develop search criteria, which were used to create a shortlist of 20 European
Urban transformation
Energy justice
citizen-driven energy projects. The criteria were: 1) democratic governance; 2) civil empowerment and capacity
building; 3) human rights approach; 4) diversity of actors; and 5) sustainability. Key informants with relevant
expertise were asked to score the 20 cases based on the search criteria, leading to a final selection of six exemplar
cases from across Europe. Highlights from these initiatives included: empowerment of young community
members in making decisions about the city's climate change response (Manchester), including citizen board
members as regulators of energy partnerships (Viladecans), democratising activities through open voting
(Leuven), and enabling community members to decide how to spend the surplus from collective energy pur­
chases (Brixton). We argue that the integrated application of the global citizenship and social innovation con­
cepts reveals a “sweet spot” at the interface between them that aids practical application. Social innovation
perspectives can help depoliticise ideological positions around energy by bringing together “communities of
makers”, while global citizenship concepts help to orient innovative proposals more clearly around social justice
and environmental objectives. The five criteria are proposed as guiding principles to aid city authorities in energy
transition contexts.

1. Introduction
In view of the necessity of eliminating anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions, the world is gradually transitioning to fossil fuel free energy
sources. Most analysts of the energy transition make a case for the
transition to be just (e.g. [1,2,3]). How exactly this should be accom­
plished remains unclear. In this paper, we look to discover how the
energy transition can be both sustainable and fair, and to make our
findings accessible to policymakers by developing a set of guiding
principles to help achieve this goal.
The optimal spatial scale at which energy transitions should be
delivered can be debated, and inter alia is likely to depend on the degree
of subsidiarity of municipal governments and the nature of higher-level
supportive policy architectures. Cities and urban areas (or city regions),
rather than nation states or supra-national bodies like the EU, are well
placed to transform the energy model from its existing centralised,
inequitable and environmentally unsustainable mode to a decentralised,
equitable and sustainable one. The reasons for this are manifold. Firstly,
cities, with many low-income inhabitants attracted by economic op­
portunities, are often concentrations of serious energy poverty. Unlike
national governments, city authorities tend to be highly focused on
delivery of local public services, in which energy is both directly and

* Corresponding author at: Institute of Economy, Geography, and Demography, Centre for Human and Social Sciences, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC),
C. de Albasanz, 26, 28037 Madrid, Spain.
E-mail address: richard.hewitt@cchs.csic.es (R.J. Hewitt).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103295
Received 9 November 2022; Received in revised form 22 August 2023; Accepted 21 September 2023
Available online 6 October 2023
2214-6296/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M. Segales et al.
indirectly very significant. A 50 % increase in energy prices not only
impacts cities' budgets through the direct cost of energy to the local
authority, but also increases the strain on services to vulnerable citizens
as a result of its knock-on effects on energy poverty [4]. Globally, cities
tend to produce relatively little energy, but consume it in vast amounts
[5], thanks to high concentrations of population, transport and indus­
trial activities. In this sense, intervention in energy at the city scale
(decentralised generation, energy efficiency, demand management etc.)
can potentially provide large benefits for low per capita costs.
As [6], (p. 15) observes: urban spaces are “key centres of govern­
ment, culture, innovation and change, they have a certain autonomy and
self-government resources and generate citizen relations with extraor­
dinary capacity for mobilization and influence”. Experiences of citizen
mobilization driving governance change at the city level are diverse. In
Spain, for example, large groups of economically marginalised urban
dwellers who had been hard-hit by energy price increases, mobilised to
take control of the city council. [7] considers that citizen's movements
were at least partially responsible for shaping urban planning in
Amsterdam in the 1960s and 70s; after 2010 both Prague and Warsaw
saw grassroots populist uprisings, whose activists successfully won seats
on the city council in the former case, but were resisted by the in­
cumbents in the latter [8]. In Germany, [9] note the importance of
“broad alliances of citizens” in driving the successful campaigns for the
remunicipalisation of privatised energy companies in Hamburg, Berlin
and other towns and cities across the country. In Japan, [10] has stressed
the importance of the leadership role played by local mayors in tran­
sitioning to decentralised renewable energy systems. While city au­
thorities are not immune to capture by corrupt actors and may not be
able to guarantee socially just outcomes, they are in principle well-
situated to lead an energy transition that is both sustainable and fair.
However, urban transformation processes are complex and difficult
to unravel, not least because cities are highly heterogeneous entities and
transformation strategies are usually contested by diverse actors. As
[11] have noted, research on urban sustainability transitions has tended
to focus on large or capital cities, which might lead to an unrepresen­
tative impression of the nature of such processes. On one hand, smaller
cities might be more responsive to citizens' needs, as [11] note, with
“more explicit local characteristics” and being more embedded in their
wider region, which would seem to be an advantage. On the other hand,
budgets are much more constrained in smaller cities, and even if so­
cioeconomic problems like fuel or energy poverty are no less acute than
in large cities, they might be less visible to power brokers than in
megacities or capital regions. For this reason, it is necessary to pay
careful attention to individual cases; this is one key goal of this paper.
Specific examples of energy transitions from 29 city cases are pro­
vided by [12], who note the importance of urban governance factors as a
catalyst for experimentation and innovation. However, these authors
focus primarily on technological innovations like solar heating, biogas
transport and electric vehicles. While technological aspects are un­
doubtedly important to energy transitions, they are but one dimension
of complex and multidimensional transition processes – and perhaps not
the most important dimension. In contrast, [13]'s comparison of two
different socio-technical systems, energy and agri-food, for the Spanish
city of Valencia, offers a strongly place-based vision of urban trans­
formation processes, in which the contextual organization of actor
communities and governance spaces is highlighted. Despite the differ­
ence in approach between [12] and [13], both references stress the
importance of local government policies as enablers of sustainability
transitions. In particular, and relevant to our present study, [13]
emphasise the ability of local social movements to establish links with
local government as a key factor in shaping urban transformative
capacity.
Recent literature [14–17] has sought to understand these diverse and
multifaceted locally-based initiatives around energy transition through
the lens of social innovation, a powerful theoretical framework for un­
derstanding grassroots movements for change that goes beyond earlier
2
Energy Research & Social Science 106 (2023) 103295
ideas of innovation as technological or prescriptive (the “knowledge-
economy”). Social Innovation (SI) has been defined as a process through
which civil society actors seek to reconfigure social practices to address
societal well-being, typically in response to specific situations of crisis
[18]. [19] have defined SI as “new ways of doing (practices, technolo­
gies, material commitments), organizing (rules, decision-making, modes
of governance), framing (meaning, visions, imaginaries, discursive
commitments) and knowing (cognitive resources, competence, learning,
appraisal).”
On its own, however, the concept of SI does not lead us to a set of
replicable criteria for urban energy transitions that are both sustainable
and fair. Small-scale community-based energy projects, while broadly
aligned with the SI concept, are often no more than tools for collective
investment, and community members who lack either time or financial
resources to invest in such projects may not benefit from them at all. The
idea of “fairness”, in the sense that energy should be affordable and
accessible to all, might be facilitated by such projects in some cases, but
is in no sense guaranteed.
For this reason, we employ a second concept in our analysis, that of
global citizenship (GC). GC may sound wholly desirable from a
normative perspective, but the concept is much contested and its diverse
origins in internationalist US pedagogy and its top-down incarnations
from the United Nations make for much conceptual confusion. It also sits
alongside ideas of environmental citizenship and ecological citizenship
[20]. In its pedagogical manifestation GC is about increasing the
learner's awareness of global issues and in particular other cultures. In
its global institutional form, it is based on the widely-known UN sus­
tainable development goals (SDGs) and advances the idea that all people
are citizens who must take an active part in the process of social trans­
formation that leads us to a fair and equitable model based on respect for
diversity and human dignity. In this sense GC emphasizes not just
environmental sustainability but also the need to address growing social
inequalities, gender discrimination, racism and human rights violations,
among others. From a GC perspective, energy transition looks to achieve
SDG7 integrally, not as separate elements to be included at some future
moment. What good is sustainable energy if it is not affordable? How
can it be sustainable if only a select few can access it? And so on.
In this study, we seek to move beyond investigations into the nature
and context of urban transformations in general and look to establish
practical guidance for energy transitions in cities that are both sustain­
able and fair. Clearly, cities must act on various energy challenges,
including demand reduction, energy savings and efficiency, the gener­
ation and commercialization of renewable energy, energy justice and
citizens' cultural attitudes to energy. But, if cities are to identify and link
up with social innovation initiatives to address these multiple challenges
in socially, environmentally and economically sustainable ways, what
characteristics should such initiatives have in order to successfully meet
such diverse goals? To answer this leads to two key research questions
(RQs).
RQ1. What criteria should be used to help promote a sustainable, just
and democratic energy transition in cities?
RQ2. What lessons can be offered for policy makers looking to trans­
form energy models at the scale of the individual city?
In the analysis that follows we employ the twin perspectives of global
citizenship and social innovation to try to answer these two RQs. In the
next section we analyse and discuss SI and GC in the context of energy
transitions with reference to the literature. We apply a structured case
study approach based around interviews and workshops with key
stakeholders (see Section 3: Methods) to identify exemplar initiatives
from across Europe that appear to integrate the most desirable charac­
teristics of both conceptual perspectives. These are described in Section
4: (Results). In Section 5, we discuss our findings in detail, leading to a
series of recommendations to help city authorities enable a just energy
transition. Section 6 concludes.
M. Segales et al.
2. Research background: global citizenship and social
innovation
2.1. Global citizenship
The concept of global citizenship (GC) is debated and critiqued from
various perspectives. [21] describes three models of GC: a neoliberal
model based on the idea of entrepreneurial self-advancement in a
competitive world; a liberal model built around tolerance and univer­
sality of moral principles; and a critical model which recognises and
responds to the social injustices (including colonialism) associated with
a western model of development [22]. Some have viewed GC as too
abstract to serve as a workable policy tool (e.g. in education, [23]), and
others argue that many do not view themselves as “global citizens” [24].
Though individuals who identify as “global citizens” may also hold pro-
environmental views, they may not necessarily do so [25]. For example,
a GC perspective could be invoked to justify support for groups involved
in environmentally damaging activities but who are otherwise margin­
alised. Notwithstanding these observations, GC perspectives, which are
relatively scarce in the energy transitions literature, may deserve a more
prominent place. One possible reason for this apparent lacuna could be
that research around SDG7 includes GC implicitly, but does not use the
term explicitly (see e.g. [26, 27]). Note that while achievement of SDG7
certainly implies energy citizenship (see, e.g. [28] for a detailed review
of the concept), narrow forms of energy citizenship (“less active” sensu
[28]), do not address SDG7's core objectives, since they do not guarantee
either affordability or access for all. Prosuming, for example, is a form of
energy citizenship (see e.g. [29,30]), but does not necessarily address
inequality, as prosumers are often wealthier citizens, i.e. homeowners,
with spare capital to invest. Through the lens of GC, prosuming would be
valued for its collective social benefit (i.e. as part of a community clean
energy installation for lower income households) rather than framed as
a matter of individual choice. Though individual choice is clearly a
driver of sustainability transitions, it is doubtful in practice that indi­
vidual decisions (“every little helps”) can make a major difference on
their own. In the words of the late David McKay “if we all do a little, we
will only achieve a little” [31]. GC, in this sense, serves to usefully
reorient community energy towards societally beneficial collectivist
logics and away from the insistent individualist framings of the market.
However, while renewable energy developments based on market logic
are likely to be less sensitive to equity concerns than community or civic
renewable energy developments, the details are important, and differ­
ently designed municipal or community renewables approaches will
undoubtedly generate different outcomes. For example, SI initiatives
that seek to turn a profit from locally-based power generation, e.g.
through sale of electricity from community-owned wind turbines (see e.
g. [32]) are probably closer to [21]'s framing of the GC concept
(entrepreneurial self-advancement) than to the critical model of [22].
Thus the different conceptualisations of GC, when applied to the prac­
tical case of energy transitions, tend to support different interpretations.
On its own, therefore, GC is arguably too broad to usefully differentiate
between energy transition initiatives that are just and sustainable, and
those that are not.
In fact, these kinds of judgments tend to be much more nuanced than
may be at first apparent. Different actors may derive different values
from community or municipal energy projects. In an exploration of
community-based energy developments, [33] note that “the main
motivation… is local economic development in the beginning, the very
fact that renewable energy communities have succeeded to overcome (a)
major sustainability problem – namely the fossil fuel dependence of
energy systems – makes the outcome of their process ecological.” In two
case studies in Denmark and Germany, the focus is on delivering bene­
ficial local collective action rather than any wider notion of ecological
citizenship. In other contexts, social movements might campaign
explicitly for social or ecological outcomes which are seen as compro­
mised by extant structures of power. In this type of situation, ecological
3
Energy Research & Social Science 106 (2023) 103295
citizenship is a driver of behaviour rather than a consequence. However,
we should also be wary of attributing economic development as the only
or main goal of initiatives, since it is usually necessary to present a viable
business case to secure financial support. As initiatives that do not secure
external funding are likely to fail, successful projects may be those which
have followed this market logic.
Given the diverse understandings of citizenship that we have out­
lined, it is likely that those with different conceptions of citizenship will
adopt highly divergent perspectives on the optimal institutional and
political pathways towards clean energy. At one level, the SDGs provide
a normatively framed global consensus on desirable social, economic
and environmental outcomes, but between normative articulation and
the practical delivery of multiple SDGs lies the elusive search for win-
win scenarios, as in [33], where ecology emerged as a serendipitous
beneficiary. Thus a constant exploration of complex trade-offs and
judgments between equity, efficiency and the environment remains
essential. Notions of global, environmental and ecological citizenship
are also increasingly interwoven with concepts of environmental and
climate justice [34]. [35] argue that there is a strong case for exploring
the pursuit of climate justice at urban scale but that an exploration of a
number of cases reveals highly divergent outcomes.
2.2. Social innovation
Social innovation (SI) has been the subject of a large number of
recent studies, and is a widely discussed concept in the energy transi­
tions literature (see e.g. [14,36,37,16]). It also remains one of relatively
few areas at EU policy level where social innovation is explicitly cited as
a desired means towards greater citizen engagement [15]. Though often
seen as a universal concept, there are important differences between SI
in rural areas (see e.g. [38,39]), and urban-based SI initiatives (see e.g.
[40]). In this sense, the work of Zubero [41], who proposes six key
conditions to delimit socially innovative practices in urban contexts is of
particular interest. For Zubero, SI:
1) Arises as an explicit response to needs or demands expressed by a
collective in order to increase their empowerment, reduce their
vulnerability, and strengthen their capacities;
2) Proposes a new social definition of the situation which it seeks to
explain by giving it new meaning. And it assumes, on this basis, a
new way of acting.
3) Seeks comprehensive solutions, i.e. it aims to get to the root of the
problems diagnosed.
4) Includes in the whole process (from diagnosis to intervention and its
evaluation) the whole of the group from which the demand has
originally arisen, or towards which this demand is directed. And it
includes it by showing how it manages the conflict of interests that
may exist in the diversity of people involved.
5) Aims to achieve objective and effective changes, i.e. the production
of tangible, positive and non-circumstantial social impacts that
improve the previously existing situation. Moreover, they must be
sustainable over time.
6) Connects with other initiatives, aspires to be replicated. A socially
innovative practice must seek connections with others that are being
developed in other territorial areas and be capable of being adapted
to be transferable and replicable, in turn, in different contexts.
Though considered by [41] to be desirable, many energy transition
SIs are local in outlook (see. e.g. [17]). For this reason we regard this
sixth condition as optional.
Zubero's six conditions are intended to help identify optimal socially
innovative practices in urban contexts generally, without focusing on
energy transition processes or by making specific links to the core ideas
of global citizenship. However, the emphasis on reducing vulnerability,
building capacity and empowering a collective (Condition 1), holistic
approaches that seek to manage conflict through diversity (Condition 4),
M. Segales et al.
and the characterisation of impacts as explicitly social (Condition 5)
provides common ground between the SI and GC concepts (Fig. 1). The
sustainability requirement (Condition 5) cannot be fulfilled, we argue,
without including the environmental sustainability framing that is
central to the GC concept.
SI, like GC, has been criticised from a number of positions. In Eu­
ropean policy circles, it has gained a prominent profile; researchers have
sought to identify “social innovations” (see e.g. [42]) and enrich them or
“upscale” them through targeted funding (see e.g. [43]). But as [44] has
noted, without a deliberate attempt to subvert neoliberal governance
norms, this approach may simply reinforce existing social divisions,
because “poverty and disadvantage may limit capacity to develop assets
for community use and potentially compound relative disadvantage by
privileging communities with strong human and social capital.” [44]. In
an energy context, [45] have argued that rather than seeking to upscale
local social innovations to the national level, just outcomes can better be
achieved by deliberately creating more supportive conditions for exist­
ing initiatives. [46] have criticised “instrumentalist” conceptualisations
of SI, that seek to reduce it to just another policy tool in the “energy
systems toolbox” i.e. to guide energy planning, or help policymakers
achieve energy transition goals. These authors argue for more pluralistic
understandings of SI that reject its application as social engineering but
contribute to understanding the entanglement of society and technology
in the field of energy [46]. Though we broadly agree with this critique,
this position can be hard to maintain in practice, as policymakers tend to
look for instruments to execute policy, and energy researchers are often
inclined to suggest them. A useful corrective to this tendency can be
found at the intersection between SI and alternative understandings of
the agency of society. Thus the present paper, in examining the inter­
section between SI and GC, seeks to preserve the broader, more inte­
grated meaning of SI advocated by [46], while at the same time offering
guidance to policy.
It follows, therefore, that to ensure that energy transitions are both
sustainable and fair, and to provide practical guidance for policymakers
in city authorities, we should search for specific citizen-driven energy
initiatives at the intersection of GC and SI (Fig. 1). In this way, we can
respond to critiques of the GC concept as overly broad by narrowing its
scope to environmental and justice concerns, which simultaneously help
in constraining SI to just those examples which respond to collective
needs through empowerment and capacity building.
Fig. 1. Intersection of global citizenship (GC) and social innovation (SI) concepts (sensu [41]) in relation to the challenge of the governance of sustainable, just and
democratic energy transitions in urban areas. Zubero's six conditions described above are summarized on the left-hand side of the diagram.
4
Energy Research & Social Science 106 (2023) 103295
3. Methods
To orient our search for participatory energy initiatives that fit more
clearly into this “sweet spot” at the intersection of GC and SI, we adopted
a stepwise approach comprising 3 methodological phases, developed
over a 14-month period between February 2020 and April 2021. The
process involved co-construction of knowledge of SI and GC in energy
transitions with the help of 7 key informants (3 public policy makers, 4
researchers and practitioners in social aspects of energy) and a panel of
11 representatives of specific SI energy initiatives identified during the
research.
3.1. Research design and development of criteria for citizen-driven energy
projects
The first phase served to lay the foundations for the subsequent work
and was carried out between February and August 2020. To begin, we
carried out an exploratory literature review using freely accessible
internet sources (search engines, google scholar) covering two key
themes, the concept of global citizenship, and experiences of citizen
participation in local energy transition processes in the context of energy
poverty. The literature review aimed to provide a context for re­
searchers' own understanding and aimed to be informative, rather than
exhaustive. We then sought to understand the way the global citizenship
concept is used in the framing of public policies through semi-structured
interviews with three representatives of Madrid City Council, with re­
sponsibility for: (1) global citizenship, (2) cross-sector citizen partici­
pation and (3) environment and transport. Interviews were focussed
around the perspectives held and main activities carried out by the
council in relation to global citizenship, citizen participation and the
environment. Subsequently, we contacted four key informants from
different sectors (NGOs, research), aiming to represent different fields
related to social transition in urban areas. This first phase of the work led
to the identification of five key criteria relevant to the global citizenship
idea and its articulation within SDG 7 (Table 1), addressing RQ1 (What
criteria should be used for citizen-driven energy transition projects in
urban areas?). Interviews also helped us to identify additional references
relevant to the five criteria (Table 1).
3.2. Identification of exemplar initiatives through a case study approach
In the second phase of the research, we adopted a structured case
M. Segales et al.
Table 1
Five key criteria for identifying participatory energy initiatives in the context of
global citizenship.
No Criterion Description
1 Democratic To what extent the initiative is
governance open to the participation of any
person, takes into account the
opinion of all participants
when managing the project and
promotes collective
consultation mechanisms for
achieving this.
2 Civil empowerment How a particular initiative
and building citizens' empowers citizens and boosts
capacities their capacities in relation to
the use and management of
energy and energy efficiency.
Also, if the initiative helps
participants develop skills like
teamwork, interpersonal
communication, empathy,
financial management or social
and institutional relations, etc.
3 Human rights How an initiative promotes the
approach human rights of both the
people who implement it and
the beneficiaries, directly or
indirectly; not only in the
results (access to energy, fight
against energy poverty, right to
use renewable energy) but also
in the procedures as gender
equality and non-
discrimination, transparency,
reduction of inequality and fair
apportionment of benefits.
4 Diversity and The extent to which the
heterogeneity of actors composition of stakeholders
(strategic alliances) participating in an initiative is
diverse (universities, unions,
companies, economic sectors,
social groups, cooperatives,
neighbours, local and supra-
local governments, etc.).
5 Sustainability of the The extent to which an
initiative initiative is environmentally,
socially and economically
sustainable
Social sustainability: if the
initiative promotes social
relations, social well-being and
tries to avoid situations of
social exclusion.
Environmental sustainability: if
the impact on the environment
is positive.
Economic sustainability: if the
project is economically viable
and self-sufficient from the
financial point of view or if it
has permanent or long-term
structural funding.
study approach [47] to develop the tentative criteria established in
Phase 1 with reference to real SI initiatives. The case study approach is
commonly applied in sociology research and can be defined as “a
research strategy aimed at understanding the dynamics present in
unique contexts” [48]. It is an especially appropriate method “for topics
that are considered practically new” [49,p. 23] and for the investigation
of contemporary phenomena in their real environment, whose borders
with their respective contexts are not clearly evident and for which
multiple data sources may exist [50]. This approach was especially
relevant to social innovation in energy transition, for which multiple
Energy Research & Social Science 106 (2023) 103295
definitions and framings exist ([14,15,16,17]).
The search for case study initiatives needed to be broadened beyond
the academic literature since many initiatives are not documented and
Key references are only visible through organisational websites (see, e.g. [17]). We
in the energy began with an internet search for initiatives based on the previously
domain defined criteria on platforms where presumably selectable cases might
[53,54] be expected to appear, e.g. Rescoop (https://www.rescoop.eu/), Ger­
minador Social de SomEnergía (https://www.germinadorsocial.com/)
and the Enlarge project (http://www.enlarge-project.eu/), among
others. To broaden the research team's knowledge base in this area, we
consulted with four researchers or practitioners of specialist expertise in
social aspects of energy, like grassroots energy initiatives [51] or
“community energy” projects [52], and in the implementation of such
[55,56]
schemes in urban areas. The outcome of this process was the preselec­
tion of a total of 20 study cases in Spain and Europe that fulfilled the
criteria to some degree.
3.3. Ranking and final selection of exemplar initiatives by informant
panel
For each of these cases, information was collected to characterize
them. This information was then shared with a panel of 11 key in­
[57]; [58];
[59]; [60]; [61]
formants from various fields in relation to energy and related partici­
patory processes in the urban environment, in which 2 of the previously
consulted 4 specialists were also included as panel members. As far as
possible, experts from the European level and a balanced participation
of men and women were selected for the panel. The research team first
summarized the key characteristics of each initiative to avoid over­
whelming the informant panel, who participated on a voluntary basis
and could not be expected to provide very large time dedication. The
following information fields were chosen to characterize the initiatives:
Name of the initiative, Territorial scope of action, Time frame Objective
[62]; [63] (s), Description of the initiative, Democratic governance/citizen
participation, Citizen empowerment, Rights approach, Diversity of ac­
tors, Sustainability, Beneficiaries, Promoting agents, Other agents
involved, Main results, Additional information (web, social networks,
news, etc.). Once the informant panel had been formed, its members
were contacted via email to explain the objectives of the investigation,
and the systematized information on the 20 pre-selected cases was sent
[17]; [64] to them for evaluation according to the aforementioned criteria,
together with an Excel document for their use in ranking the initiatives
on 10-point scale against each of the established criteria (Table 2),
where 1 did not fulfil the criteria and 10 fulfilled the criteria completely
(Please see Appendix 2 for more detail on this process) Once the in­
formants' evaluations had been received, the final scores were then
compiled by the research team by calculating the weighted sum (total
score of all evaluations/number of evaluators). Two selections were
made 1) the three highest ranked cases from Spain; 2) the three highest
ranked cases from elsewhere in Europe (Table 3). Finally, representa­
tives of the six selected initiatives were contacted and semi-structured
interviews were carried out to provide the research team with a
detailed picture of each initiative. Note that none of the 11 members of
the informant panel who scored the initiatives had any link at all with
the case study initiatives, and the representatives of the case studies
interviewed were not involved in the scoring process.
4. Results
Table 3 shows the 20 shortlist candidates and their score for each
criterion, with the 6 selected initiatives highlighted in bold.
The six initiatives selected contain a wide spectrum of citizen and
participatory elements, sometimes promoted by local public authorities
(Appendix 1). Some initiatives are already well-consolidated, while
others have emerged comparatively recently but seemed to have clear
and achievable future goals. In the following paragraphs we describe
how the highest-scoring initiatives addressed each criterion.
5
M. Segales et al. Energy Research & Social Science 106 (2023) 103295

Table 2
Example of ranking by one key informant.
Criteria scores from 1 to 10)

Initiative C1 Democratic C2 Empowerment C3 Human rights C4 Diversity C5 Sustainability Total Comments

management (comment) approach (comment) (comment) score (optional)
(comment) (comment)

1 Cadiz 10 Seems like 9 More ambitious 10 The “Energy 7 High social 5 I gave a lower 41 The long term
anyone can go than Vilawatt social scheme” diversity, low score here is due viability of all
along but without makes this the political to the problem of the Spanish
whenever they knowing how overall winner diversity of balancing initiatives is a
want Cadiz Electric many factors. concern
company is Envi because of the
governed I sustainability political
cannot give this high - 10. context in
a 10 Economic which they
sustainability emerged. If the
low - 3 (financial right wing
support is rather parties take
dependent on control all of
the mayor this will be
keeping hold of undone in the
the council I first week.
think). Social
sustainability
low - 3 (I see this
as a pop-up
initiative not a
long term
project because
of its political
roots).
2 Ghent 9 Seems like 6 Social goals 6 Poor quality 4 Unclear if the 3 Low score 28 See individual
anyone can go suggest housing is a key main drivers because, despite sections
along empowerment, issue here (as in and best efforts, I
whenever they but how is it Viladecans). But beneficiaries suspect the
want but they realized in I wonder how of the project overall legacy of
need to send an practice? far-reaching the are wealthier this project (all 3
email which initiative really citizens (I am sustainability
not everyone is in practical not sure about goals) will be
may be able to terms. Talks the this because I very low
do talk but does it do not know
walk the walk? Ghent). If it
turns out I am
wrong this
score
obviously will
be higher
3 Vilawatt 7 Seems 7 Specific 8 Fight against 5 Diversity not 5 Pros: (i) Energy 32 See individual
democratic but inclusion of energy poverty is necessarily company may sections
no specific citizens on board a key motivator. low, just provide long
information on of “Public unclear from term revenue
how citizens private citizen the (ii) high
can participate partnership” information I electricity prices
energy company have and poor
is very housing is a
empowering. major concern
that is unlikely
to go away soon.
Cons: (i)
Mention of
European
funding makes
me nervous -
what happens
when the
funding is
finished?. (ii)
environmental
sustainability
not really a goal
here as far as I
can see
4 Plymouth 8 Prospective 7 Less specific 9 Fight against 7 Plymouth is 8 UK city councils 39 See individual
members have than Vilawatt energy poverty is the most are run by civil sections
obligations as but further a key motivator. diverse place servants, not
well as rights. reaching (whole Scores higher in Devon, UK politicians.
Good idea but city) than Vilawatt by a long way. Political
(continued on next page)

6
M. Segales et al. Energy Research & Social Science 106 (2023) 103295

Table 2 (continued )
Criteria scores from 1 to 10)

Initiative C1 Democratic C2 Empowerment C3 Human rights C4 Diversity C5 Sustainability Total Comments

management (comment) approach (comment) (comment) score (optional)
(comment) (comment)

may limit because of its But Devon, interference is

participation wider reach (all UK, is one of usually low.
Plymouth, not the least Hence the
just buildings in diverse places election of
one in the world. anticlean energy
neighbourhood) However, this politicians won't
initiative does change
seem very far anything =
reaching more socially/
(business, economically
schools etc.). sustainable
Medium social
diversity. High
diversity of
beneficiaries.
5 Rubi 5 Not as 5 Empowerment 4 Human rights 6 Lower social 7 More business- 27 See individual
democratic as of small goals a bit diversity focused than sections
the others - businesses is a unclear perhaps, but Cadiz, and the
business rather key issue here - inclusion of economy is
than citizen empowerment of businesses stronger in
focused other groups not bring the score Barcelona and
so clear up a little Catalunya in
general. I
suspect the non-
radical tone may
lead to greater
longevity in the
case of a change
of governing
party.
6 Leuven 7 Seems 6 Empowerment 4 Not mentioned 7 Appears 8 Focus is 32 See individual
democratic but seems to be the diverse, but no environmental sections
no specific project's main mention of sustainability,
information on selling point, but marginalised inclusion of food
how citizens marginalised communities strategy
can participate groups are not increases the
mentioned. Who score. As with
will the project Manchester,
empower, and local
why? government
backing makes
this project
more likely to
succeed long-
term
7 Orcasitas 9 Open to any 10 Residents are 8 Fight against 5 Diversity not 7 Carbon saving is 39 See individual
resident with whole owners energy poverty is necessarily noted, green sections
time to get and managers of a key motivator. low, just organizations
involved their own unclear from support it, but
supply. the this is not the
information I key focus. But
have this is a long-
running
initiative and
social
sustainability is
high
8 Manchester 6 Not clear. 6 Potential for 4 Not mentioned 7 Deliberate 8 Focused on 31 Despite
Would need to empowerment, inclusion of environmental mentions of
know more but this is not young people sustainability. poverty and
about the specifically implies a Also, because of homelessness
structure of the mentioned - commitment major local these may be
Bureau. If though poverty to diversity, government symbolic. The
explicitly and though backing and 5 core of the
including homelessness inclusion of year plan, looks project seems
citizens, esp. are mentioned Manchester's like it might to be squarely
from it's not clear many work long-term about climate
marginalised whether this is communities (project change.
communities, the core focus of of colour is not sustainability)
the score the initiative mentioned
would go up. (seems like it
isn't)
(continued on next page)

7
M. Segales et al. Energy Research & Social Science 106 (2023) 103295

Table 2 (continued )
Criteria scores from 1 to 10)

Initiative C1 Democratic C2 Empowerment C3 Human rights C4 Diversity C5 Sustainability Total Comments

management (comment) approach (comment) (comment) score (optional)
(comment) (comment)

9 Mouscron 7 Seems to cover 8 Direct 7 Right to housing 5 Diversity not 7 Environmental 34 Seems quite
three key empowerment of is mentioned and necessarily sustainability is similar to
elements (local citizens through local low, just not the central Vilawatt
government, a coop structure development unclear from focus. The
private energy and direct agency is the project is small
company, financial support involved information I scale and further
citizens) to those without have expansion is not
through an means guaranteed.
innovative Social
shared sustainability is
ownership high.
structure

directly and openly incorporating them or channelling their demands.

Table 3
For example, the Energy Poverty Roundtable of Cadiz (Table 3: No. 1)
Final selected “exemplar” initiatives.
initiated a participatory process to design and implement a social energy
No. Initiative Location Total voucher to help vulnerable families meet their energy needs. The pro­
scores
posal was the work of activist groups and human rights organizations
1 Energy Transition Roundtable and Cadiz, Spain 42,8 that for years demanded its implementation and which now form part of
Energy Poverty Roundtable
the Roundtable in collaboration with other organizations. In the case of
2 Vilawatt Viladecans, Spain 41,2
3 Leuven 2030 Louvain/Leuven, 41,2
Barcelona (Table 3: No. 6), the training and employment of people at
Belgium risk of energy poverty to provide energy advice for families at risk of
4 Manchester Climate Partnership and Manchester, UK 40,7 exclusion shows another form of participation with representativeness.
Agency In Brixton (Table 3: No. 5), representativeness means that people in fuel
5 Brixton Community Energy Brixton, London, 40,6
poverty are empowered to decide how to use community funds from
UK
6 Puntos de asesoramiento energético Barcelona, Spain 40 economic savings resulting from the collective purchase of energy.
7 La Borda Cooperative Barcelona, Spain 39,9
8 Simmering Smart Urban Renewal Vienna, Austria 39,6 4.1.3. Democracy
9 Plymouth Energy Community Plymouth, UK 39,25 This criterion adopts the principle that all persons or entities
10 Entrepatios Housing Cooperative Usera, Madrid, 39
Spain
involved have the same weight when making decisions, either individ­
11 Central térmica de Orcasitas (Thermal Madrid, Spain 38,3 ually or as members of a particular sector. Consensus is prioritised, and
power plant at Orcasitas) where many participants are involved, decisions are taken by voting. An
12 Heidelberg Heidelberg, 38,3 example of this is the Leuven 2030 platform (Table 3: No. 3). In its
Germany
general assembly, made up of more than 600 members, i.e. all the people
13 El apagón. Ni frío, ni calor, ni sed. (The Catalonia, Spain 38
blackout. No cold, no heat, no thirst) who belong to the consortium, each person has one vote, so that de­
14 Mouscron COOPEM Mouscron, Belgium 38 cisions are taken democratically. Any participant can propose pilot
15 Som Mobilitat (We are mobility) Catalonia, Spain 38 projects and, if they are in line with the city's decarbonization objectives
16 Edinburgh Community Solar Cooperative Edinburgh, UK 36,5 and Roadmap and get sufficient support, they can be co-designed and
17 Grenoble 2030 Grenoble, France 35
18 Rubí Brilla Rubí, Spain 34,75
implemented. The Leuven 2030 platform includes individuals as well as
19 Buurzame Stroom Ghent, Belgium 34,4 manufacturing companies, financial institutions, social enterprises,
20 Bioclimatiza tu cole (Bioclimatize your Seville, Spain 31 third sector organizations in sustainability advocacy and social inno­
school) vation, cultural, academic and knowledge institutions.

4.1. C1: democratic governance 4.2. C2: civil empowerment and capacity building

This criterion is recognised as central to participatory energy tran­
sitions, and, as [54] has argued, should be demonstrated, rather than
assumed. For practical purposes, democratic governance of the initia­
tives is reflected in three aspects:
4.1.1. Openness
The initiatives should be open to the participation of interested or­
ganizations or individuals without restrictions. For example, The Cadiz
Energy Transition and Poverty Roundtables (Table 3: No. 1) are
participatory bodies open to any individual or organization interested in
issues related to sustainability and social justice in which relevant de­
cisions are made for the future of the city.
4.1.2. Representativeness in decision-making
The initiatives should have sought to represent the people or sectors
affected by the problem and to include them in decision-making by
Citizen empowerment relates to the scope of participation and the
promotion of citizen capabilities. In other words, if the previous crite­
rion referred to the management of participation, this one refers to the
depth of participation (see e.g. [17]) and, especially, to its effects. In this
context, the initiatives can be analysed from two points of view:
4.2.1. Extent of participation by members
In some cases, participation led to regulatory changes or to the
implementation of actions within previously co-designed plans or
roadmaps in which the energy transition plays a central role. An
example of this is the participatory design of annual energy coverage by
the Energy Poverty Roundtable in Cadiz (Table 3: No. 1), in which its
members established the criteria for accessing a grant. It was decided
that, instead of a 25 % discount on the bill (as is the case with the state
bonus), the Cadiz alternative would lie in the bonus of an amount of
energy and power sufficient to enjoy “a decent life”, according to the
energy needs of each family. Thus, the grant recipient is entitled to a

8
M. Segales et al.
bonus on their electricity bill in terms of power and consumption –
effectively an energy minimum basic income – up to a certain level of
between 150 kwh to 300 kwh depending on the number of members of
their household, up to a maximum power of 3.5 kw. In addition, training
in energy saving and efficiency is provided, so that the grant is not
exclusively economic but also a tool to encourage energy saving and
efficiency and empowerment as consumers and citizens.
4.2.2. Training and capacity building of participants
Training and capacity building can manifest itself in three ways: 1)
by increasing awareness of energy issues; 2) through the promotion of a
critical and committed citizenship; and 3) through the promotion of
skills linked to active participation such as teamwork, self-esteem, ca­
pacity for dialogue and debate, responsibility, negotiation, among
others. Many people have increased their room for manoeuvre when
facing energy issues, have acquired social and labour market skills and
feel more integrated in their communities. A paradigmatic case is that of
the Manchester Partnership, an agreement between more than 70 or­
ganizations for the participative decarbonization of the city by 2038
(Table 3, No. 4). Participation in the scheme has led to substantial
empowerment for its members on two converging levels. On one hand, it
has boosted awareness of the responsibility of its members in relation to
climate change and the promotion of renewable energy as key elements
of the city's transformation. Its members have taken responsibility for
carrying out actions and even forging alliances among themselves. On
the other hand, the actions carried out by the members of the Partner­
ship have meant that they are part of the decision-making process at the
city level. According to one Manchester Youth Board member:
“[This has been]...a big motivation for everyone, and a big change.
At the beginning, talking to the Mayor or to representatives of eco­
nomic sectors or big companies was scary and made me nervous. But
now I have realized that, although the representatives of large
companies or local government are important and influential people,
and that I would probably never have met if it weren't for this
experience, we are all working towards the same goal and have
established a very fluid communication. They are always willing to
help.”
For the young board member interviewed, the whole process has led
to individual improvement in skills such as self-confidence, communi­
cation and leadership, which has been reflected in the daily lives of these
young participants. They are proud that their city takes them into ac­
count for something as important as transforming and decarbonizing the
city.
4.3. C3: human rights approach
The human rights approach challenges the initiatives to show how
(or whether) they promote human rights directly or indirectly of both
participants and beneficiaries of their actions. It covers not only energy
outcomes (access, the fight against energy poverty, the right to use
renewable energies) but also gender equality and non-discrimination,
transparency or the reduction of inequality. This can be examined
from at least three points of view:
4.3.1. Energy as a right
This considers that, in order to develop a dignified life, people must
have access to energy that meets their needs. This reframing of energy
and its reinsertion in daily life has been a substantial element in all
initiatives, albeit from different perspectives and with different scopes.
In the case of the annual Energy Coverage of Cadiz (Table 3: No. 1), a
decent minimum coverage has been legally ensured, as previously
noted.
9
Energy Research & Social Science 106 (2023) 103295
4.3.2. Citizens' inclusion in and identification with initiatives
This looks at the extent to which the initiative makes citizens feel a
key part of urban transformation processes. In the case of Vilawatt, in
Viladecans (Table 3: No. 1), new associative entities were even created
to facilitate citizen participation, showing the importance the initiative
gave to this aspect. This was because it was understood from the very
beginning that the objectives of the project would be unattainable
without changing citizens' attitudes to energy. In the words of one of the
project's participants:
“Basically, what we intend is to foster a sense of belonging among the
citizens of Viladecans as a key to empowerment and to achieve a
change of mentality with respect to energy management. This is the
only way to bring about a long-term change”.
Citizen participation was boosted through the creation of two citizen
associative entities: the Vilawatt Citizen Association and the Vilawatt
Shops Association. In this regard, as a representative of the Vilawatt
initiative noted:
“In the citizen association, all the people who participate in the
aggregate purchase of energy are members. Every citizen who buys
energy and participates in the currency participates in the gover­
nance of this consortium. Now we are working with the citizens'
association, trying to hold meetings with experts and open meetings
with the associates, to explain various topics: self-consumption, en­
ergy efficiency, etc.”.
4.3.3. Other rights
A further key consideration relates to whether the initiatives have
been a relevant element in the lives of the people involved, providing
them with the opportunity to have better health, adequate housing,
employment, etc. This has been reflected in the way participants made
use of the Community Funds (EECF) in the Brixton case (Table 3: No. 5).
The actions of this initiative depend on the decisions of the members of
the different energy communities, that is, those who have invested
financially in the project. The way the EECF is to be spent is voted on
annually in general assembly following a one-member-one-vote princi­
ple (participatory budgeting). Every year, the process begins with a
public consultation: individuals or groups are invited to submit projects,
from which ideas are identified that reflect the needs of the community
and, finally, it is decided which ones can be implemented.1
4.4. C4: diversity and heterogeneity of actors (strategic alliances)
This refers to the heterogeneity of agents participating in the ini­
tiatives. Initiatives should be representative of the society from which
the problem emanates and be able to forge alliances among diverse
stakeholders. This criterion is relevant to the capacity of the initiatives
to connect, transfer and scale.
The Manchester partnership (Table 3, No. 4) has been especially
effective in this respect, since it has brought together social, cultural,
religious and sports organizations (including public services such as
educational, health, social services, housing, etc.), people suffering from
the problems addressed (i.e. unemployment, energy poverty, etc.),
public administrations, entities, agencies or institutions focused on
1
For example, during the pandemic, Brixton residents were asked to propose
ideas for how the funds could be used to serve the community. Residents filled
out a form with the project name, description, applicant and an estimated
budget, and from all the applications, the ones that were most likely to be of
interest to members of the energy community were voted on. Thanks to a
project funded by the EECF, a portion of Brixton residents could access a meal
service that replaces the food that the children received in their schools, which
were closed for most of 2020 due to the pandemic.
M. Segales et al.
social participation in the field of energy, companies (including the
electricity sector, public and private) and business organizations from
different sectors, representatives of academic and research bodies,
among others. This has enriched the initiative in ways that would have
been difficult to achieve without this diversity of actors. It has also
greatly enhanced the implementation of the initiatives and increased
their influence on the rest of society. The inclusion of religious organi­
zations and an important sports club with hundreds of thousands of
followers in participatory activities is an example of this.
In terms of replicability and scalability, the picture was uneven
across the initiatives selected. Some initiatives have been able to
reproduce their approaches and processes in other areas with great
success. In others, the specificities of the context or the difficulties of
implementation have reduced the capacity to do so. In any case, many of
the initiatives have been disseminated in different urban areas and
networks.
In the case of Manchester (Table 3, No. 4), this translates into
changing the logic of the role of public authorities. As a local authority
representative from the partnership observed:
“Now from the Agency we look for evidence and we develop, in
confluence with the members of the partnership, through pilot ex­
periments. Then we generate that evidence, and that gets the local
authorities involved. It's very different from the previous model,
where the local government brought all the actors together and led
the initiatives, which could also be effective, but certainly slower.
This is one of the factors underlying the generation of the partner­
ship: to support and generate evidence and experimentation so that
local authorities are involved in actions that only they are capable of
providing. The question is that policies are not only the responsibility
of the city council or metropolitan authority, neither their design nor
their implementation, but that all the city's agents lead through a
space for participation so that local authorities can develop what
they do best and, sometimes, no one else can do”.
In this sense, and according to this logic, the dialogue that is estab­
lished between the City Council and society is different. It is no longer a
matter of achieving environmental objectives established by the local
government, but of generating and implementing proposals in various
areas by social actors, to which the City Council joins. This is where
elements related to legitimacy, transparency and social and citizen
participation come together, marking a shift from paternalistic gover­
nance to participatory governance [65]. This approach also tends to
reduce the risk that the City Council's actions will subsequently fail,
since they have already been previously tested and have had the backing
of a large part of the city's social stakeholders.
4.5. C5: sustainability of the initiative
Finally, the sustainability criterion implies that the initiative should
actively promote social relations, social cohesion and inclusion, have a
positive environmental impact, and be economically viable and
adequately self-sufficient. The initiative should itself be sustainable,
looking to establish permanent changes over time.
Two comments can be made in this regard. Firstly, the selected ini­
tiatives clearly promote novel solutions for an environmentally and
socially sustainable energy transition. But beyond their positive effects
on the environment, understood in a broad sense (the city and its sur­
roundings), their social impact has not yet been objectively measured.
However, both the actions promoted and the processes themselves do
seem to have had profound effects on urban resilience and on the people
and communities that implement them, such as the improvement of the
image of the cities and communities involved, the generation of links
and networks among the participants, the feeling of pride in the city, the
creation of new associative fabric and the strengthening of the existing
one, the generation of employment, as well as greater international
10
Energy Research & Social Science 106 (2023) 103295
recognition and influence through participation in organizations or
networks of cities focused on the energy transition, among others.
Secondly, from the point of view of the economic sustainability of the
actions arising out of the initiatives, the results have been mixed. In
many cases, however, the initiatives have sought to identify sources of
financing independent of the public sector and thus generate interven­
tion dynamics with sustainable future pathways. More specific investi­
gation of the environmental, social and economic impact of these
initiatives would be a useful direction for future work.
5. Discussion
Global citizenship (GC) and Social Innovation (SI) have been used to
derive a set of five criteria that can serve as guiding principles for to help
city authorities facilitate energy transitions. In the following discussion
we show how this framing contributes to the current academic discourse
around energy transitions.
5.1. GC and SI can be used to develop practical criteria to guide
policymakers
The global citizenship (GC) perspective has been justifiably criticised
as too broad to provide pathways for action [23]. On the other hand,
social innovation (SI) is a useful approach for exploring the complex
dynamics of grassroots movements as they seek to turn ideas into action,
but is difficult to use as an organizing concept – it can be hard to extract
general lessons, since individual initiatives are very diverse and highly
temporally and geographically specific. Yet when used in combination,
useful operational insights to help local authorities manage urban en­
ergy transitions can be derived from the intersection of the SI and GC
concepts (Fig. 1). The five criteria identified by our key informants
allowed a structured search for inspirational examples of participatory
urban energy projects, revealing in detail the precise motivations which
respond to the key requirement that energy transition should be sus­
tainable, just and democratic.
5.2. The five criteria may help address “instrumentalization” of SI in the
energy transition
The SI framing both exposes the aspirational transformative experi­
ences and emphasizes community and participatory aspects of grass­
roots energy projects. Yet, as [46] have observed, there is a danger in
trying to apply SI concepts to specific policy goals, and there is a risk of
moving away from pluralistic and informal conceptualisations of social
movements around energy and towards a kind of social engineering
which powerful actors (energy incumbents, governments) seek to
harness for ends that may not coincide with, or benefit, the communities
from which they originated. This instrumentalization of SI, in the words
of [46], may actually be an unavoidable consequence of trying to “use”
SI to meet policy goals – after all, energy transition is itself an explicitly
stated policy goal. Indeed, some earlier writers saw SI as a kind of
practice laboratory that can be scaled up with appropriate public sup­
port [66]. In this sense, the five criteria derived by our study offer a
pathway for the incorporation of diverse kinds of energy transition
projects, from small community initiatives to large renewables de­
velopments into a framework of responsible and responsive civic
governance without losing the original goal of community benefit. For
example, municipal ownership (even if partial), like the well-
documented remunicipalisation experiences in Germany [67] could
M. Segales et al.
both address the question of civic empowerment (C2) and increase the
diversity of actors (C4). In practical terms, city planners could require
developers to show how well they address these criteria, rather than just
accepting offers of “a community development fund”, an often symbolic
payout which is often far smaller than the financial returns to the
community from whole or even part ownership.2
5.3. The five criteria can help policymakers ensure environmental
sustainability and social benefit in energy transitions
The GC perspective, based around the need to address SDG7, can act
as a much-needed filter to initiatives identified in this way, by stressing
the civic and democratic governance aspects (some SI projects are
heavily dominated by key individuals, see e.g. [39]) and emphasizing
more strongly the environmental sustainability criteria. This is very
important, since global climate and sustainability goals cannot be ach­
ieved simply by making conventional fossil fuel-based energy systems
more democratic. Though many energy SI initiatives are motivated by
environmental concerns, a significant proportion is not. Neither can SI
be relied upon to address human rights questions (criterion C3) – the
right to energy, to a liveable planet, and freedom from gender or race-
based discrimination. This filter, if applied, for example, to the large
number of energy cooperatives in Sweden identified by [17] would tend
to prioritize projects like the feminist initiative Qvinnovindar Sverige
over more conventional energy-as-commodity schemes like the enor­
mous Dala Vindkraft Ekonomisk förening [17, supplementary material
p.24]. At the same time, we should also consider that while energy co­
operatives are often claimed as examples of social innovation, SI in
energy is much more diverse than this, as recent studies (e.g. [16]), and
indeed our own case studies, show. Many, perhaps most, energy
generating cooperatives such as those found abundantly in Denmark,
Sweden and Germany clearly do not fit comfortably within a GC framing
either, since they operate mostly as a local kind of stakeholder capital­
ism, and often do not explicitly aim to improve access to energy or
reduce energy poverty. Active participation by cooperative members in
such schemes is often at a rather low level [17]. In fact, while in­
dividuals' motivations for participation in community energy schemes
are diverse, financial incentives may “crowd out” behaviours based on
social preferences [68]. In the light of these experiences, our approach
emphasizes the importance of the collaborative over the innovative or
the local.
5.4. Towards recommendations for energy transition in cities
We have argued that the city level is the appropriate scale to
implement an energy transition that is both sustainable and fair, not
only because city governments tend to be the level of governance that is
closest to the citizen, but also because cities are where diverse social
agents are most highly concentrated– it is at this scale where efforts can
be pooled most effectively around social transformation. Such trans­
formative potential is necessarily a product of new models of urban
governance. Recent practices in cities such as Bologna offers hope that
such models can be implemented [65]. In this sense, cities can play an
active role as “middle actors” [69] in energy transformation processes,
and use their capacity and agency to enact change in many of the ways
these authors describe. For example, they may use their influence “up­
stream” to reorient national energy policy debates, “sideways” across to
other towns and cities, e.g. through international fora like the EU
Covenant of Mayors, and “downstream” by acting as information
2
For example, the annual return received by the community wind turbine at
Udny, Scotland for the single 800KW turbine installed by the community was
approximately the same as the annual community payment offered by the
Swedish developer Vattenfall for the whole of the 92 MW wind turbine scheme
at Aberdeen Bay, over 100 times larger!
11
Energy Research & Social Science 106 (2023) 103295
providers, facilitators, expert advisors and by shielding citizens from
energy injustice through municipal stakeholder-owned utilities.
To help cities fulfil this crucial middle actor role, it is essential, as
[70] has observed, to identify communities of “everyday makers” (as
opposed to policy makers), or existing initiatives, to provide cities with
guidelines for practical action. The case-study based practical exemplar
approach we have employed in this paper has shown one way to do this,
providing a framework that unifies the rather unstructured GC idea with
the rather diverse SI concept. By bringing the two concepts together we
help avoid the ambiguities of GC by tying it down to specific actions
without discarding its core values. This effectively complements SI
perspectives, which by their nature tend towards localism, and hence
may risk losing sight of the bigger picture.
Aside from providing cities with a set of applicable tools, our
approach also highlights the value of democratic processes that are more
fully inclusive than most existing examples in our political systems. The
Manchester case study (Table 3, No. 4) shows the importance of making
citizens protagonists in decision-making in a field as apparently tech­
nical and remote from everyday experience as energy. [65] reinforce
these ideas as principles of effective urban governance. At the same
time, it should be remembered that the six exemplar cities reflect rather
specific geographical and temporal opportunities that set them on
transition pathways towards socially just renewable energy with evident
active citizenship. For this reason, they should not be treated as recipes
or templates that can be unproblematically applied somewhere else, but
reflexive learning experiences that can inform and create insights where
there is a commitment to catalyse SI alongside energy justice and active
citizenship.
5.5. Limitations of the study and future research
The research on which this paper is based was commissioned by
Madrid City Council, as part of an information-gathering process to
inform policy. This meant that out of the initial shortlist of 20 initiatives,
our brief required us to select 10 from Spain, and likewise, in the final
list of exemplar cases, after application of the criteria, 3 of the 6 ini­
tiatives were also from Spain. However, since the study did not aim to be
either exhaustive, or statistically representative of European initiatives,
only to identify promising initiatives that met as many of the 5 criteria as
possible, we do not see this is a serious limitation. The final identifica­
tion of 6 exemplar cases was made by our key informants; logically this
has the limitation that our results are more strongly dependent on the
criteria and perspectives of our key informants than on a systematic
study of the literature.
In terms of our conceptual approach, we recognise that using global
citizenship as a prerequisite for the design of socially and environmen­
tally just transitions is problematic because the concept remains highly
contested. The impacts of civic and community led social innovation in
renewable energy can be explored through the multiple lenses of GC
(entrepreneurial, liberal-ethical, critical-anticolonialist), but the choice
of lens will strongly influence the selection of outcomes to be explored,
and the success or otherwise of the initiative is acutely vulnerable to the
framing selected. Even if the SDGs provide a collectively agreed
normative benchmark, trade-offs between different SDGs will arise out
of necessity and as a consequence of delivery strategies (see, e.g. [71])
and the notion of an acceptable trade-off will be shaped by the particular
framing or discourse of citizenship. Win-win outcomes from social
innovation in urban energy that promote climate justice with its un­
derpinnings of social and environmental justice can be found, but as
[35] have exposed, there is a need for close scrutiny of such projects
through coherent analytical frameworks, and such projects, in spite of
good intentions, are prone to unintended consequences.
Our assertion that SI can be integrated with other theoretical per­
spectives to safeguard participatory and democratic principles and
ensure environmental benefit may also not find widespread agreement.
With regard to the first of our assertions, some authors see SI as
M. Segales et al.
intrinsically addressing social justice concerns and power inequalities
(e.g. [72,73]) - thus rendering the introduction of other conceptual
framings around social needs and benefits unnecessary. As for the sec­
ond of our assertions, it can be argued, following [33] that anything that
enables energy transition is by definition providing environmental
benefit. However, detailed case-based surveys of individual examples of
SI in the context of energy transitions (see e.g. [16, 17]) suggests
enormous diversity. Many initiatives address only one aspect of multi-
layered definitions of SI. There are many individual energy transition
initiatives that provide socially innovative responses that are not
particularly democratic or participatory, or that are not particularly
environmentally friendly, or that are none of these. While the inclusion
of principles derived from a GC perspective does not ensure a democratic
or deliberative outcome, it does at least make explicit that this is
desirable.
For future research, a number of clear opportunities can be identi­
fied. Firstly, while we have aimed to contribute to theory by exploring
the intersection of global citizenship and social innovation, other con­
ceptual framings are also relevant. One possible avenue for future
theoretical work would be a careful study of the intersection between
global citizenship and energy justice ([2, 74]) in energy transitions.
Secondly, the six cases identified here are all from Europe, and all from
stable, wealthy, western, democratic states. The five criteria we have
proposed as guiding principles for sustainable, just and democratic en­
ergy transitions in cities may not have the same relevance elsewhere in
other contexts. Application of the five criteria we propose to identify
promising initiatives in African or Asian cities would make for a valuable
study. Thirdly, while energy transition case study examples are abun­
dant, we are not aware of any follow up studies that pursue the historical
evolution of energy transition initiatives in an effort to learn lessons
from their development trajectory. Finally, the role of city authorities as
agents of social innovation in energy transitions seems worthy of a
specific study. To what extent is it possible for them to play the role of
facilitators and enablers, as recommended by [69]? To what extent does
their capacity to do this depend on the size of the city [11]?
6. Conclusions
Our paper has proposed five criteria derived from the intersection of
social innovation and global citizenship perspectives; we have argued
that these can be used as guiding principles to help city authorities
promote energy transitions that are sustainable and fair. The criteria
were: 1) democratic governance; 2) Civil empowerment and capacity
building; 3) human rights approach; 4) diversity of actors and 5) sus­
tainability. We have shown how each of these work in practice with
reference to real cases selected by our key informants, for which infor­
mation was gathered through interviews with representatives of each
case. We summarize these five guiding principles as follows:
1. Democratic governance, implies that citizen driven initiatives should
be open to anyone to join, as in the case of the Cadiz Energy Tran­
sition Roundtable (Table 3, No. 1), that members should be actively
represented in decision-making, as in Barcelona, where they were
given training to provide energy advice to others (Table 3: No. 6),
and that members should have meaningful voting rights, as in the
Leuven 2030 case (Table 3: No. 3).
2. Civil empowerment and capacity building, such that the participa­
tion enjoyed by initiative members is as broad and meaningful as
possible, as in the Cadiz example (Table 3: No. 1), in which its
members established the criteria for accessing a grant, and whether
the initiative aimed to increase participants' capabilities, as in the
Manchester case (Table 3, No. 4), where the initiative sought to
actively improve the skills and confidence, particularly of young
members at risk of marginalisation.
3. Human rights approach. This relates to the importance of estab­
lishing a rights framework to ensure that citizens' minimum energy
12
Energy Research & Social Science 106 (2023) 103295
needs are met, as in Cadiz (Table 3: No. 1) where a minimum energy
needs threshold was defined, as well as actively establishing the
principle of citizen participation in energy transition initiatives as an
active right that citizens should enjoy. The Vilawatt initiative
(Table 3: No. 1) set up a new organisational structure (public-private-
citizen partnership) in which citizens were structurally incorporated
in energy decision-making.
4. Diversity of Actors. This criterion relates to the capacity of the ini­
tiatives to connect, transfer and scale. Though they do not neces­
sarily seek to inspire replication [41] they may do so, and greater
diversity of actors is thought to increase the chances of replication. It
is also likely to enhance civic representativeness. The importance of
this criterion is shown by the Manchester initiative (Table 3, No. 4),
in which the involvement of actors from sectors and social groups
that have not been conventionally consulted seems to have led to a
shift in the way the public authority perceives its role and the way
that role is perceived by others. A broad and diverse actor base may
thus be a precondition for the emergence of new types of institutions
in the context of social innovation [18].
5. Sustainability. Environmental sustainability, as many commentators
have noted, is not necessarily a driving factor in energy transition
initiatives. We argue however, that it should be - whereas the
bottom-up emergent process of social innovation may not expressly
consider this aspect, city authorities are well-placed to favour ini­
tiatives that address net-zero goals or other relevant environmental
objectives. Though all the cases discussed were in part motivated by
sustainability, the Vilawatt initiative (Table 3: No. 1), which sought
to improve poor building insulation and reduce energy consumption,
is a good example of an initiative with a clear positive impact,
through reduced greenhouse gas emissions associated with heating
and cooling. Economic and social sustainability, at present, have not
been evaluated in detail for our initiatives.
We advocate the use of these guiding principles to help cities foster,
incubate and facilitate energy transitions. However, it is clear that no
city can fulfil such a role if city authorities are not interested in acting as
drivers of change. Though much of the social innovation literature fo­
cuses on civil society grassroots initiatives rather than institutional
change, transformative actions can be initiated by municipal level pol­
icymakers themselves, who draw on ideas already emergent in society (i.
e. existing grassroots movements) and try to play a coordinating or
facilitating role [69] using their power as a governance actor. Larger
cities, like those from which the case studies have been drawn tend to
have larger budgets, advanced technical knowledge, and in many
countries, a high degree of political autonomy, even where the political
system would at first glance appear to be highly centralised. To cite just
some examples, London, Manchester, Madrid, Barcelona, Istanbul and
Warsaw have all recently adopted governance strategies that sharply
contradict, even reproach, the national governments to which they
supposedly are expected to defer – even at times appearing to challenge
the power of the ruling party.
We have argued that the integrated application of the global citi­
zenship and social innovation concepts reveals a “sweet spot” at the
interface between them that reduces ambiguity around innovative en­
ergy transition initiatives and aids practical application. Social innova­
tion perspectives can help depoliticise ideological positions around
energy by bringing together “communities of makers”, while global
citizenship concepts help to orient innovative proposals more clearly
around social justice and environmental objectives. The five criteria are
proposed as guiding principles to aid city authorities in energy transition
contexts.
One of the key strengths of the SI perspective is its ability to appeal to
both conservative “big society” advocates who want a smaller state and
communitarian socialists who want redistributive social action. The five
criteria that we have explored here, at the intersection of SI with wider
citizenship concerns linked to the environment and social justice, may
M. Segales et al.
provide a clearer pathway for action on energy transition in cities in
which some of these party-political ideological divides may either
evaporate or be pushed to one side.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The authors do not have permission to share data.
Acknowledgments
The authors express their gratitude to all the participants in the
project who freely volunteered their time and expertise to assist the
project. We are grateful to Madrid City Council, who financed this
project. Richard J Hewitt gratefully acknowledges support provided by
the European Union under Programme H2020-EU.1.3.2, MSCA-IF-2019
(INTRANCES Project, Ref 886050) and a Ramón y Cajal Research
Fellowship award (IMOSET project) from the State Research Agency
(AEI) of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MCIN)
10.13039/501100011033 through the “ESF Investing in your future”
funding framework.
Dedication
We dedicate this article to the memory of our dear friend and
colleague Stanislav Martinát (1976-2023). So long, Standa!
Appendix 1. Description of selected initiatives
1. Cádiz: Energy Transition Roundtable and Roundtable Against
Energy Poverty: At the end of 2015, the Cádiz City Council created
two spaces in which citizens meet periodically to participate in the
process of defining the city's energy future: the Energy Transition
Roundtable (MTE) and the Energy Poverty Roundtable (MCPE). Both
are tools to promote a change in the energy model and culture
through the participation and empowerment of citizens and munic­
ipal workers. In this sense, their aim is to promote participation and a
democratic culture, and through them design and accompany actions
that reduce the socio-environmental impact of the city's energy
metabolism, fight against climate change and claim rights.
2. Barcelona: Energy Advice Points: The initiative consists of the
development, since 2017, of a universal service whose responsibility
is the Area of Social Rights, Global Justice, Feminisms and LGTBI of
the Barcelona City Council through 11 spaces called Energy Advice
Points. It is a service managed by different social entities, coordi­
nated by the Bienestar y Desarrollo Association. Its aim is to combat
energy poverty and promote a change in the energy culture of Bar­
celona's citizens through empowerment, training and advice on en­
ergy matters, as well as social and labour insertion in the field of
green employment.
3. Vilawatt: The initiative consists of a series of processes and actions
to transform the city of Viladecans (a city of 67,000 people close to
Barcelona) into a space of sustainability through a change in the
energy culture and the provision of participation and empowerment
mechanisms to citizens to achieve this. Its aim is to put the city on the
path towards the energy transition. To do this, it created a local
energy operator that has citizen participation in decision-making and
that sells green energy through aggregate purchase; it deployed
awareness-raising, training, advice and support initiatives for the
change of culture and improvement of energy efficiency in homes,
shops and schools, including the establishment of an office in the
13
Energy Research & Social Science 106 (2023) 103295
territory (Vilawatt Office) that channels the demands of citizenship
around energy; it developed energy renovations of 4 buildings in the
city, and it created a local electronic currency, legal tender, called
Vilawatt and associated with the capitalization of energy savings
resulting from the new operator and the promotion of local
commerce.
4. Manchester Climate Change Partnership; The initiative consists of
a structure of 70 organizations, which make up the City Council,
local universities, energy distribution companies and construction of
social housing, entities of the artistic and cultural sector, a repre­
sentation of the main religious organizations and Manchester City
football club. Its main target is to channel social participation and
constitute the main body for the governance of the efforts of its
agents for the decarbonization of the city.
5. Leuven 2030: The initiative consists of the implementation of a
participatory process for the implementation of a Roadmap for
Climate Change towards 2025, 2030 and 2050 in which the city of
Leuven (Leuven) mobilizes its resources and its social and intellec­
tual capital towards decarbonization. Specifically, the process has
been articulated around a public-private consortium called Leuven
2030, in which around 600 local agents are articulated, including
companies, financial entities, social enterprises, third-sector orga­
nizations in the field of defence of sustainability, social innovation,
culture, academic and knowledge institutions, as well as citizens.
Leuven 2030 aims to turn the city into an exemplary space in terms of
sustainability, by radically reducing its emissions and improving its
habitability and quality of life, through the participation of all
citizens.
6. Brixton Energy Community and Repowering London: This is a
group of citizen cooperatives that, since 2011, have supplied elec­
tricity to three neighbouring communities in South London through
photovoltaic panels installed on their roofs. Currently, it is made up
of three cooperatives (Brixton Solar 1, 2 and 3). Its objective is to
generate resilience and development opportunities for the citizens of
a South London neighbourhood through the establishment of an
energy community that contributes to empowering them in terms of
energy, social inclusion and community development. It also en­
courages the acquisition of skills and local employment. Brixton was
the first project of Repowering London, a platform created to repli­
cate experiences of energy participation and democracy, which
generates, facilitates and supports different community energy pro­
jects combining citizen empowerment, sustainability, the fight
against energy poverty and the creation of sustainable employment.
Appendix 2. Instructions for the informant panel on ranking the
selected initiatives
WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO? HOW SHOULD I VOTE? WHAT IS ALL
THIS?
Don't worry. It is quite easy and simple.
As an expert, you should assess a set of 8–10 cases (or less, depending
on the expert availability of time) whose information appears on the
fiches with the main characteristics of the initiatives. Check all this in­
formation when scoring. We propose that the assessment may be guided
on the basis of 5 criteria that we describe below in an Excel file that we
will send you along with the fiches. The score will be global although, if
you want, you can score each aspect. Also, and it is optional, you can
express your opinion verbally (there will be space to do that). Remember
that the scale is from 1 to 10, being:
• Values 1 and 2: the initiative does not meet the criterion/criteria.
• Values 3 and 4: the initiative meets the criterion/criteria but in an
inadequate way
• Values 5 and 6: the initiative meets the criterion/criteria adequately
but not innovatively
M. Segales et al.
• Values 7 and 8: the initiative meets the criterion/criteria adequately
and innovatively, but it is difficult to replicate in an urban
environment.
• Values 9 and 10: the initiative fulfills the criterion/criteria
adequately, innovatively and with a high degree of replicability and
from which interesting lessons can be drawn for local policies in an
urban environment.
We do not ask you to value the initiative from an especially
exhaustive or academically rigorous level, given that the information
provided is brief, but rather to express numerically and in a very simple
way the impression it makes on you from your experience and the
criteria formulated. The objective of the exercise is not to select good
practices but to identify interesting cases through which lessons can be
learnt for further study in depth. Only if you wish, you can consult
additional information, whose source appears in the fiches. But, for the
valuation we request, it is not really necessary.
The criteria by which you have to be guided to value each of the files
are the following:
1. Democratic governance. Democratic management of the
initiative.
It refers to the extent to which you consider that the initiative is open
and encourages and provides tools for the participation of any person,
takes into account the opinion of all the people who participate in it and
promote mechanisms for collective consultation.
2. Civilian empowerment and promotion of citizen competences
It refers to the degree you perceive the initiative empowers citizens
and boosts their capacities in relation to the use and management of
energy and energy efficiency. Moreover, if you consider that the
initiative involves that citizens manage to develop certain skills (team­
work, communication, empathy, financial knowledge, etc.).
3. Human rights approach
It is related to the way in which you consider that the initiative
promotes the human rights of both the people who implement it and the
beneficiaries, directly or indirectly. Not only in the results (access to
energy, fight against energy poverty, right to use renewable energy) but
also in procedures and processes such as gender equality and non-
discrimination, transparency or the reduction of inequality.
4. Diversity and heterogeneity of actors (strategic alliances)
It aims to whether you think that the composition of agents partici­
pating in the initiative is or is not diverse in terms of those who promote
it and benefit from it.
5. Sustainability of the initiative
It refers to the extent to which you think the initiative is environ­
mentally, socially and economically sustainable:
• Social sustainability: If the initiative promotes and fosters social re­
lations, social well-being, tries to promote social-awareness for the
long-term and to fight against social exclusion.
• Environmental sustainability: if the impact with its environment is
positive, if it contributes to improving the ecosystem and if its ac­
tivities conserve water, soil and natural resources.
• Economic sustainability: if the project is economically viable and
financially self-sufficient or if it has relatively structural or perma­
nent budget funds (if it is promoted by the local government).
References
[1] R.J. Heffron, Applying energy justice into the energy transition, Renew. Sust.
Energ. Rev. 156 (2022) 111936.
[2] S. Carley, D.M. Konisky, The justice and equity implications of the clean energy
transition, Nat. Energy 5 (8) (2020) 569–577.
[3] A.J. Chapman, B.C. McLellan, T. Tezuka, Prioritizing mitigation efforts considering
co-benefits, equity and energy justice: fossil fuel to renewable energy transition
pathways, Appl. Energy 219 (2018) 187–198.
[4] G.E. Halkos, E.C. Gkampoura, Evaluating the effect of economic crisis on energy
poverty in Europe, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 144 (2021) 110981.
14
Energy Research & Social Science 106 (2023) 103295
[5] C. Gargiulo, L. Russo, Cities and energy consumption: a critical review, TeMA J.
Land Use Mobil. Environ. 10 (3) (2017) 259–278.
[6] F. Prats, Ciudades y ciudadanía ante la crisis ecológica y el cambio de época
Reflexiones sobre el caso de España, in: Ecología Política n◦ 47, 2014, pp. 13–16.
[7] H. Pruijt, The impact of citizens' protest on city planning in Amsterdam, in:
Cultural Heritage and the Future of the Historic Inner City of Amsterdam, 2004,
pp. 228–244.
[8] C. O’Dwyer, What is to be done? Framings of urban populism in Prague and
Warsaw, Urbana 22 (2021) 41.
[9] A. Cumbers, S. Becker, Making sense of remunicipalisation: theoretical reflections
on and political possibilities from Germany’s Rekommumalisierung process, Camb.
J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 11 (3) (2018) 503–517.
[10] Y. Takao, Low-carbon leadership: harnessing policy studies to analyse local mayors
and renewable energy transitions in three Japanese cities, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 69
(2020) 101708.
[11] T. Hoppe, A. Van der Vegt, P. Stegmaier, Presenting a framework to analyze local
climate policy and action in small and medium-sized cities, Sustainability 8 (9)
(2016) 847.
[12] P. Huang, V.C. Broto, Interdependence between urban processes and energy
transitions: the Dimensions of Urban Energy Transitions (DUET) framework,
Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 28 (2018) 35–45.
[13] J. Peris-Blanes, S. Segura-Calero, N. Sarabia, D. Ribó-Pérez, The role of place in
shaping urban transformative capacity. The case of València (Spain), Environ.
Innov. Soc. Transit. 42 (2022) 124–137.
[14] T. Hoppe, G. De Vries, Social innovation and the energy transition, Sustainability
11 (1) (2019) 141.
[15] A. Caramizaru, A. Uihlein, Energy Communities: An Overview of Energy and Social
Innovation Vol. 30083, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg,
2020.
[16] J.M. Wittmayer, S. Hielscher, M. Fraaije, F. Avelino, K. Rogge, A typology for
unpacking the diversity of social innovation in energy transitions, Energy Res. Soc.
Sci. 88 (2022) 102513.
[17] R.J. Hewitt, N. Bradley, A. Baggio Compagnucci, C. Barlagne, A. Ceglarz,
R. Cremades, B. Slee, Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review
of the evidence, Front. Energy Res. 7 (2019) 31.
[18] N.B. Polman, B. Slee, T. Kluvánková, M.W.C. Dijkshoorn-Dekker, M. Nijnik,
V. Gežík, K. Soma, Classification of social innovations for marginalized rural areas.
SIMRA Project report, Available at: http://www.simra-h2020.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2017/09/D2.1-Classification-of-SI-for-MRAs-in-the-target-region.pdf,
2017.
[19] B. Pel, A. Haxeltine, F. Avelino, A. Dumitru, R. Kemp, T. Bauler, I. Kunze,
J. Dorland, J. Wittmayer, M.S. Jørgensen, Towards a theory of transformative
social innovation: a relational framework and 12 propositions, Res. Policy 49 (8)
(2020) 104080.
[20] D. Humphreys, Environmental and ecological citizenship in civil society, Int. Spect.
44 (1) (2009) 171–183.
[21] V.O.D. Andreotti, Soft Versus Critical Global Citizenship Education, in:
Development Education in Policy and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2014,
pp. 21–31.
[22] K. Pashby, M. da Costa, S. Stein, V. Andreotti, A meta-review of typologies of global
citizenship education, Comp. Educ. 56 (2) (2020) 144–164.
[23] L. Davies, Global citizenship: abstraction or framework for action? Educ. Rev. 58
(1) (2006) 5–25.
[24] N. Dower, J. Williams, Global Citizenship: A Critical Introduction, Routledge,
2016.
[25] N. Assis, S. Reysen, I. Katzarska-Miller, Being global is being green: associations
between global citizenship identification and measures of environmental
motivations and attitudes, Int. J. Energy Policy Manag. 2 (3) (2017) 13–19.
[26] P. Villavicencio Calzadilla, R. Mauger, The UN's new sustainable development
agenda and renewable energy: the challenge to reach SDG7 while achieving energy
justice, J. Energy Nat. Resour. Law 36 (2) (2018) 233–254.
[27] F. Müller, M. Neumann, C. Elsner, S. Claar, Assessing African energy transitions:
renewable energy policies, energy justice, and SDG 7, Politics Gov. 9 (1) (2021)
119–130.
[28] B. Pel, A. Debourdeau, R. Kemp, A. Dumitru, M. Schäfer, E. Vadovics, F. Fahy,
A. Fransolet, T. Pellerin-Carlin, Deliverable 2.1: Conceptual Framework Energy
Citizenship. Report for EU Project EnergyPROSPECTS, Université Libre de
Bruxelles (ULB), 2021.
[29] J.M. Wittmayer, F. Avelino, B. Pel, I. Campos, Contributing to sustainable and just
energy systems? The mainstreaming of renewable energy prosumerism within and
across institutional logics, Energy Policy 149 (2021) 112053.
[30] L. Horstink, J.M. Wittmayer, K. Ng, G.P. Luz, E. Marín-González, S. Gährs,
D. Brown, Collective renewable energy prosumers and the promises of the energy
union: taking stock, Energies 13 (2) (2020) 421.
[31] D. MacKay, Sustainable Energy-Without the Hot Air, 2008 (UIT Cambridge).
[32] B. Slee, Is there a case for community-based equity participation in Scottish on-
shore wind energy production? Gaps in evidence and research needs, Renew. Sust.
Energ. Rev. 41 (2015) 540–549.
[33] M. Islar, H. Busch, “we are not in this to save the polar bears!”-the link between
community renewable energy development and ecological citizenship and
innovation, Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 29 (3) (2016) 303–319.
[34] D. Schlosberg, L.B. Collins, From environmental to climate justice: climate change
and the discourse of environmental justice, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 5
(3) (2014) 359–374.
M. Segales et al.
[35] H. Bulkeley, G.A. Edwards, S. Fuller, Contesting climate justice in the city:
examining politics and practice in urban climate change experiments, Glob.
Environ. Chang. 25 (2014) 31–40.
[36] T. De Geus, J. Wittmayer, Social innovation in the energy transition, in: Examining
Diversity, Contributions and Challenges. Scoping Workshop Report, Energy-
SHIFTS, Cambridge, 2019, September.
[37] S. Selvakkumaran, E.O. Ahlgren, Understanding social innovation in local energy
transitions processes: a multi-case study, Glob. Transit. 3 (2021) 1–12.
[38] S. Neumeier, Social innovation in rural development: identifying the key factors of
success, Geogr. J. 183 (1) (2017) 34–46.
[39] N. Vercher, C. Barlagne, R. Hewitt, M. Nijnik, J. Esparcia, Whose narrative is it
anyway? Narratives of social innovation in rural areas: a comparative analysis of
community-led initiatives in Scotland and Spain, Sociol. Rural. 61 (1) (2021)
163–189.
[40] F. Moulaert, E. Swyngedouw, F. Martinelli, Gonzalez, S. (Eds.)., Can
Neighbourhoods Save the City?: Community Development and Social Innovation,
Routledge, 2010.
[41] I. Zubero, Innovación social: una propuesta para pensar las prácticas sociales en
clave de transformación, in: J. Subirats, A. García Bernardos (Eds.), Innovación
social y políticas urbanas en España, 2015. Icaria.
[42] G. Bosworth, F. Rizzo, D. Marquardt, D. Strijker, T. Haartsen, A. Aagaard Thuesen,
Identifying social innovations in European local rural development initiatives.
Innovation, Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 29 (4) (2016) 442–461.
[43] J. Cunha, P. Benneworth, F. Stolk, L. Welamedage, M. Araujo, How social
entrepreneurship can contribute to upscale social innovation practices, Int. J. Soc.
Ecol. Sustain. Dev. 13 (4) (2022) 1–18.
[44] B. Slee, An inductive classification of types of social innovation, Scott. Aff. 28 (2)
(2019) 152–176.
[45] R. Hiteva, B. Sovacool, Harnessing social innovation for energy justice: a business
model perspective, Energy Policy 107 (2017) 631–639.
[46] J.M. Wittmayer, T. de Geus, B. Pel, F. Avelino, S. Hielscher, T. Hoppe, A. Härtwig,
Beyond instrumentalism: broadening the understanding of social innovation in
socio-technical energy systems, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 70 (2020) 101689.
[47] L. Mabry, Case study in social research, in: The SAGE Handbook of Social Research
Methods 1, 2008, pp. 214–227.
[48] K.M. Eisenhardt, Building theories from case study research, Acad. Manag. Rev. 14
(4) (1989) 532–550.
[49] R.K. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods Vol. 5, Sage, 2009.
[50] P.C. Martínez Carazo, El método de estudio de caso: estrategia metodológica de la
investigación científica, Pensamiento Gestión 20 (2006) 165–193.
[51] G. Seyfang, J.J. Park, A. Smith, A thousand flowers blooming? An examination of
community energy in the UK, Energy Policy 61 (2013) 977–989.
[52] N. Magnani, G. Osti, Does civil society matter? Challenges and strategies of
grassroots initiatives in Italy’s energy transition, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 13 (2016)
148–157.
[53] K. Szulecki, Conceptualizing energy democracy, Environ. Politics 27 (1) (2018)
21–41.
[54] B. Van Veelen, Negotiating energy democracy in practice: governance processes in
community energy projects, Environ. Politics 27 (4) (2018) 644–665.
[55] D. Coy, S. Malekpour, A.K. Saeri, R. Dargaville, Rethinking community
empowerment in the energy transformation: a critical review of the definitions,
drivers and outcomes, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 72 (2021) 101871.
15
Energy Research & Social Science 106 (2023) 103295
[56] D. Wuebben, J. Romero-Luis, M. Gertrudix, Citizen science and citizen energy
communities: a systematic review and potential alliances for SDGs, Sustainability
12 (23) (2020) 10096.
[57] F. Hanke, J. Lowitzsch, Empowering vulnerable consumers to join renewable
energy communities-towards an inclusive Design of the Clean Energy Package,
Energies 13 (7) (2020) 1615.
[58] A.J. Bradbrook, J.G. Gardam, Placing access to energy services within a human
rights framework, Hum. Rights Q. (2006) 389–415.
[59] D. Asteria, J.J. Jap, D. Utari, A gender-responsive approach: social innovation for
the sustainable smart city in Indonesia and beyond, J. Int. Women’s Stud. 21 (6)
(2020) 193–207.
[60] R. Cowell, G. Bristow, M. Munday, Acceptance, acceptability and environmental
justice: the role of community benefits in wind energy development, J. Environ.
Plan. Manag. 54 (4) (2011) 539–557.
[61] G. Joshi, K. Yenneti, Community solar energy initiatives in India: a pathway for
addressing energy poverty and sustainability? Energy Build. 210 (2020) 109736.
[62] C.E. Hoicka, J. Conroy, A.L. Berka, Reconfiguring actors and infrastructure in city
renewable energy transitions: a regional perspective, Energy Policy 158 (2021)
112544.
[63] B.P. Koirala, E. Koliou, J. Friege, R.A. Hakvoort, P.M. Herder, Energetic
communities for community energy: a review of key issues and trends shaping
integrated community energy systems, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 56 (2016)
722–744.
[64] M. Angelidou, A. Psaltoglou, An empirical investigation of social innovation
initiatives for sustainable urban development, Sustain. Cities Soc. 33 (2017)
113–125.
[65] S.R. Foster, C. Iaione, Ostrom in the city: design principles and practices for the
urban commons, in: Routledge Handbook of the Study of the Commons, Routledge,
2019, pp. 235–255.
[66] G. Mulgan, S. Tucker, R. Ali, B. Sanders, Social Innovation: What It Is, Why It
Matters and How It Can Be Accelerated, University of Oxford, Young Foundation,
London, 2007.
[67] O. Wagner, K. Berlo, Remunicipalisation and foundation of municipal utilities in
the German energy sector: details about newly established enterprises, J. Sustain.
Dev. Energy Water Environ. Syst. 5 (3) (2017) 396–407.
[68] T. Bauwens, Explaining the diversity of motivations behind community renewable
energy, Energy Policy 93 (2016) 278–290.
[69] Y. Parag, K.B. Janda, More than filler: middle actors and socio-technical change in
the energy system from the “middle-out”, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 3 (2014) 102–112.
[70] J. Subirats, Otra sociedad ¿Otra política? De “no nos representan” a la democracia
de lo común, Icaria 2011, 2011.
[71] J. Castor, K. Bacha, F.F. Nerini, SDGs in action: a novel framework for assessing
energy projects against the sustainable development goals, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 68
(2020) 101556.
[72] F. Moulaert, D. MacCallum, Advanced Introduction to Social Innovation, Edward
Elgar Publishing, 2019.
[73] D. Rehfeld, J. Terstriep, J. Welchhoff, S. Alijani, Comparative report on social
innovation framework, in: SIMPACT Project Report, Report D1.1, 2015.
[74] K.E. Jenkins, B.K. Sovacool, N. Mouter, N. Hacking, M.K. Burns, D. McCauley, The
methodologies, geographies, and technologies of energy justice: a systematic and
comprehensive review, Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (4) (2021), 043009.