Responsible Innovation (RI) is a young field of research that has nevertheless had remarkable successes in dissemination within academic and political circles. However, there is relatively little awareness of its limits, blind spots and situations in which it cannot be used for actual innovation trajectories. Without such awareness, there is a risk that RI may get hollowed out and turned into a tool for ‘greenwashing’. To examine RI’s limits, we present a case study on biofuel innovation in Hassan, South India. This case study demonstrates that there are important barriers that may make it difficult to conduct innovation according to RI values. In particular, we highlight the following factors that emerge from our case study and need more attention in order to be included and adequately theorised in the RI literature: material barriers to innovation, engagement with abandoning or reducing existing practices as a consequence of innovation, power differences and dependencies, (un)clear demarcation of responsibilities, strategic behaviour and, lastly, different, diverging and even contradictory interests. We demonstrate that such factors may obstruct the possibility to innovate in a responsible way, leading us to our core observation that RI should be about innovating responsibly – or not innovating at all.

East European food self-provisioning (FSP) has fascinated scholars of post-socialism ever since the early 1990s. In keeping with its predominantly economic and cultural conceptualisations, much of this research has been concerned with FSP’s role in household economy and with the social profile of its practitioners. In contrast to western conceptualisations of FSP as an opportunity to expand food activism and foster social justice and environmental sustainability, post-socialist FSP has rarely been considered as such. In Czechia, FSP is practised by 43% of citizens and many of them do so in a relatively environmentally friendly way. Yet, most food-related campaigns run by environmental NGOs (ENGOs) pay little attention to FSP and focus on market-based ethical consumerism and alternative food networks instead. Using insights from actor-network theory, this paper discusses how Czech ENGO activists engage with FSP through discourse and in practice. Based on ethnographic fieldwork and interviews with leading activists, we show that FSP does figure in non-food-related campaigns and that the FSP practised by activists themselves or the FSP carried out by relatives and relatives’ friends are not the same as the FSP on which they are reluctant to campaign. These differences, which include controllability and the time-consuming nature of practising FSP according to some of the activists’ ideals, help this paper to come to an initial understanding of why Czech ENGOs do not run campaigns explicitly focused on FSP at the moment and shed some light on how this could change in the future.

Creating impact in labs oriented at sustainability transformations is challenging. Combining the experiences of ten projects and sharing the insights in “Labbing”, gained through engaging in various activities within transformation-oriented Labs from the fields of agriculture, food, and healthcare, the author team established a Community of Practice at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, to identify impact challenges inductively and recommend practical strategies for addressing these.While the issue of creating impact in real-world labs for experimenting with sustainability transformation has been studied, little is known about how to assess and understand impact in practice. Deciding on “what counts as impact” is challenging as problem definitions and solutions are political and contested. In our research projects for sustainability transformations in fields such as agriculture, food, and healthcare, we encountered typical questions of creating impact in real-world labs. We established a Community of Practice to explore the different challenges pertaining to these impact questions. We identified four overarching challenges related to impact: 1. measuring the impact of Labs, 2. dealing with positionality and power dynamics, 3. fostering impact within and beyond projects, and 4. ensuring impact across different contexts. This paper offers practical strategies for responding to these challenges: 1. tailor-made training for Labbing, 2. reflexively engaging with power dynamics, 3. forging rich, translocal learning and impact. Sharing learnings from our experience with Labbing may broaden the repertoire of fellow Lab practitioners in enhancing and strengthening their impact.

Today’s sustainability challenges have major implications for human health and health care. At the same time, the way health care is organized and conducted has major sustainability implications. Sustainable health and sustainable health care approaches in research, which engage with health and sustainability as intertwined phenomena, feature increasingly prominently in various literatures, i.e., (i) literature based on the premise of ‘(un)healthy environments result in (un)healthy people’ (e.g., planetary health); (ii) literature on the implications of ecological change for the sustainability of healthcare systems; and (iii) literature on healthcare systems’ sustainability in view of a range of socio-economic factors. However, an integrative elaboration of the manifold relationships between health and sustainability challenges in these literatures is currently lacking. This review paper therefore maps how these three literatures represent intertwinements between health and sustainability challenges, as well as their suggestions to address these challenges. In addition, we explore which themes and questions are pertinent, meaning they have remained largely unaddressed. By performing a qualitative mapping review, we find that calls for structural attention to inequality, to in-and exclusion, and to stakeholder needs and perspectives cut across these three literatures. Furthermore, we identify three cross-cutting key questions that require future research attention. First, how do divergent ideas on what is and divergent ideas on how can that be known give rise to different health- and sustainability visions and pathways? Second, what do abstract problem statements and solutions presented in agenda-setting work look like in practice in specific and diverse empirical contexts across the globe? And third, how are diverse health and sustainability dynamics historically and spatially interconnected? Moreover, we observe that some voices have so far remained largely silent in scientific debates on health and sustainability intertwinements, namely non-expert voices such as patients and citizens, voices from a variety of social scientific and humanities disciplines, voices from relevant domains beyond (environmental) health, and voices from the global South (from non-experts, social scientific and humanities researchers and domains beyond health). We conclude that a focus on inclusive and equitable engagement with intertwined health- and sustainability challenges is imperative. This requires moving away from developing universal knowledge to address generic problems, to foregrounding plurality in terms of problem statements, knowledge, solutions, and the values embedded therein.