17.1 Introduction

Sustainability transitions are processes of structural and long-term societal change involving multiple actors in different roles, relations and interactions with one another (Geels, Reference Geels2004; Loorbach et al., Reference Loorbach, Frantzeskaki and Avelino2017). These actors are embedded in societal structures, and those structures both shape their activities and are shaped and enabled by those activities in turn. This is also referred to as the ‘duality of structure’ (Giddens, Reference Giddens1984) and is one of the underlying assumptions of transition thinking and its notion of ‘the regime’ (Fuenfschilling, Reference Fuenfschilling2019; Geels, Reference Geels2004). The regime as a structural environment is understood as both an outcome and a medium for the activities of actors. One concept that offers a bridge across this agency-structure-debate is the concept of ‘roles’, which has long been considered a ‘simple but useful means for explaining self-society relationship’ (Callero, Reference Callero1994, p. 228 cf. Arditi, Reference Arditi1987). It is not only a multi-facetted concept with a long history in different social science traditions, it also is a concept-in-use, used in everyday language (Simpson and Carroll, Reference Simpson and Carroll2008).

Based in a socio-institutional perspective on transitions (Loorbach et al., Reference Loorbach, Frantzeskaki and Avelino2017),Footnote ¹ this chapter takes a role-based perspective onto examining agency in sustainability transitions. There are at least two interesting entry points to interrogate roles in and for sustainability transitions research: social roles and transition roles (Wittmayer et al., Reference Wittmayer, Avelino, van Steenbergen and Loorbach2017). For example, in aiming to decarbonise their local municipality, policymakers (as a social role) might engage in connecting different citizen initiatives around decentralised energy production and thus act as intermediary (transition role). In doing so, they might also challenge the current conception of the social role of policymaker and what can be expected from them, while establishing an understanding of what transition intermediation looks like. Transition roles and social roles are thus different entry points into understanding changes in the social fabric as well as actors and their agency in transitions – both use the same language of roles but come with a different analytical understanding.

Taking social roles as an entry point considers roles as institutions to refer to broader societal positions, categories or groupings (e.g. policymaker or citizen) and how our understanding of these changes over time. Drawing on institutional theory, Geels and Schot (Reference Geels and Schot2007) consider roles and role relationships as normative institution. As an institution, roles are part of the ‘dominant rules of the game’ (Fuenfschilling, Reference Fuenfschilling2019) or the ‘standard operating procedures’ of a society (Hall Reference Hall1986 in Lowndes and Roberts, Reference Lowndes and Roberts2013, p. 47). They therewith both constrain and enable human activity. Since institutions are in essence social constructions,Footnote ² these are not fixed and change over time. This can occur, for example, when due to changes in values and societal priorities earlier role constructions become untenable or dysfunctional (Fuenfschilling, Reference Fuenfschilling2019 drawing on Berger and Luckmann Reference Berger and Luckman1966; Lowndes and Roberts, Reference Lowndes and Roberts2013; specifically for roles, see Turner, Reference Turner1990). Roles can be institutionalised to different degrees and thus be considered ‘dominant’ or ‘constraining’ to different degrees – for example, roles can be formalised and explicated, or informal, emergent and tacit. Roles are thus also susceptible to institutional work, that is to attempts to create, maintain or transform them (Lawrence and Suddaby, Reference Lawrence, Suddaby, Clegg, Hardy, Lawrence and Nord2006). A focus on social roles takes a sociological perspective onto transitions to understand how social roles as shared social constructions are shaping and enabling activities of actors but are also shaped by them, and therefore how these roles change over time. This then allows us to understand institutional change by probing into how social roles change over time.

Taking transition roles as an entry point moves away from this sociological basis, taking it more as a concept-in-use to label activities of diverse actors and/or their stances in relation to transition dynamics and directions. It comes from an explicit transition perspective, often making use of categories from different bodies of transition theory as an entry point to differentiate between roles actors take in engaging with transition dynamics (e.g. regime actors, transition intermediaries). As such the starting point for one’s research comes from an understanding of transition dynamics and from there moves towards understanding the positions of actors therein. Transition roles are primarily analytical categories, which are used to analyse and describe transition dynamics. However, transition roles may also be used as resources upon which actors can draw strategically to arrive at certain ends (e.g. Callero, Reference Callero1994). For example, positioning or framing oneself as transition intermediary provides with a different standing and possibly access to resources for furthering certain transition directions and dynamics (c.f. van Lente et al., Reference van Lente, Boon and Klerkx2020).

While this chapter separates out these two entry points of a role-based perspective for clarity of presentation, these are also often used together, for example to analyse civil society as niche actor (Seyfang et al., Reference Seyfang, Hielscher, Hargreaves, Martiskainen and Smith2014) or farmers as incumbent actors (Friedrich et al., Reference Friedrich, Faust and Zscheischler2023). In the following, this chapter first outlines the origins and empirical applications of the concept of roles in sustainability transitions research. In doing so, it elaborates on the distinction between social roles and transition roles. Second, it provides an overview into ongoing research and current trends based on a review of relevant articles in the journal Environmental Innovation and Societal Transition.Footnote ³ Third, the chapter concludes with ideas for future research.

17.2 Origins and Empirical Applications of the Concept of Roles in Sustainability Transitions Research

This section introduces the origins and empirical applications of the concept of roles in sustainability transitions research using the distinction between social roles and transition roles.

17.3 Ongoing Research on Social and Transition Roles in Sustainability Transitions

This section provides an overview of the ongoing research around social and transition roles, based on a review of selected articles in the journal Environmental Innovation and Societal Transition.Footnote ⁴

17.4 Concluding thoughts and Future Research

This chapter took a role-based perspective on actors and agency in sustainability transitions research. In doing so it made use of the distinction between social roles and transition roles. Social roles as that set of activities and attitudes expected from individual or collective actors are social constructions and an element of the institutional context. Changes in institutional contexts, including social roles and relations, are a vital element of any transition (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, Reference Fuenfschilling and Truffer2014). Social roles therefore provide an interesting entry point to study institutional change in sustainability transitions. Transition roles are defined by their stance towards specific transition dynamics and directions. As analytical categories they can be used to better describe transition dynamics, as resources actors can draw upon them to position themselves in transition dynamics. While this chapter introduces a role-based perspective, it also wants to caution that working with the concept of roles, means resisting the impulse of reifying roles and considering them as steady and stable. More productive is to consider them as temporary stabilisations, subject to negotiations and change, and as a heuristic to analyse how individual or collective actors engage in transition dynamics as well as a proxy for researching institutional change.

While early transition research has included historical or longitudinal research, ongoing research mainly focuses on understanding transitions-in-the-making. Taking a more historical and longitudinal approach again would be an interesting way forward to uncover some of the depth that the classic sociological understanding of social roles can bring to understand the institutional changes that efforts towards making our world more just and sustainable have brought. This would entail charting how social roles change over the course of transitions to understand changing cultural meanings, societal values and social orders. As a link between society and self (Callero, Reference Callero1994), social roles can also be linked fruitfully to the concept of identity – which is interesting to consider especially in the context of phase-out and decline. Where social roles have a stronger structural element and are culturally negotiated, identity can be seen as experiential understanding of who one is (cf. Janssen et al., Reference Janssen, Beers and van Mierlo2022). Questions that are interesting to consider taking social roles as an entry point, include: How are certain roles understood in society and how are these positioned vis-à-vis sustainability transitions? How do these roles change over time and how does this relate to transition dynamics? How does one role relate to other roles?

In terms of transition roles, the field has moved beyond the dichotomous roles of regime and niche actors and lately focused on consolidating the role of transition intermediary, opening up the understanding of the role of incumbent and started exploring the role of follower. Questions that are interesting to consider taking transition roles as an entry point, include: Taking a specific future direction and transition dynamic as a starting point of a transition role, which individual or collective actors take or create this role? How are these roles constituted? Which social groups are taking on this role in which contexts and how? How do these differ across contexts? Next to its analytical use, its promise as a resource for actors engaging in sustainability transitions makes it a useful boundary object for action-oriented, transdisciplinary sustainability transitions research. Here it can open up dialogues about how individual or collective actors position themselves vis-à-vis ongoing transition dynamics.

Taking a role-based perspective appreciates thus how the concept of roles can be an entry point to investigating institutional change and to understanding how different actors engage in transition dynamics and relate to directions of transitions. It thus offers a fruitful perspective on how to study actors and their agency in sustainability transitions.

18.1 Introduction

Intermediaries have received research attention in the field of innovation management since the 1990s (e.g. Bessant and Rush, Reference Bessant and Rush1995). However, it is only in the last decade that intermediaries have begun to receive scholarly attention in the sustainability transitions literature (Kivimaa et al., Reference Kivimaa, Boon, Hyysalo and Klerkx2019a). Howells (Reference Howells2006) defines an innovation intermediary as ‘an organisation or body that acts as an agent or broker in any aspect of the innovation process between two or more parties’ (p. 720). Intermediaries have been identified as key catalysts that can facilitate sustainability transitions by connecting actors – both new entrants and incumbents – and their related activities, skills and resources to create momentum for change and disrupt unsustainable socio-technical systems (Kivimaa et al., Reference Kivimaa, Boon, Hyysalo and Klerkx2019a). Thus, previous studies on intermediaries in sustainability transitions have among others focused on defining what intermediaries are, the activities they undertake, their different types, interactions between them, and their potential influence on transition processes (Kanda et al., Reference Kanda, Kuisma, Kivimaa and Hjelm2020).

In the sustainability transitions literature, a variety of private, public and non-profit entities have been studied as intermediaries. These include, for example, cities, technology transfer offices, internet platforms, architects, clusters, innovation agencies, ports, charities and industry associations. These entities have different characteristics for example, ownership and governance structure, source of funding, mandate, scope of impact and capacity to catalyse change (Bjerkan et al., Reference Bjerkan, Hansen and Steen2021; Mignon and Kanda, Reference Mignon and Kanda2018). Some intermediaries seek neutrality and carry out their activities without altering the knowledge or goods being transferred, a notion particularly prominent in the innovation management literature (Klerkx and Leeuwis, Reference Klerkx and Leeuwis2009). The position of being impartial and neutral to suppliers, network partners, or preferred development strategies is particularly important in innovation management for intermediaries to be considered trustworthy by third parties. Other intermediary types work actively to shape the entities being transferred. Furthermore, some intermediaries have a normative orientation and champion the course of certain technologies and actors, a discourse which has emerged strongly in the transitions literature given the urgency and limited time to facilitate sustainability transitions (Kivimaa, Reference Kivimaa2014).

Intermediaries can be a specific actor category, either an individual or an organisation. They can also be group of individuals or organisations with a complex set of interrelationships (Hyysalo et al., Reference Hyysalo, Heiskanen, Lukkarinen, Matschoss, Jalas, Kivimaa, Juntunen, Moilanen, Murto and Primmer2022) essentially forming an ecology of intermediation (Stewart and Hyysalo, Reference Stewart and Hyysalo2008). Within an ecology of intermediaries, entities have different remits (e.g. scope of responsibility, authority or tasks), opinions, visions, competencies and operational mechanisms. Thus, they cooperate and sometimes compete to facilitate transition processes by going in-between other actors and their related activities, skills and resources (Soberón et al., Reference Soberón, Sánchez-Chaparro, Smith, Moreno-Serna, Oquendo-Di Cosola and Mataix2022). While intermediaries can be strategically established with a given mandate, the literature suggests most entities evolve to undertake intermediary activities during a transition. Other actors might engage in intermediary activities without acknowledging it. Intermediaries range from short-term, project-based entities which can be terminated after their mandate period, to more long-term and established entities that take on new roles as the transition evolves. As a result, intermediaries span a spectrum from formal, self-recognised and defined forms to informal and emergent forms of intermediation (Kivimaa et al., Reference Kivimaa, Boon, Hyysalo and Klerkx2019a).

The concept of intermediaries can also be related to actor roles and agency (see Chapter 17) in the broader sustainability transitions literature (Hodson and Marvin, Reference Hodson and Marvin2010; Köhler et al., Reference Köhler, Geels, Kern, Markard, Onsongo, Wieczorek, Alkemade, Avelino, Bergek and Boons2019; Rohracher, Reference Rohracher2009). In this regard, studies using notions such as ‘middle actors’ (Parag and Janda, Reference Parag and Janda2014), ‘hybrid actors’ (Elzen et al., Reference Elzen, Van Mierlo and Leeuwis2012), ‘boundary spanners’ (Smink et al., Reference Smink, Negro, Niesten and Hekkert2015), ‘user assemblages’ (Nielsen, Reference Nielsen2016), ‘interaction arenas’ (Hyysalo and Usenyuk, Reference Hyysalo and Usenyuk2015), ‘orchestrators’ (de Vasconcelos Gomes and da Silva Barros, Reference de Vasconcelos Gomes and da Silva Barros2022) and ‘system entanglers’ (Löhr and Chlebna, Reference Löhr and Chlebna2023) have also analysed intermediary-like activities sometimes without explicitly mentioning intermediaries.

The concept of an intermediary is essentially contested. The literature lacks consensus regarding where intermediation begins and ends, when an interaction between actors in general becomes intermediation and how to define it (Kivimaa et al., Reference Kivimaa, Boon, Hyysalo and Klerkx2019a). To differentiate intermediaries from other actors such as middle actors, hybrid actors, orchestrators and boundary spanners which undertake intermediary-like activities, there is a growing consensus in the literature that intermediaries should be defined by what they do (i.e. intermediation), rather than by who they are (Bergek, Reference Bergek2020). Thus, Kanda et al., (Reference Kanda, Kuisma, Kivimaa and Hjelm2020 p. 453) argue that intermediaries can be identified and differentiated from other intermediary-like actors based on a combination of three criteria: (i) their position in-between two or more parties, (ii) the activities they undertake and (iii) the scope of impact of their activities. In contrast to other actors, intermediaries have generally a facilitative role in a transition by going in-between two or more actors enabling, supporting and assisting other actors in achieving their goals (Soberón et al., Reference Soberón, Sánchez-Chaparro, Smith, Moreno-Serna, Oquendo-Di Cosola and Mataix2022). On the contrary, other intermediary-like actors such as orchestrators can have more directive roles which involves leading, managing and making decisions to guide the actions of other actors (de Vasconcelos Gomes and da Silva Barros, Reference de Vasconcelos Gomes and da Silva Barros2022). System entanglers on the other hand connect different socio-technical systems (Löhr and Chlebna, Reference Löhr and Chlebna2023) while champions are individuals who actively and enthusiastically promote innovations to overcome the social and political pressures imposed by an organisation and convert them to its advantage (Howell et al., Reference Howell, Shea and Higgins2005).

The literature on intermediaries in sustainability transitions has expanded rapidly. Thus, this chapter seeks to provide the reader with a brief overview of intermediaries and intermediation in sustainability transitions (Section 18.1). This overview is then followed by a brief historical account of the development of the concept (Section 18.2). Thereafter, we provide some empirical examples of intermediaries in Section 18.3, followed by a problematisation of the literature specifically with regards to its lack of a clearly articulated theory on why intermediaries exist in transition processes (Section 18.4). Finally, we identify future research opportunities in Section 18.5.

18.2 Foundations of the Intermediary Concept in Transitions

The literature on intermediaries in sustainability transitions builds upon four earlier streams of literature – technological regimes, techno-economic networks, systems of innovations and innovation management (Kivimaa et al., Reference Kivimaa, Boon, Hyysalo and Klerkx2019a).

The literature on technological regimes by scholars such as Nelson and Winter inspired the work of Geels and Deuten (Reference Geels and Deuten2006) on the dedicated aggregation activities of intermediary actors to facilitate knowledge flows between local and global levels for niche development. This later inspired other contributions on intermediary activities in niche development from scholars such as Hargreaves and colleagues (Hargreaves et al., Reference Hargreaves, Hielscher, Seyfang and Smith2013) who analysed the role of community energy projects as intermediaries in niche development. A second stream of intermediary literature (e.g. Hodson and Marvin, Reference Hodson and Marvin2010) took inspiration from techno-economic networks with contributions from Callon and Latour to make empirical contributions on the activities of intermediaries in shaping urban infrastructure with a specific interest in the governance of socio-technical networks.

Starting with the systems of innovation literature with key contributions from Lundvall, Nelson and Edquist, van Lente et al., (Reference van Lente, Hekkert, Smits and Van Waveren2003) introduced the concept of systemic intermediaries which operate at the system or network level. Their contribution inspired several other contributions on systemic intermediaries in the agricultural and renewable energy transition context (e.g. Kivimaa, Reference Kivimaa2014; Klerkx and Leeuwis, Reference Klerkx and Leeuwis2009). Finally, the literature on intermediaries in innovation management in particular the work of Howells in 2006 had substantial influence on the discourse on intermediaries in sustainability transitions. This literature inspired several contributions on the roles of intermediaries in system level transitions (e.g. Kivimaa, Reference Kivimaa2014).

More recently, the intermediary concept has also been used in relation to the core theoretical frameworks in sustainability transitions such as the multi-level perspective, technological innovation systems, strategic niche management and transitions management. In the multi-level perspective, it is argued that intermediary actors can aggregate and transform knowledge and experiences from local niches to a shared global development trajectory (Geels and Deuten, Reference Geels and Deuten2006). In this context, intermediaries circulate, aggregate lessons and transfer knowledge across local experiments, potentially contributing to the upscaling of experiments beyond niches and challenging the status quo (Matschoss and Heiskanen, Reference Matschoss and Heiskanen2017). Intermediaries fulfil brokerage roles in technological innovation systems (see Section 18.3) by addressing the flow of knowledge and the formation of networks to tackle system failures related to the in-effective collaborations and resource mobilisation which stifle innovation (Célia and Marie-Benoît, Reference Célia and Marie-Benoît2023; Kanda et al., Reference Kanda, del Río, Hjelm and Bienkowska2019). Intermediaries can contribute to several of the niche internal processes in strategic niche management such as the articulation of expectations and visions (e.g. articulation of needs, expectations and requirements; acceleration of the application and commercialisation of new technologies), building of social networks (e.g. creating and facilitation of new networks; configuring and aligning interests) and learning and exploration processes (e.g. knowledge gathering, processing, generation and combination; technology assessment and evaluation; prototyping and piloting) (Kivimaa, Reference Kivimaa2014).

The concept of intermediaries is often used in relation to actor roles and agency in sustainability transitions. Transition processes require the governance of interactions between multiple actors, networks and institutions which can exceed the capabilities of any single actor. In this regard, intermediaries are needed to go in-between diverse groups of actors with the ambition to catalyse multi-actors’ interactions for systemic change. The contribution of van Lente et al., (Reference van Lente, Hekkert, Smits and Van Waveren2003), on systemic intermediaries largely kicked-off the interest in intermediary actors among transition scholars. Following this, a dominant focus in the sustainability transitions literature has been on the activities intermediaries undertake in different transition processes. The activities of intermediaries also change during the course of a transition in a co-evolutionary manner with the intermediary characteristics and context (Kivimaa et al., Reference Kivimaa, Hyysalo, Boon, Klerkx, Martiskainen and Schot2019b). Besides sustainability transitions, the concept of intermediaries has been used in other related literature. In eco-innovation, intermediaries perform activities to validate environmental benefits associated with eco-innovations and to internalise positive externalities in their development and diffusion (Kanda et al., Reference Kanda, Hjelm, Clausen and Bienkowska2018). Intermediaries influence the rate of innovation diffusion by gathering and disseminating information and mobilising and distributing resources that facilitate the adoption of innovations between suppliers and adopters (Lichtenthaler, Reference Lichtenthaler2013).

Moving on, several typologies of intermediaries have been proposed in the literature. For example, van Lente et al. (Reference van Lente, Hekkert, Smits and Van Waveren2003 p. 257), adopting a systems approach, distinguished between three types of intermediaries – hard, soft and systemic – based on their activities in innovation systems. Klerkx and Leeuwis (Reference Klerkx and Leeuwis2009) made a similar contribution of seven types of intermediaries empirically operating in the Dutch agricultural innovation systems based on their activities. More recently, Kivimaa et al. (Reference Kivimaa, Boon, Hyysalo and Klerkx2019a p. 1068) introduced the concept of transition intermediaries. They define transition intermediaries as actors or platforms that facilitate transitions by connecting different groups of actors and their skills and resources. Transition intermediaries also bring together different ideas and technologies to create new collaborations and challenge un-sustainable socio-technical systems. Kivimaa et al. (Reference Kivimaa, Boon, Hyysalo and Klerkx2019a) present five types of transition intermediaries based on their emergence, neutrality, intermediation goals and their level of action. These characteristics essentially capture the level (i.e. actor vs. system level) of operation of intermediaries and their ambitions. The typology of transition intermediaries proposed by Kivimaa et al (2019) are:

1. 1) A systemic intermediary – operating on the niche, regime, landscape levels with an explicit transition agenda for whole system transformation. Systemic intermediaries operate on the system level between multiple actors and are typically established to intermediate.

2. 2) A regime-based transition intermediary – associated with the prevailing regime but with a specific ambition to promote transition. Thus regime-based intermediaries interact with a range of niches or the whole system.

3. 3) A niche intermediary – working to experiment and advance the activities and development of a particular niche. In doing so, niche intermediaries strive to influence the prevailing socio-technical system for the niche’s benefit.

4. 4) A process intermediary – facilitates change in a niche project without an explicit system transformation agenda of their own. Often, they support context-specific (e.g. project based or spatially located) agendas and priorities set by other actors to facilitate change.

5. 5) A user intermediary – connects users to new technology and communicates user preferences to technology developers. User intermediaries also translate new niche technologies to users, altogether qualifying the value of technology offers available between users, developers and regime actors.

In extending the discourse on the typology of transition intermediaries, a particular gap remained in the literature on how to conceptualise and demonstrate the contribution of intermediaries beyond the actor-level (often in bilateral one-to-one intermediation) to the broader system (often including multiple actors, their networks and related institutions). Furthermore, the strategic activities of intermediaries as operating across multiple system-levels had received limited scholarly attention. Kanda et al., (Reference Kanda, Kuisma, Kivimaa and Hjelm2020) defined three systemic levels of aggregation (see Figure 18.1) within which intermediation occurs. These are: (i) system level 1 – in-between entities in a network, (ii) system level 2 – in-between networks of entities and (iii) system level 3 – in-between actors, networks and institutions. This classification was based on: (i) the intermediation activities, (ii) in-between which third parties it occurs and (iii) the scope of intermediation impact.

Figure 18.1 Different system-levels within which intermediaries operate

(adapted from Kanda et al., Reference Kanda, Kuisma, Kivimaa and Hjelm2020)

A non-systemic level is included as a benchmark and is characterised by ‘one-to-one’ interactions. Intermediaries at this level are typically private organisations, such as consultants, who assist their clients in achieving innovation objectives for a fee. This level of intermediation is not considered a systemic since it does not explicitly seek to generate intermediation benefits beyond the third parties. However, intermediaries at this level can learn and build competence from different cases, which can be applied in their subsequent intermediation activities.

In system level 1, intermediation occurs between different entities within a network, such as a technology cluster or a niche coalition. The intermediaries facilitate learning and knowledge transfer between the network’s members through various physical arenas such as conferences, seminars and workshops. The intermediary helps to build a brand and legitimacy for the network’s activities and its members work towards a common interest. In system level 2, intermediation occurs between networks of different entities, where the intermediary facilitates interactions and collaborations in a ‘many-to-many-to-many’ form also referred to as a network of networks. These networks can represent different technological fields, such as solar or wind power networks, where members come together to facilitate low-carbon energy transitions. Intermediaries may create interaction spaces, disseminate information and provide brokerage support to address market or innovation system failures that result in sub-optimal connectivity between different actors and their networks.

In system level 3, intermediation activities go beyond the interactions between different types of networks to include interactions between actors, networks and relevant institutions. Institutions can be either informal (e.g. norms, values and culture) or formal (e.g. laws, regulation and technical standards) that shape the activities and decisions of actors. When intermediaries see an opportunity to realise interests, they highly value, they engage in different types of purposive and strategic actions to create, maintain, or disrupt institutions sometimes acting as institutional entrepreneurs (DiMaggio, Reference DiMaggio1988). Overall, intermediation at system level 3 involves shaping the institutional environment to enable the achievement of collective interests across different actor-networks.

Finally, while intermediaries are more likely to be conceptualised and profiled as one type (i.e. systemic, regime-based, niche, process or user intermediary) rather than portraying characteristics of several, in practice, intermediaries are strategic actors who can change their profile and operate on multiple system levels undertaking different activities to facilitate transitions. Altogether, this contribution from Kanda et al., Reference Kanda, Kuisma, Kivimaa and Hjelm2020 challenged the notion that intermediaries are homogenous entities (e.g. with regards to their roles and activities) and operate at a particular system level. The contribution opened several opportunities for further studies on the strategic actions of intermediaries which move across system levels leading to cooperation and competition, role adaptation, differentiation and power struggles among ecologies of intermediaries. This revealed a darker side of intermediaries beyond their facilitate role which at worse could even hinder transitions. The contribution also laid an essential foundation to explore the question about intermediary impact on system levels, that is, specifically by analysing how intermediary activities contribute to overall structure and functions in the system levels identified during a transition.

18.3 Empirical Examples of Intermediary Activities

In Table 18.1, we provide illustrative examples of the activities of the different types of transitions intermediaries in relation to different system levels of intermediation. The activities mainly come from the activities of intermediaries identified in Kivimaa et al., (Reference Kivimaa, Boon, Hyysalo and Klerkx2019a) and Kanda et al., (Reference Kanda, Kuisma, Kivimaa and Hjelm2020). These activities are then placed on different system levels depending on the entities in-between which they take place and the scope of their potential impact, that is, within a network, between different networks, towards institutions or a fee-paying client.

Essentially, Table 18.1 depicts the potential scope of impact of different transition intermediary types and their related activities. Some intermediary types, for example, systemic intermediaries dominantly operate at higher system levels in-between actors, their networks and institutions. On the other end of the spectrum, the activities of user intermediaries are dominated by bilateral one-to-one intermediation activities in-between third parties. Thus, the potential impact of different intermediary activities can be system-wide generating benefits for numerous actors and their networks or limited to the third parties in-between which the intermediation takes places. Due to the potential spillover of benefits from higher system level intermediation, intermediaries operating at such levels (e.g. systemic intermediaries) are often publicly affiliated through funding, ownership and mandate to generate public good that can facilitate a transition beneficial for many actors (e.g. Sitra and Motiva in Finland; Vinnova in Sweden). On the other hand, in bilateral one-to-one intermediation as often practiced by user intermediaries, one of the parties could be a paying client and can seek to capture all the benefits from the intermediation process limiting the (positive) system-wide spillovers. Nonetheless, intermediaries accumulate benefits (e.g. knowledge and legitimacy) which can be transferred to other system levels. Similarly, the entities in-between which intermediaries operate can benefit differently (even in the same network) from the intermediation activities which can be at the expense of competing niches not part of the network.

18.4 Theoretical Problematisation: Why Do Intermediaries Exist in Transitions?

A research gap we dedicate particular attention to is the lack of a clearly articulated theory on why intermediaries exist in transition processes. Research shows that intermediaries have important facilitating roles in transitions. Still, there is no congruent theory which explains why intermediaries exist in transition processes. Considering the eclectic nature of transition studies as a research field, this is hardly surprising. Theoretical explanations are important since they provide justifications for the establishment of intermediaries. In search of answers to the question why intermediaries exist in transitions, we return to the definition of transitions as major changes of socio-technical systems (Köhler et al., Reference Köhler, Geels, Kern, Markard, Onsongo, Wieczorek, Alkemade, Avelino, Bergek and Boons2019). Such systemic changes will likely display gaps, glitches and tensions between different actors, their individual strategies and the activities they engage in. By bridging organisational boundaries, intermediaries can help fil out such gaps and glitches and work to resolve tensions. The characteristics of boundaries are central topics in many theories on organisation. Santos and Eisenhardt (Reference Santos and Eisenhardt2005) present four different conceptions of organisational boundaries with different theoretical foundations. These conceptions are useful to explain why intermediary organisations exist in transition processes.

The first conception, which is denoted efficiency is based on institutional economics, considering the organisation a legal entity with a prime motive to minimise costs and maximise return on investments. Derived from the seminal paper by Coase (Reference Coase1937) on the nature of business firms, transaction costs are central in the reasoning. Coase built his argumentation on a dichotomy between markets and firms, arguing that firms exist when the costs of market-based transactions are higher than the costs of hierarchical control. In their systematic review of literature on intermediaries, Kivimaa et al., (Reference Kivimaa, Boon, Hyysalo and Klerkx2019a) argue that transaction costs is a common explanation for the existence of intermediaries in innovation studies and science and technology studies. In cases when the costs of market-based transactions are high, intermediaries can absorb risks and reduce transaction costs for the organisations involved. The intermediary thus acts as a broker to facilitate exchanges in cases when neither market-based transactions, nor strict hierarchical control are feasible options.

The second conception is denoted competence. Building on evolutionary economics (Nelson, Reference Nelson1985) and the resource-based view of the firm (Penrose and Penrose, Reference Penrose and Penrose2009) this conception posit that organisations are bundles of resources that co-evolve with the environments that they operate in. The competence conception is congruent with transition research that shows how intermediaries help facilitating knowledge flows between organisations (Geels and Deuten, Reference Geels and Deuten2006). To facilitate such flows, intermediaries aggregate local experiences into knowledge that is accessible for a variety of actors. Being more dynamic than the efficiency conception, the competence conception draws attention to the strategic development of resource portfolios that can result in long-term competitive advantages. Being located in-between different organisations and their resources, intermediaries undertake important activities to mobilise resources to facilitate synergies that can support transition processes.

The third conception power further elaborates on the competitive strategies of individual actors. Following theories on industrial organisation and resource dependence (Porter, Reference Porter1990), the conception is based on the assumption that organisations strive to reduce their exposure to uncertainties due to external contingencies. Important strategies for such uncertainty reduction are to gain influence and control through alliances and network engagement and though lobbying activities. As transitions involve a large variety of actors who strive to maximise their own influence and control, intermediaries are often needed to establish trust between different parties. Moreover, studies have shown how intermediaries are instrumental to influence regulatory processes in favour of transitions (Hyysalo et al., Reference Hyysalo, Juntunen and Martiskainen2018). Gathering a variety of actors, intermediaries can gain a stronger influence than the actors do individually.

The final conception identity conceptualises organisations as social entities for sensemaking (Weick, Reference Weick1995). The conception is based on literature on organisational behaviour and managerial cognition, which draw attention to the cognitive frames that shape interpretations and actions. Once accepted, such frames constitute a strong mechanism for coordination. Transition studies have often referred to cognitive frames and routines as explanations to the persistence of regimes. However, studies also show that cognitive processes are important for niche development. These studies suggest that socially constructed narratives can enrol support for transitions and help shaping markets (Ottosson et al., 2020). Through their socio-political work, intermediaries can assist the construction of narratives that link actors together.

In summary, the four conceptions provide complementary answers to the question why intermediaries exist in transitions. Table 18.2 summarises the conceptions in terms of their theoretical foundations, as well as the related functions and roles of the intermediary. For intermediaries, activities refer to tangible, specific actions, or tasks they undertake to facilitate sustainability transitions while roles refer to the positions or responsibilities intermediaries hold such as brokers, translators and mediators. Functions on the other hand refers to the broad and strategic areas of responsibility that intermediaries have. In the efficiency conception the intermediary acts as a broker to absorb risks and reduce transactions costs. This conception is useful when analysing intermediation between sellers and buyers, or more broadly stated: between a supply-side and a demand side actors. However, transitions processes tend to involve a multitude of actors and modes of interaction. In this respect, the competence conception may be more useful, describing the intermediary as a translator that enable synergies and interorganisational knowledge flows. Still the competence conception tends to underplay critical issues of conflict and contestation. By contrast, these issues are central for the power conception. This conception describes the intermediary as a mediator, whose central function is to establish trust through arbitration and negotiation in inter-organisational networks. The conception is also useful to explain the role of intermediaries in advocacy activities and lobbying. While the power conception is based on the premise of disparate interests among actors, the identity conception adds another dimension by claiming that transition processes will depend on a shared meaning and a common purpose among a multitude of actors. To help building such a purpose, intermediaries take the role of a sense-maker, engaging of actors in the construction of narratives and visions to make sense of the transition. Adopting and further developing this conceptualisation will enable to explore questions such as power relations, the politics at play, the normative positioning of intermediary actors and the battle between different intermediaries (Kivimaa et al., Reference Kivimaa, Boon, Hyysalo and Klerkx2019a).

18.5 Emerging Research and Further Needs

Although the facilitating role of intermediaries in sustainability transitions is widely recognised, a critical analysis of the literature reveals diverse meanings and approaches to the concept. Thus, the concept of intermediaries remains essentially contested. It has multiple and diverse meanings, and its proper use may not be definitively settled by reference to empirical evidence, logical demonstration, or formal criteria alone. Thus, we expect persistent disagreement among scholars on the meaning, scope and normative implications of the concept of intermediaries which cannot be easily resolved. Furthermore, in the literature, an extensive number of activities are attributed to intermediaries which raises questions about the credibility and capacity of intermediaries to undertake such numerous tasks effectively. Thus, there is a need to position intermediaries in transitions in relation to other actors and their agency in transitions, delineating which activities can (or cannot) be undertaken by intermediaries and their interplay with the activities of other transition actors such as orchestrators, system entanglers and champions (see Figure 18.2).

Figure 18.2 Positioning intermediary actors in relation to other actors in transitions

Second, the impact of intermediaries on the actor level (e.g. projects and firms) are relatively tangible and easier to capture. However, it is particularly challenging how the impact of intermediaries is aggregated unto the system level. This stems from the difficulty in attributing cause and effects in long-term transition processes where multiple actors (e.g. intermediaries, orchestrators, champions, and system entanglers), processes and influences are involved. Attempts have been made to conceptually link the actor level activities to system level impact via different theoretical perspectives such as the Technological Innovation Systems (TIS) (e.g. Kanda et al., Reference Kanda, del Río, Hjelm and Bienkowska2019) and Strategic Niche Management (SNM) (e.g. Kanda et al., Reference Kanda, Hjelm, Johansson and Karlkvist2022; Kivimaa, Reference Kivimaa2014). These previous attempts essentially map the tangible and specific actions, or tasks intermediaries undertake to facilitate transitions onto the TIS functions or SNM processes as a proxy for system level impact. However, for system level impact of intermediaries to be explored effectively, there is a need for further conceptualisation of the system levels as started in (Kanda et al., Reference Kanda, Kuisma, Kivimaa and Hjelm2020), robust empirical evidence and in particular new methodological developments on causality and explanation in the broader transitions literature (see e.g. Geels, Reference Geels2022).

Third, the scholarly discourse needs to move beyond the dominant focus on the role of intermediaries in facilitating niche innovations and to explore their role in other contexts such as in the destabilisation of regimes. An important question in this respect is to investigate how intermediaries can actively work to destabilise unsustainable socio-technical systems and by doing so create windows of opportunities for niche innovations. This is particularly important given the urgency of sustainability transitions and the need for transformative intermediation. This will also require investigating how intermediaries adapt to different contexts and tasks, as well as examining the different types of intermediaries and capabilities needed to destabilise regimes. Intermediation with the purpose to destabilising regimes might also reveal the strategic struggles of intermediaries to make an impact giving a more nuanced understanding of intermediation in practise.

The literature has also been very positive towards intermediaries as facilitating transitions. However, future research could explore the role of power struggles and conflicts in the work of intermediaries, as their contribution to sustainability transitions can be contested. Research in this area could examine how intermediaries negotiate conflicting interests, manage power dynamics and navigate complex stakeholder environments. This research trajectory is important to provide more nuance to the idealistic picture of intermediaries presented in the literature as always seeking to facilitate transitions. Already on the actor level, there is empirical evidence to the effect that intermediaries sometimes prioritise their own survival and interests over broader system goals (Kant and Kanda, Reference Kant and Kanda2019). Thus, contributions on the complexity of intermediation and dilemmas will be welcome.

Furthermore, studies of intermediaries acting in isolation dominate the literature. However, as innovations diffuse from niches into mainstream markets, multiple transitions pathways emerge, accelerate and interact as argued in recent scholarship on multi-system transitions (Andersen and Geels, Reference Andersen and Geels2023). Thus, intermediation is no longer an activity undertaken by single actors in isolation but instead, ecologies of intermediation are needed in which intermediaries with different mandates, competencies, goals and interests, operate at different system levels scale and time (Barrie and Kanda, Reference Barrie and Kanda2020; Hyysalo et al., Reference Hyysalo, Heiskanen, Lukkarinen, Matschoss, Jalas, Kivimaa, Juntunen, Moilanen, Murto and Primmer2022). In such ecologies of intermediaries, entities collaborate; but also compete for dominance, may struggle to fit the context and can lack relevant capabilities (Soberón et al., Reference Soberón, Sánchez-Chaparro, Smith, Moreno-Serna, Oquendo-Di Cosola and Mataix2022). This demand delving into conflicts that can arise among intermediaries and how to address them. Thus, research needs to explore the dynamics in ecologies of intermediation, including their emergence, development and governance mechanisms. This provides an opportunity to explore the similarities and differences between intermediaries and other transition actors, for example, system entanglers, orchestrators, and champions who might emerge equally important in multi-system transitions (see Figure 18.2).

Furthermore, in multi-system transitions, intermediation can bridge actors from different socio-technical systems and create spaces for them to act (e.g. co-develop new knowledge and technology, align strategy and share resources) (Löhr & Chlebna, Reference Löhr and Chlebna2023). There is a need for new insights about how intermediaries can shape multi-system transitions, for example, by breaking couplings between unsustainable systems and bridging sustainable systems (Kanger et al., Reference Kanger, Schot, Sovacool, van der Vleuten, Ghosh, Keller and Steinmueller2021), visioning new cross-system configurations (Löhr & Chlebna, Reference Löhr and Chlebna2023), enabling learning and facilitating the flow of resources across multiple systems for example in cross sectoral transitions such as the circular economy (cf. Kanda et al., Reference Kanda, Geissdoerfer and Hjelm2021). Essentially, multi-system transitions demands an ecology of intermediaries (Barrie & Kanda, Reference Barrie and Kanda2020) particularly active at the intersection between regimes and niches (Geels & Deuten, Reference Geels and Deuten2006; Klerkx & Leeuwis, Reference Klerkx and Leeuwis2008). Thus, it will be naive to expect only facilitative intermediaries as part of transitions. There are intermediaries with an open (or hidden) agenda to defend the existing regime, for example, lobby organisations. Research about these types of obstructive intermediaries is crucial, to counteract their active work to hinder and create barriers to transitions.

In sustainability transitions, various actors play crucial roles based on their scope and approach of action (see Figure 18.2). Intermediaries, often with a starting position on the local actor level are facilitative and bridge actors and their related activities, skills, resources to create momentum for systemic change (Kivimaa et al., Reference Kivimaa2014). System entanglers, connect socio-technical systems and are facilitative, working across systems to align and integrate efforts, facilitating coherence among diverse actors (Hodson & Marvin, Reference Hodson and Marvin2010). Finally, Champions can be directive at the actor level, spearhead initiatives and build networks, mobilising support and fostering collaboration across sectors. Orchestrators are systemic and more directive, making strategic decisions to guide multi-actor processes. Essentially, the primary difference between facilitative and directive actors lies in their mechanism of operation. Facilitative roles focus on enabling others to act, while directive roles focus on leading and managing actions of others. Both are crucial for successful sustainability transitions operating at complementary system and actor levels to drive change. However, transition actors are strategic actors and can change their attributes across space and time to maintain relevance and longevity.

Thus, positioning intermediary actors in relation to other actors in transitions (as depicted in Figure 18.2) has implications for the discourse on actors and agency in transitions. First, for intermediaries, the focus of this book chapter, the literature has seen a broadening of the concept, its meaning and scope of operation from the actor level (e.g. Howells, Reference Howells2006) to a system level (e.g. van Lente et al., Reference van Lente, Hekkert, Smits and Van Waveren2003) in recent years which reflects the increasing complexity of innovation and sustainability transitions in the real world. Nonetheless moving from the actor level to the system level conceptually blurs the boundaries between intermediaries and other actors, for example, system entanglers and orchestrators. Empirically, intermediaries are expected to assume characteristics of other types of actors depending on their scope (i.e. actor vs. system level) and mechanism (i.e. directive vs. facilitative) of operation which demands different capabilities, resources and legitimacy. Thus, scholars need to carefully define and motivate the concept they choose to study actors and agency in transitions and reflect on the potential implication including benefits of their choices for example, which characteristics of actors and agency in transitions are highlighted vs. downplayed.

Overall, this chapter proposes several areas for future research on intermediaries in sustainability transitions, highlighting the need to move beyond the current focus on facilitating innovations to explore their role in destabilising regimes, as well as investigating their impact, power dynamics and complex reality in an ecology of intermediaries. Such research will deepen our understanding of intermediaries and their contribution to sustainability transitions, enabling policymakers, practitioners and scholars to better support and facilitate transitions towards a more sustainable future.

19.1 Introduction

Individual behaviour is a cornerstone of sustainability transitions: while systemic changes in technology and policy are vital, the role of individuals and small groups, such as families, initiatives or teams at work, in adopting sustainable practices and technologies, shaping and following social norms and supporting or opposing policy measures is equally critical. For sustainability transitions to be successful, it is necessary to address both macro-level changes and the micro-level behaviours and choices that play a role in both driving and hindering change. This applies whether individuals are organised in civil society groups (Smith, Reference Smith, Verbong and Loorbach2012) or acting separately as consumers or electorates with practical consequences nonetheless (Jackson, Reference Jackson2004).

The study of sustainability transitions, their evolution and emergence, has been an interdisciplinary field from the very beginning. Transition processes have always been characterized as fundamental changes in socio-technical systems. Thus, the ‘social’ side of transitions and the interaction of (technological) innovations with governance processes but also wider society has been a constitutive part of transition research. This in turn means that what people do, how individuals act on their own or in collectives, what they think and what influences their thoughts and actions are in principle an inherent part of transitions research. Individuals also play an important role in the collection of data on transitions, with interviews as a central research method in this field of research (Hansmeier et al., Reference Hansmeier, Schiller and Rogge2021). Thus, the perspective of the individual strongly shapes our view and knowledge on transitions.

In practice, however, the socio-technical sustainability transitions literature has had difficulty accommodating especially individual-level perspectives, principally because the field focuses on what may be thought of as meso- and macro-level processes, rather than the micro-level of individual psychology (Upham et al., Reference Upham, Bögel and Dütschke2019; Upham et al., Reference Upham, Bögel and Johansen2020). At the same time, failure to account for individual behaviour and leaving this behaviour ‘black-boxed’ as ‘emergent’, means that key processes are potentially neglected. Hence while connecting levels of analysis is challenging (Köhler et al., Reference Köhler, Geels, Kern, Markard, Onsongo, Wieczorek, Alkemade, Avelino, Bergek, Boons, Fünfschilling, Hess, Holtz, Hyysalo, Jenkins, Kivimaa, Martiskainen, McMeekin, Mühlemeier and Wells2019), it is nonetheless of value to do so. In this chapter we explain why individual behaviour matters for transitions.

The APA Dictionary of Psychology (American Psychological Association, n.d.) defines behaviour as ‘an organism’s activities in response to external or internal stimuli, including objectively observable activities‘, but also ‘introspectively observable activities (…), and nonconscious processes‘. When transition scholars refer to behaviours, they tend to adopt partly similar definitions. Kaufman et al. (Reference Kaufman, Saeri, Raven, Malekpour and Smith2021, p.587), for example, use a definition from the Cambridge English Dictionary: ‘The way a person acts in a particular way in a particular situation or under particular conditions.’ Both definitions link behaviour with certain conditions (‘external or internal stimuli’, ‘particular situations or (…) conditions’). However, while the first explicitly states that behaviours also include internal processes such as forming an opinion, this is not the case for the second. This difference is an important distinction between transition studies and behavioural studies, such as psychology, which place more emphasis on these internal behaviours.

The repeated pointers to activities in both definitions show that the study of individual behaviour is closely linked to the study of actors and agency. Other than referring to individuals, the concept of actors is generally broader and more closely linked to the concept of roles. Roles describe distinctive sets of behaviours associated with an actor (Wittmayer et al., Reference Wittmayer, Avelino, van Steenbergen and Loorbach2017 and cf. Chapter 17 in this handbook). Similarly, in contrast to behaviour, agency is a broader concept defined as the capacity to act intentionally (de Haan & Rotmans, Reference de Haan and Rotmans2018). Thus, agency has a component of direction and combines the acts themselves as well as the potential for acting by referring to capacity. Behaviours, however, are not necessarily intentional, but also include habitual or conditional reactions in certain situations.

Often, psychological approaches on behaviours differentiate between types of behaviour on a continuum, with routines and habits at one end and deliberative behaviour at the other end (Defila et al., Reference Defila, Di Giulio and Ruesch Schweizer2018; Verplanken & Aarts, Reference Verplanken and Aarts1999; Whitmarsh et al., Reference Whitmarsh, Poortinga and Capstick2021). Routinized or habitual behaviours are typically triggered by (external or internal) stimuli and occur repeatedly, often regularly. These types of behaviours are to some extent automated and often following routines, such as a morning shower – triggered by getting up and always using a specific water temperature and a certain soap. For example, they usually cycle, but take the bus in case of bad weather. At the other end of the continuum lie behaviours that are once-off and deliberative such as decision-making, especially where there is an investment of significant resources or where there are significant impacts. Such behaviours are often the result of longer processes that involve other behaviours, such as gathering information or considering costs and benefits. This type of behaviour is, for example, relevant for the decision to switch from a conventional vehicle to an electric one, or to adopt a car-free lifestyle.

All types of behaviour along this continuum are relevant to sustainability transitions because the establishment of the new system relies on decisions by a variety of individuals in different roles: policymakers need to adapt regulations, managers in firms need to invest in new products and households need to adopt these products. The new system is then likely to lead to new routines, which, in turn, influence all individuals in the changed system. This leads us to the standing acknowledgement that behaviours are embedded in contexts. They are influenced, supported or challenged by the current system. While this is more obvious for habitual behaviour as stimuli-driven, this also applies to more deliberative behaviours which are influenced by social norms, personal attitudes and available resources. The deliberative behaviour of, for example, buying an electric car ten years ago required a lot of resources and motivation, is much easier now, but still innovative in 2024 (at least in some countries) and is likely to be the ‘normal’ decision in 20 years’ time.Footnote ¹

However, transitions research has not frequently investigated the role of individuals and behaviour. According to Hansmeier et al. (Reference Hansmeier, Schiller and Rogge2021), the focus on actors and agency has increased significantly in transitions research in the past years, however, theory development in sustainability transitions on the role of behaviour and individuals is still ongoing and an emerging field. Hansmeier et al. (Reference Hansmeier, Schiller and Rogge2021) found that as of 2016, only 20% of papers from transitions research targeted actors (and their networks), while the share was nearly 50% in the period 2016–2019. Important contributions have been made recently by a review by Kaufman et al. (Reference Kaufman, Saeri, Raven, Malekpour and Smith2021) and by several papers involving Upham and Bögel (Bögel & Upham, Reference Bögel and Upham2018; Upham et al., Reference Upham, Bögel and Dütschke2019; Upham et al., Reference Upham, Bögel, Klapper, Kašperová, Teerikangas, Onkila, Koistinen and Mäkelä2021), building on earlier work by Upham et al. (Reference Upham, Lis, Riesch and Stankiewicz2015). The review by Kaufman et al. (Reference Kaufman, Saeri, Raven, Malekpour and Smith2021) provides a classification of behaviour types that we make use of below. The work by Upham and Bögel reviews the use of psychology and social practice theory in the transitions literature (Bögel & Upham, Reference Bögel and Upham2018, updated as Upham et al., Reference Upham, Bögel, Klapper, Kašperová, Teerikangas, Onkila, Koistinen and Mäkelä2021) and explores different ways of conceptually and methodologically connecting micro-level social psychological processes with larger scale transitions concepts.

Here, the focus will correspondingly lie on individuals and behaviour, extending previous accounts on actors and agency with additional perspectives and regularly drawing on neighbouring fields of research – psychology in particular.

19.2 Historical and Thematic Development

Studying the social or societal side of socio-technical systems has typically implied analysing social forms of action (Bögel & Upham, Reference Bögel and Upham2018). Individual behaviour, as a separate and smaller research focus, has been mainly discussed in relation to consumption behaviour and everyday life, described below, building close links with the increased interest on the role of the individual as a ‘consumer’ or ‘user’ in the broader field of science and technology studies (STS) (Köhler et al., Reference Köhler, Geels, Kern, Markard, Onsongo, Wieczorek, Alkemade, Avelino, Bergek, Boons, Fünfschilling, Hess, Holtz, Hyysalo, Jenkins, Kivimaa, Martiskainen, McMeekin, Mühlemeier and Wells2019). An introduction to work in the latter vein can be found in the nine-fold co-design typology of Hyysalo and Johnson (Reference Hyysalo and Johnson2024).

A focus on users and consumers links with research on sustainable consumption, which is a field of research in its own. One of the prominent approaches has been to build on ‘practice theory’ (Warde, Reference Warde2005), which has also regularly been applied in transition studies (Kaufman et al., Reference Kaufman, Saeri, Raven, Malekpour and Smith2021 and also Chapter 6 in this book). Practice theory takes practices, that is, usually certain classes or groups of repeated or routinized behaviour, as a starting point, for example meal preparation and eating. It then moves on to identifying the factors that shape, uphold or potentially change these practices, typically including three types of factors such as material, image and skill. Material refers to existing structures, available equipment or objects, while image captures symbolic and communicative meanings and implications; finally, skills relate to individual competences involved in the practice (cf. Shove, Reference Shove2010 for exemplifying). A focus on practices is typically related to a focus on daily behaviours and how they are embedded in (social) context and structures and may extend to changes in these behaviours. The acting subjects are usually individuals in their roles as consumers or users and less often individuals involved in practices of changing or shaping the system itself.

The role of users and consumers has received significant attention in the last one to two decades also in other streams of research such as in innovation studies or studies on technology adoption.Footnote ² There has been a shift away from viewing consumers and users in a passive role of ‘adopting innovation’ or ‘accepting technologies’ into a more active one. In this active role, consumers are seen as individuals that shape or trigger developments in technological innovation by stating needs and driving, or at least refining, technological or sectoral developments (cf. Chadwick et al., Reference Chadwick, Russell-Bennett and Biddle2022). Examples here are the early phases of the German energy transition where many early investors came from fields outside the energy industry, such as farmers setting up windfarms or solar PV fields, or even earlier developments in Denmark where electricity users, including individuals and collectives, pushed forward windfarm installations (Schot et al., Reference Schot, Kanger and Verbong2016). This related field of research suggests that, in sustainability transitions, roles of individuals are changing from using and consuming to being entrepreneurs or suppliers within newly emerging niches or even regimes (Wesche & Dütschke, Reference Wesche and Dütschke2021).

Building on this line of thought and developing it further for the study of sustainability transitions, a paper by Schot et al. (Reference Schot, Kanger and Verbong2016) describes several roles of users and consumers in transitions and the corresponding relevant behaviours.Footnote ³ These behaviours are categorized according to roles of groups of individuals and differ according to the phase of a transition. In the early niche-focused phase, typical actors and behaviours driving the transition include

1. 1. user-producers who are involved in inventing and experimenting with technological or social innovations and enabling new routines to emerge and

2. 2. user-legitimators who shape the meaning, purpose and rationale of niche innovations by building and sharing narratives.

In the following acceleration phase, in which the interaction between niche and regime starts to change the current regime, they identify

1. 3. user-intermediaries who are involved in networking between niche actors and actors outside the niche for scaling up innovations and

2. 4. user-citizens who engage in changing the current regime to enable niches to grow.

Finally, in the stabilization phase of the new regime, there exist

1. 5. user-consumers who embed innovations in their lifestyle and adopt their lifestyle to the innovations and thus support their diffusion.

All five roles are associated with specific behaviours, such as designing technological applications, generating ideas or concepts, communicating with others or using and applying innovations. The behaviours identified by Schot et al. (Reference Schot, Kanger and Verbong2016) allude to the differentiation between more habitual and more conscious behaviour as defined above.

This continuum between routinized and deliberative behaviour also influenced the work of Kaufman et al. (Reference Kaufman, Saeri, Raven, Malekpour and Smith2021) who conducted a review on the transitions literature through a behaviour lens. The authors differentiate between four types of behaviours: reflective, automatic, strategic and everyday behaviour. Their categorization takes up conceptualizations found in the literature rather than observed phenomena in transitions. The first two types of behaviour were identified based on papers with a stronger focus on micro-meso perspectives. Reflective behaviour connects with conscious implementation – on the deliberative side of the behaviour continuum. Kaufman et al. (Reference Kaufman, Saeri, Raven, Malekpour and Smith2021) find that studies on reflective behaviour are typically engaged with changing behaviour and acknowledge bounded rationality and the drivers and barriers to behavioural change. A relatively high number of papers was identified in this field by Kaufman et al. (Reference Kaufman, Saeri, Raven, Malekpour and Smith2021), but many of them not highly cited.

Automatic behaviour covers both habits and embedded behaviour triggered by situational cues, matching the routinized or habitual side of the behaviour continuum in psychological approaches. Beyond habits, Kaufman et al (ibid) found this literature to also emphasize the role of heuristics and biases in relation to behavioural choices. The reviewed studies suggest that interruptions are necessary to change these types of behaviours. Research advocating for nudges to foster transitions, that is, designing situations in a way that the probability of the desired behaviour increases, was also grouped under this approach. While fewer papers were identified than on reflective behaviour, they were more frequently cited. The other two types of behaviour, strategic and everyday, refer more to the meso-level and thus are less attached to the micro level and the individual. Strategic behaviour is seen as intentional action by collective actors, such as companies or agencies, niche actors or incumbents, to achieve a benefit for their innovation or retaining current technologies, usually in a competitive context. Thus, this perspective addresses interactions within networks of (collective) actors. Everyday behaviour covers what was described as practices earlier. Kaufman et al. (Reference Kaufman, Saeri, Raven, Malekpour and Smith2021) emphasize that from the literature it is not clear whether purposeful or directed change of practices by external actors is possible given the complexity of conditions shaping practices.

Additional streams in the transition literature that partially focus on behaviour but have a greater focus on collectives and the meso-level includes the research on social movements and civil society organizations (Köhler et al., Reference Köhler, Geels, Kern, Markard, Onsongo, Wieczorek, Alkemade, Avelino, Bergek, Boons, Fünfschilling, Hess, Holtz, Hyysalo, Jenkins, Kivimaa, Martiskainen, McMeekin, Mühlemeier and Wells2019). Research on social movements looks for instance into grassroot innovations and how they create consumer demand or drive innovations from outside the traditional sector or branch as citizens (Köhler et al., Reference Köhler, Geels, Kern, Markard, Onsongo, Wieczorek, Alkemade, Avelino, Bergek, Boons, Fünfschilling, Hess, Holtz, Hyysalo, Jenkins, Kivimaa, Martiskainen, McMeekin, Mühlemeier and Wells2019). While individual behaviour is usually not the starting point of the analysis, its importance is acknowledged (e.g. Hossain, Reference Hossain2016). Another part of literature on social movements analyses the role of individuals in challenging or providing legitimation to transitions, that is, resisting or promoting change. In line with what Kaufman et al. (Reference Kaufman, Saeri, Raven, Malekpour and Smith2021) categorized as strategic behaviour, this research does not only investigate individuals and collectives as drivers of transitions, but also as showing resistance. Examples are citizen-driven initiatives supporting wind farms and owning them through cooperatives versus local action groups opposing windfarms.

Furthermore, a stream of research which has been established in the literature is the one on the role of intermediaries in transitions, mainly building on Kivimaa et al. (Reference Kivimaa, Boon, Hyysalo and Klerkx2019). Intermediaries are defined as ‘actors and platforms that positively influence sustainability transition’ (Kivimaa et al., Reference Kivimaa, Boon, Hyysalo and Klerkx2019, p.1072) through a variety of behaviours such as ‘linking actors and activities (…) or by connecting transition visions and demands of networks of actors (…)‘. Intermediaries are discussed in more detail in Chapter 18 of this handbook.

A recent stream of literature, not only in the field of transition studies but also related to it, conceptualises energy citizenship to capture engagement with an energy system in transition. It typically refers to different types of engagement, such as citizens as consumers, prosumers, prosumers, political activists, members of energy communities, and thus also points to the diversity of relevant behaviours of individuals in transitions (Schlindwein & Montalvo, Reference Schlindwein and Montalvo2023) and the emergence of new practices (Ryghaug et al., Reference Ryghaug, Skjølsvold and Heidenreich2018). Although the topic of energy citizenship is inherently related to a transition, it has not yet become a major topic of transition research; no paper applying the concept could be found in the main journal ‘Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions’ until summer 2024. Nevertheless, this literature seems promising for theorising individual behaviour in a transition context.

Finally, classic disciplines that focus on behaviour and the individual have extended their scope. For instance, in environmental psychology, claims have been made to link research more strongly to transformative approaches (Wullenkord & Hamann, Reference Wullenkord and Hamann2021). In her influential book on ‘The Great Mindshift’ also Göpel (Reference Göpel2016), self-identifying as a political economist, makes the case for the role of individuals and their behaviour by stating ‘(…) the source of intentional change is human thinking, feeling and acting. Socio-ecological systems are created, ordered and stabilized through human decision making (…)’ (p. 50f). She draws on the Multi-level perspective from transitions research (cf. Chapter 2 in this handbook) and adds a ‘mini level’ representing the individual level to the usual MLP-structure (p. 47). This matches with the development that researchers from environmental psychology have extended their understanding of environmental behaviour as sustainable consumption to including so called ‘other directed behaviour’ or ‘public-sphere behaviour’ such as taking part in protests or other voluntary work on environmental issues (Capstick et al., Reference Capstick, Nash, Whitmarsh, Poortinga, Haggar and Brügger2022).

19.3 Empirical Application: The Individual and Its Behaviour in the Energy Transition

Sustainability transitions have commonly been studied with a focus on one or several sectors in which society is organized. These range from energy and transport to medicine and food production. The greatest empirical focus, both for overarching transition processes as well as for the individual and behaviour in transitions, has been on the energy sector (Upham et al., Reference Upham, Bögel and Johansen2020). In the following, we hence focus on examples applying a behavioural perspective to the energy transition as a large-scale change in one socio-technical system in which individuals and their behaviour have played a crucial role.

Looking at energy transition processes provides several opportunities to further illustrate the role of individuals and behaviour. The energy transition refers to the transformation of the energy system of a community, region, country or association of states (such as the EU) in such a way that it produces little or no greenhouse gas emissions. There are three basic approaches to achieving this, which can complement each other: consistency, efficiency and sufficiency. They involve replacing fossil fuel-based energy production with renewable energy (the consistency approach), achieving the same results with less energy (the efficiency approach) or reducing overall demand (the sufficiency approach) and they all affect and are affected by individuals and their behaviour.

Superficially, the consistency approach has little impact on the consumer side, as the required energy is still provided, only by different generation mechanisms. However, the fact that energy production from wind and PV has been able to achieve large impacts and develop to a stage where it is economically competitive has been driven by individuals and organisations outside the established energy sector (Schot et al., Reference Schot, Kanger and Verbong2016). Moreover, consistency approaches have serious implications for the supply system, changing business models and triggering new industries. This requires a wide range of individuals to change their current behaviour by investing differently, developing offerings along newly developed supply chains, or changing production patterns of energy generation technologies (see Fricaudet et al., Reference Fricaudet, Parker and Rehmatulla2023 as an exemplary study). Furthermore, moving on to generating electricity from wind or sun instead of coal and gas implies adapting to a fluctuating electricity production due to the weather. While this can be done technically by improving the interconnectedness with other geographical areas, or by providing energy storage, it can also be achieved through behavioural change which is known as demand side management. Demand side management means that demand for energy is adapted to the supply side, that is, increasing production in industrial processes or starting energy intensive household processes when ample energy is available (e.g. Wesche & Dütschke, Reference Wesche and Dütschke2021 on the different roles for organisations). Thus, demand side management is strongly connected to changing practices or – through a more individual lens – to adapting routines and habits (e.g. Solbu et al., Reference Solbu, Ryghaug, Skjølsvold, Heidenreich and Næss2024 on low-income households).

Efficiency as a strategy is mainly technology-oriented and refers to increasing the output without increasing inputs, for example, by using more efficient appliances, insulating buildings, moving to more efficient heating systems or changing patterns of consumption to less resource intensive products. Thus, this field of research is much about technology acceptance, but also includes broader transition-related topics such as studying the networking behaviours of actors in the heating transition (Wesche et al., Reference Wesche, Negro, Brugger, Eichhammer and Hekkert2024) or the discourse of households as users and installers around metering systems which are supposed to enable more efficient resource use (Rohracher & Köhler, Reference Rohracher and Köhler2019).

In addition to consistency and efficiency, sufficiency is increasingly discussed as a pathway to reach the goals of the energy transition. Sufficiency refers to systematically changing structures and behaviours in a way that leads to lower levels of resource and energy use will keeping levels of well-being (Sandberg, Reference Sandberg2021). In terms of electricity use, this could mean using fewer devices; in terms of energy more broadly, it could mean reducing the amount of space heated or switching heating systems to lower temperatures and cooling systems to higher temperatures, thus, finding other ways to achieve thermal comfort levels. Thus, as can be seen from the examples, the sufficiency approach has a strong behavioural component in changing habits and routines, but also broader practices and the use of different decision-making strategies. Systematic research on sufficiency is still in its infancy and therefore a rare topic also in terms of individuals and their behaviour in transition studies (see Solbu et al., Reference Solbu, Ryghaug, Skjølsvold, Heidenreich and Næss2024 as a rare example).

Other specific areas of interest linking individuals and their behaviour to the energy transition concern processes within organisations and the individuals embedded within them. This includes differences in strategic behaviour and motivations in transitions (Scherrer & Rogge, Reference Scherrer and Rogge2025), decisions between multiple technologies (Scherrer, Reference Scherrer2023) and the behaviour of individuals as employees or managers in companies (Upham et al., Reference Upham, Bögel and Dütschke2019). Scherrer and Rogge (Reference Scherrer and Rogge2025) presented a first analysis of the former for the decarbonisation of heavy-duty vehicles and Upham et al. (Reference Upham, Dütschke, Schneider, Oltra, Sala, Lores, Klapper and Bögel2018) exemplified the latter for the case of hydrogen fuel cell applications.

In addition, the study of behaviours that slow down the transition is also highly relevant – phenomena include, for example, what is referred to in the literature as rebound effects (Galvin et al., Reference Galvin, Dütschke and Weiß2021; Sorrell, Reference Sorrell2015), that is, when the use of more efficient technologies does not lead to the expected reduction in demand or when the increased share of green electricity leads to higher consumption levels. Unlike the case of technology diffusion, this is a behavioural effect that is usually not purposeful or rooted in resistance to the transition, but nevertheless undermines achieving the sustainability goals. For instance, Dütschke et al. (Reference Dütschke, Galvin and Brunzema2021) portray the variety of individual engagements with roof-top PVs in households and the heterogeneous outcomes related to it.

19.4 Ongoing Debates: Connecting Macro and Micro Analysis in Transitions Research

In this section we discuss debates relating to how to address the behaviour of individuals within or alongside the analytic frames used in sustainability transitions. This is one instance of structure versus agency and macro-micro debates that have accompanied the history of modern social and behavioural sciences. While we have shown that micro, individual-level processes have been relatively under-studied in sustainability transitions frameworks, the broader field of sociology has long recognised the importance of understanding macro-micro linkages, to understand (and particularly model) social phenomena (Berk, Reference Berk2006; Raub et al., Reference Raub, Buskens and van Assen2011; Schillo et al., Reference Schillo, Fischer, Klein, Goos, Hartmanis, van Leeuwen, Moss and Davidsson2001). Researching this linkage raises questions of how particular micro and macro level processes and conditions influence one another, of the directionality in cause and effect and of the ways in which these linkages can be studied. For transitions, it also raises the issue of where the research focus of the field both lies and should lie. These questions go to the heart of what the transitions field is and what transitions researchers want that field to be – what research questions, approaches, theories, frameworks, epistemologies and ontologies are viewed as constituting the field.

A key question that this requires scholars to negotiate is thus the extent to which, and how, agency, individual and collective behaviour, is and are determined or influenced by macro-level structures – including social norms and culture, technologies and infrastructures and economic and political systems (Gibbs, Reference Gibbs2017). Arguably, the transitions literature has implicitly taken a rather radical, pro-structural position on this question, by focusing mainly on structural change, to the neglect of the micro-level processes, choices and behaviours involved. As said, in social studies more generally, there is recognition of the roles of both macro structures and individual agents in relationship with one another. Indeed the structuration theory (Giddens, Reference Giddens1984) that Geels (Reference Geels2002) used to explain the differing degrees of societal embeddedness of the niche, regime and landscape in his multi-level perspective is an explicit attempt to reconcile macro- and micro-level phenomena (agents reproduce external structures by following internalised rules, a version of Bourdieu’s (Reference Bourdieu1977) theory of habitus). For further detail on micro-macro linkages in the social sciences generally, see Raub et al. (Reference Raub, Buskens and van Assen2011), who provide a short review of the work of the many authors who have sought to connect levels of analysis to understand social phenomena.

Social practice theory (Warde, Reference Warde2005), as mentioned above and drawing heavily on Bourdieu (Reference Bourdieu1977), is one of the approaches that contributes to delineating these relationships in depth, though again more leaning towards the structural side (see also Chapter 6 in this book). Instead, in psychology and behavioural economics, there has been a strong presumption that behaviour change research should aim to identify the decisive factors operating principally at the individual level, and that understanding these factors will support an anticipatory, predictive and interventionist approach to social change. These different positions are partly related to academic traditions: while sociologists and political scientists tend to emphasise structures, psychologists and behavioural economists tend to emphasise individual autonomy in decision-making and behavioural choices, even if those choices might be considered flawed from some external perspective. Moreover – and this is where the main problem lies in this context – much of the most popular social psychological or behavioural research in recent decades has focused on intra-individual processes. This is epitomised in theories such as the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (Fishbein & Ajzen, Reference Fishbein and Ajzen1980) and the norm activation model (Schwartz, Reference Schwartz1977), which recognise factors external to individuals but nonetheless focus on individual, subjective experience to explain behaviour.Footnote ⁴ Bosnjak et al. (Reference Bosnjak, Ajzen and Schmidt2020) report that as of April 2020, the TPB had been investigated in more than 4200 papers referenced in the Web of Science, which means it is one of the most frequently applied theories in the social and behavioural sciences. It is not surprising that some sustainability transitions theorists want to keep a clear emphasis on structures external to individuals, and on collective, social phenomena rather than on the individual. At the same time, structure-focused research faces greater challenges in producing (seemingly) precise quantitative results, which has led to a lower societal impact compared to behavioural economics (Fuchs et al., Reference Fuchs, Debourdeau, Dütschke, Fahy, Garzon, Kirchler, Klöckner and Sahakian2025).

Kaufman et al. (Reference Kaufman, Saeri, Raven, Malekpour and Smith2021) call for a combination of perspectives instead to advance transitions and to ensure that relevant dynamics at different levels are not underestimated. This means recognising, considering and above all addressing the role of structures as well as the complexity of factors influencing socio-technical change, as in practice-driven approaches to everyday behaviour, by also considering strategic behaviour. At the same time, however, they take the view that the individual level should not be neglected – in its habitual constraints, but also with its capacity for reflective behaviour to adapt habits and routines and to support or resist to system change (ibid.).

Of other authors working in this space, Göpel (Reference Göpel2016) emphasises the role of individual mindsets for sustainability transformations; Huttunen et al. (Reference Huttunen, Kaljonen, Lonkila, Rantala, Rekola and Paloniemi2021) call for a pluralistic understanding of agency; and Upham et al. (Reference Upham, Bögel and Dütschke2019) set out ways in which micro-macro connections may be made in research practice: via nested or connected studies at different scales, using different methods; use of bridging concepts that have both individual and social dimensions (e.g. narratives or social representations); and study of individuals within collectives, such as organisations or movements.

Geels (Reference Geels2020, p. 3) strongly questions the endeavour to bring individual-level processes into transitions analysis, saying: ‘(…) methodological individualists suggest that only individual human beings should be considered as actors with the capacity to act (…) Such a conceptualisation is practically unworkable, however, for socio-technical transitions.’ Geels (Reference Geels2020) argues that too many individuals are involved in transitions and that collective actors are thus a key focus. Yet those seeking to bring social psychological insights into transitions perspectives are not arguing for methodological individualism, nor are they arguing against the importance of studying collective actors. The matter of there being too many individuals to account for is again not a very convincing argument: rarely does social psychology reason from the experience of single individuals alone, and transitions analysts themselves deal with a plethora of technologies, companies and contexts. In fact, the transitions literature often reasons from individual cases or a small number of these, which entails its own issues of generalizability. What matters in all of this is correspondence between the purposes of a study, its research questions, methods, theories or frameworks and the claims being made. What we have sought to explain above is that bridging macro-micro schisms is a longstanding tradition in the social sciences (Ritzer, Reference Ritzer2008), and that studying the role of individual behaviour in transitions is just one instance of this endeavour – but a worthwhile one.

19.5 Summary & Conclusions

Summing up, the perspective on individuals and behaviours has not been a core topic of transitions research, which has traditionally focused on mid-range theories. However, as the field becomes increasingly differentiated and with rising interest in details and complexities and the increasing awareness that actual sustainability transitions have not moved forward at the pace and the impact level needed, interest in the individual level is increasing. This also leads to a higher interest in building bridges to other disciplines with a longer history on these topics, first of all (social) psychology, but also other fields such as behavioural economics.

In the future, further conceptual development, especially to making links with already more established concepts and streams of research in transitions research is needed, as continued by authors such as Kaufman et al. (Reference Kaufman, Saeri, Raven, Malekpour and Smith2021) or Göpel (Reference Göpel2016). This could also contribute to overcoming some of the debates around the field or to move further by creating more detailed knowledge. More specifically, potential avenues for future research include:

• Future research should enhance our understanding of individuals and their behaviours by adopting a multi-actor approach, recognizing people not just as consumers, but also as decision-makers, public activists and policymakers (Upham et al., Reference Upham, Bögel and Dütschke2019).

• Studying the interrelation between individual and collective behaviour is crucial to understanding how individual actions influence collective strategies at micro, meso and macro levels.

• Analysing the diverse behaviours within multi-actor systems during different phases of transitions is important, including the roles of advocates, intermediaries, incumbents and those impacted by transitions, while also exploring how transitions become normalized and their effects on individual behaviour.

• Research should further explore how social disparities, inclusiveness and diversity impact individual behaviour in transitions, with a particular focus on underexplored factors such as gender influences.

This chapter ends on a reflexive note, as research on sustainability transitions is often, at least implicitly, normative in terms of the goals transitions seek to achieve; however, this context also raises a potential pitfall: a tendency towards an instrumental interpretation of behaviour and its transformation, which the field needs to be cautious about.

20.1 Introduction to Coalitions in Transitions Research

Sustainability transitions can be understood as the transformation of socio-technical systems towards the sustainable provision of societal functions (see the introduction of the book). Socio-technical systems are held together by formal and informal rules, also called institutions. These rules include shared beliefs and values, routines, laws, policies, institutionalised practices and capabilities (Fuenfschilling & Truffer, Reference Fuenfschilling and Truffer2014; Geels, Reference Geels2004). For sustainability transitions to materialise, the formal and informal rules of socio-technical systems need to change. In democratic societies, individuals acting alone rarely have the power needed to bring about institutional change that can eventually lead to system-level change. Rather, individuals need to collaborate and coordinate their actions, often in the form of coalitions, to collectively change and shape these rules. For example, Smith, Stirling und Berkhout (Reference Smith, Stirling and Berkhout2005, 1492) state that: ‘system-level change is, by definition, enacted through the coordination and steering of many actors and resources’. In sustainability transition studies, we define coalitions as groups of actors who share the same goal and coordinate strategies and actions over time to shape the socio-technical systems they operate in. As a result of these coalition-driven actions, selection environments are created in which sustainable innovations can thrive, and unsustainable socio-technical configurations are destabilised and phased out.

The concept of coalitions is often used in transition theory to represent coordination and steering efforts. Diverse empirical examples of coalitions advocating for change can be found throughout the sustainability transitions literature, including those related to the deployment of renewable electricity technologies in Germany (Geels et al., Reference Geels, Kern, Fuchs, Hinderer, Kungl and Mylan2016; Jacobsson & Bergek, Reference Jacobsson and Bergek2004; Jacobsson & Lauber, Reference Jacobsson and Lauber2006; Lauber & Mez, Reference Lauber and Mez2004; Negro & Hekkert, Reference Negro and Hekkert2008); the deployment of renewable electricity technology in Sweden and the Netherlands (Ulmanen, Verbong & Raven, Reference Ulmanen, Verbong and Raven2009); hydrogen in Germany (Löhr, Markard & Ohlendorf, Reference Löhr, Markard and Ohlendorf2024); Swiss energy policy (Markard, Suter & Ingold, Reference Markard, Suter and Ingold2016); the green transition in Finland (Haukkala (Reference Haukkala2018); with a focus on European energy transitions (Lindberg & Kammermann, Reference Lindberg and Kammermann2021); and with a more conceptual lens Roberts et al. (Reference Roberts and Geels2018) and Hess (Reference Hess2019b). In these contributions, coordination is often described as taking place in niche-support coalitions that collectively pressure regime actors to change institutions, thereby adapting the selection environment to favour niche innovations.

Although the concept of coalitions is frequently used in sustainability transitions, it is often applied in various ways and is not well conceptualised. To improve the conceptualisation of coalitions and their role in sustainability transitions research, the goals of this chapter are to:

• define coalitions and related concepts (Section 20.2),

• show how coalitions have been used in sustainability transitions studies (Section 20.3),

• introduce theoretical strands that use different types of coalition concepts and discuss how they can be applied to sustainability transitions (Section 20.4) and

• highlight valuable avenues for future coalition-related research (Section 20.5).

20.2 Defining Coalitions and Adjacent Collective Action Concepts

The terminology used for coalitions and adjacent concepts is inconsistent and researchers both in the sustainability transitions field and in related social science fields (e.g. sociology, political science and organisational studies) describe similar topics with different terms. The term ‘collective action’ is used here and in the background literature as an umbrella category for political action beyond the individual level with a shared goal or goals for change (Diani & Bison, Reference Diani and Bison2004). Hence, although the focus of this chapter is on coalitions, we also define related concepts, such as social networks, alliances and social movements, to delineate their distinct boundaries and differences.

We suggest using these in the following sense:

• Social Network: A social network is a dynamic, interconnected system of individuals, groups, organisations, or other entities that share relationships, values, or interests. These social actors (nodes) are linked by ties (edges) that define their interactions, collaborations and dynamics (McLevey, Scott & Carrington, Reference McLevey, Scott and Carrington2024). Network nodes can also include non-actor entities, such as ideas, frames, or events. The ties can be formal or informal and direct or indirect and for actors, they involve various forms of interaction, such as communication, exchange of resources, or mutual support. The nature of these ties shapes the network’s structure, which influences the flow of information, the distribution of power and the overall dynamics of the network changes.

• Alliance: An alliance is understood here as an agreement between two or more actors with a common goal. In the context of politics, an alliance often refers to a formal relationship between government units (such as countries that form a league or confederation) or between political parties that form an alliance prior to elections. The term ‘alliance’ can also refer to companies that have a formal relationship, such as two airlines that coordinate and share routes (Oxford English Dictionary).

• Coalition: The term ‘coalition’ is sometimes used synonymously with ‘alliance’; however, the term ‘coalition’ is understood here as a broader concept. In general, a coalition involves different types of actors who share a goal (e.g. beliefs in the Advocacy Coalition Framework) and have some coordination of strategy (Weible & Ingold, Reference Weible and Ingold2018). Coalition action may also involve multiple episodes or events over time. Coalitions can be ephemeral and short-lived or become more established (Weible, Ingold, Nohrstedt, Henry & Jenkins‐Smith, Reference Weible, Ingold, Nohrstedt, Henry and Jenkins-Smith2020). In politics, a common use of the term occurs when two or more political parties form a coalition government. In contrast in sustainability transitions studies, the main coalitions are those engaged in the governance of socio-technical systems. These coalitions can be in favour of or in opposition to efforts that support niche configurations or the phase-out of unsustainable configurations. Like social movements, coalitions emerge from diverse conditions, including institutional opportunities, mobilisation capacity and resources and political conflicts and grievances (M. Fischer, Reference Fischer2015; van Dyke & Amos, Reference Van Dyke and Amos2017).

• Social Movement: The term ‘social movement’ often refers to a long-term mobilisation of actors across diverse campaigns that challenge authorities and seek change. Examples include the environmentalist, anti- or decolonial, feminist, labour and conservative movements (van Dyke & Amos, Reference Van Dyke and Amos2017). The understanding of a social movement often includes the idea of protest or extra-institutional action, such as the following: ‘A social movement is a collective, organised, sustained and non-institutional challenge to authorities, powerholders, or cultural beliefs and practices’ (Goodwin & Jasper, Reference Goodwin and Jasper2003). Depending on the temporal and spatial scale on which an analysis is based, social movements can comprise multiple coalitions over diverse campaigns. Whereas the term ‘coalition’ is generally used in the context of state-oriented action with an institutional repertoire of action, the term ‘social movement’ can have non-state actors as targets and can include extra-institutional repertoires of action, such as street protest and civil disobedience (Della Porta & Diani, Reference Della Porta and Diani2017).

20.3 The Role of Coalitions in Established Transition Research Frameworks

Coalitions have been described and used in several of the main sustainability transitions frameworks. In the following section, four major sustainability transitions frameworks will be briefly introduced, with an emphasis on how, if at all, they conceptualise coalitions. These frameworks were selected as foundational approaches in transition studies (Markard, Raven & Truffer, Reference Markard, Raven and Truffer2012). When introducing the use of coalitions in these four key frameworks, we will also briefly discuss coalition frameworks developed outside the Sustainability Transitions Research field, such as the Advocacy Coalitions Framework and the Discourse Coalition approach. These frameworks will be explored in greater detail in Section 20.4, alongside the concepts of Policy Networks and Strategic Action Fields.

20.4 Introduction of Four Theoretical Strands to Understanding Coalitions

In this section, we will introduce four theoretical strands, the Advocacy Coalition Framework, Discourse Coalitions, Policy Networks and Strategic Action Fields, that use different types of coalition concepts. We will discuss how these can be harnessed for sustainability transitions studies. The number of concepts could easily be expanded. However, we have chosen those that most closely deal with coalitions. For a general discussion of policy process theories in particular and how to utilise them for sustainability transitions research, see also Kern und Rogge (Reference Kern and Rogge2018).Footnote ¹

20.5 Future Research Needs and Conclusion

Here, we identify and discuss several key areas for future research related to coalitions based on the previous findings. These areas are categorised into three themes: linking coalition theories to transition theory, characteristics and internal dynamics of coalitions and the activities and strategies of coalitions to accelerate socio-technical change.