Avelino, F., J. M. Wittmayer, R. Kemp, and A. Haxeltine. 2017. Game-changers and transformative social innovation. Ecology and Society 22(4):41. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09897-220441

This paper assesses the role of urban experiments for local planning processes through a case-based analysis of the city lab of Maastricht. In conjunction with this, the article offers three contributions, as additional elements. Firstly, the paper develops a set of defining characteristics of city labs as an analytical concept which is relevant for discussions about (collaborative) planning. Secondly, it refines the literature on collaborative planning by drawing attention to experimentation and innovation. Thirdly, the paper assesses the potential of city labs to contribute to the innovation of urban governance. The work draws from the literature on experimentation and learning as well as the literature on collaborative urban planning. In the conclusions, we discuss the potential of city labs as vehicles for learning about new urban planning approaches and their limitations as spaces for small-scale experimentation. The paper is based on research for the URB@Exp research project funded by JPI Urban Europe.

Learning processes play a crucial role in the development of the transformative capacity of social innovation actors. This article builds on the recently developed Transformative Social Innovation (TSI) theory to propose a conceptual framework and research agenda for understanding and investigating the roles and limits of network leadership in supporting learning processes that serve to develop the transformative capacity of social innovation. This focus on network leadership is underdeveloped so far in TSI theory. Addressing this research gap also serves to increase the practical relevance of TSI theory to practitioners engaged in network leadership. After presenting a synopsis of TSI theory, we present an overview of the elements of the conceptual framework, which are successively specified throughout the article. First, transformative change is conceptualized, involving three institutional dimensions: depth, width and length. Based on this, a definition of transformative capacity is proposed that addresses change across these three dimensions. We then describe how various types of learning processes can contribute to the development of transformative capacity. Next, we outline the roles of network leadership in supporting these learning processes across various network levels. We conclude with a research agenda for empirically investigating these roles of network leaders as agents for advancing transformative changes for sustainability.

The article describes the Dutch energy transition approach as an example of an industrial policy approach for sustainable growth. It is a corporatist approach for innovation, enrolling business in processes of transitional change that should lead to a more sustainable energy system. A broad portfolio of options is being supported. A portfolio of options is generated in a bottom-up, forward looking manner in which special attention is given to system innovation. Both the technology portfolio and policies should develop with experience. The approach is forward-looking and adaptive. One might label it as guided evolution with variations being selected in a forward-manner by knowledgeable actors willing to invest in the selected innovations, the use of strategic learning projects (transition experiments) and the use of special programmes and instruments. Initially, the energy transition was a self-contained process, largely separated from existing policies for energy savings and the development of sustainable energy sources. It is now one of the pillars of the overall government approach for climate change. It is a promising model but economic gains and environmental gains so far have been low. In this article I give a detailed description of the approach and an evaluation of it.

This paper discusses the need for societal innovation as a systemic form of innovation for sustainable development. Sustainable development requires collective action from stakeholders in the form of system building activities, which in its turn requires societal innovation. Through societal innovation, based on multiple value creation, external costs are being prevented or reduced because of innovation-oriented explorations within a wider frame (a societal improvement perspective), ascertained by the actors. This requires design thinking and proper distribution of the costs and benefits, accepted by the participants. With this paper, we hope to advance the research agenda on societal innovation based on multi-actor improvement processes and associated intentional logics, as topics that are weakly theorized in the business literature on sustainable development and the sustainability transition literature. We are critical of triple helix models and models emphasizing shared value creation because these underestimate the importance of disinterest and conflicts of interests to be managed via multiple value creation on the basis of recursive multi-actor intentionality.