Search

Closing the financial gap for promoting systemic socio-economic transformations to achieve sustainability requires both a substantial increase in investment levels and a qualitative change in investment strategies. In this Perspective, we elaborate on this claim and discuss why existing investment approaches that aim to make positive contributions to sustainability are unlikely to foster the systemic transformations needed for sustainability. Qualitative change means changing the current rules that guide investment practices and we outline a new set of rules that should guide transformative investment. These rules are based on the well-established socio-technical sustainability transition theory and the recent development of a theory of deep transitions. We explain why these transformative investment rules offer a promising alternative base for assessing investment opportunities and monitoring progress toward the multi-system changes required to achieve a socially just deep transition to sustainability.

The role of exogenous shocks in influencing transition processes is of significant interest to a wide variety of research in sustainability science (SS). Such events disturb and interrupt path-dependent processes in sociotechnical systems. Sometimes this can lead to radical departures from existing trajectories, while at other times existing systems can be more resilient, adapting, or reconfiguring in response to a shock. In this paper, we explore the role that exogenous shocks can have on institutional change. The sustainability transition literature, as shaped by the multilevel perspective, has usually focused on shocks as windows of opportunity (WoO) where alternatives can break through due to strategic action. We offer the perspective of imprinting, which places primary attention on shocks leading to immediate and irreversible institutional change with long-term consequences. The usefulness of this concept is explored by examining the impact of two major shocks to the energy system: World War II and the 1973 oil crisis. It is concluded that the imprinting concept enables analysis that is attentive to how the underlying institutions of a system can be rapidly and deeply altered by the dynamics of exogenous shocks. It is argued that imprinting is an important complementary concept, next to windows of opportunity, for sustainability science research aiming to understand the period of turbulence we are living through.

This article presents the insights from an evaluation of a transformative policy experiment, in the food domain, conducted at the Swedish Agency of Innovation (Vinnova). To be consistent with the principles and objectives of these policies, it was necessary to implement a formative evaluation approach developed in the Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium (TIPC), that is supportive of experimental policies designed for highly complex and uncertain environments. The article presents the main characteristics of this approach and its differences and similarities with other proposals to assess transformative innovation policies. Next, the article describes how the evaluation was conducted in Vinnova during a 2-year engagement. Subsequently, the main insights gleaned from the process are highlighted in terms of (1) understanding the expectations of actors; (2) what has been learned by doing, from a technical and organizational point of view; and (3) the constraints that emerged during the engagement. It is then argued that the TIPC- formative evaluation approach challenges the role of evaluators, stretching them, and requires different attitudes from those that are common in evaluation practice.

Closing the financial gap for promoting systemic socio-economic transformations to achieve sustainability requires both a substantial increase in investment levels and a qualitative change in investment strategies. In this Perspective, we elaborate on this claim and discuss why existing investment approaches that aim to make positive contributions to sustainability are unlikely to foster the systemic transformations needed for sustainability. Qualitative change means changing the current rules that guide investment practices and we outline a new set of rules that should guide transformative investment. These rules are based on the well-established socio-technical sustainability transition theory and the recent development of a theory of deep transitions. We explain why these transformative investment rules offer a promising alternative base for assessing investment opportunities and monitoring progress toward the multi-system changes required to achieve a socially just deep transition to sustainability., Green Open Access added to TU Delft Institutional Repository ‘You share, we take care!’ – Taverne project https://www.openaccess.nl/en/you-share-we-take-care Otherwise as indicated in the copyright section: the publisher is the copyright holder of this work and the author uses the Dutch legislation to make this work public., Economics of Technology and Innovation

This paper addresses the important question of how research can support the implementation of the United Nations 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) set out in the 2030 agenda. Much attention on this topic has so far coalesced around understanding and measuring possible synergies and trade-offs that emerge in the SDGs. We contribute to this discussion by arguing that it is necessary to move towards a focus on how SDGs are enabling transformative change. A conceptual approach is presented based on the notion that research should build bridges across three types of SDGs: ones that reflect socio-technical system change, directionality, and framework conditions. This proposition is explored empirically through a case study of Mexican scientific knowledge production using methods from bibliometric and social network analysis. Our results can help to provide a diagnostic of how knowledge production is contributing to the SDGs and can be used in science, technology and innovation policy, in particular transformative innovation policy.

This paper investigates how actors across spatial levels shape the directions of transition. We examine two Chinese provinces, Inner Mongolia and Jiangsu, with contrasting directionalities of solar photovoltaic (PV) development. The former developed PV as part of the large-scale centralized power system, and the latter focused on PV development as a core element of an alternative distributed form of power generation. We argue that three aspects have been key for understanding the divergent patterns: the specific portfolio of enacted institutional work; the type of interactions between niche and regime actors; and the selective leveraging of national institutional conditions by provincial actors.