Disruption in Sustainability Transitions

doi:10.1017/9781009437318.015

11 - Disruption in Sustainability Transitions

from Part II.A - Dynamics of Transitions

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2026

Paula Kivimaa ,

Annika Lonkila and

Minna Kaljonen

Edited by

Julius Wesche and

Abe Hendriks

Show author details

Julius Wesche: Affiliation:
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
Abe Hendriks: Affiliation:
Utrecht University

Book contents

Summary

Sustainability transitions have often been described as involving ‘disruptions’. However, many writings in this field have been imprecise about what disruption means in the context of transitions, beyond the disruption of the status quo. References to disruptions in the literature have ranged from a discourse on disruptive niche innovations to disruptive landscape influences. A systematic literature review revealed that the conceptualisation of disruption was often imprecise and empirical studies were largely focused on the energy sector. In this chapter, we build on this definition of disruption and complement the understanding by reviewing the most recent literature, adding to the initial review. This chapter provides much-needed clarity on the conceptual confusion that has emerged and evaluates the links between the concept of disruption and the ways in which mainstream technologies, practices, and business models in socio-technical regimes need to be phased out, destabilised, or undergo decline. We conclude by examining the relevance of the concept of disruption to emerging scholarly and societal debates on just transitions.

Keywords

sustainability transitions disruption just transition literature review

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Introduction to Sustainability Transitions Research , pp. 201 - 218

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009437318.015 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2026
Creative Commons: This content is Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/cclicenses/

11 Disruption in Sustainability Transitions

11.1 Introduction

This chapter examines how the concept of disruption has been used and defined in the context of sustainability transition studies. Sustainability transitions have often been described to involve ‘disruptions’. However, many writings in this field have been rather imprecise about what disruption means in the context of transitions, beyond the disruption of status quo. In the literature, references to disruptions have ranged from a discourse on disruptive niche innovations (Wilson & Tyfield Reference Wilson and Tyfield2018) to disruptive landscape influences (Geels & Schot Reference Geels and Schot2007). A systematic literature review conducted in 2020 revealed that the conceptualisation of disruption was often imprecise and empirical studies were oriented to the energy sector (Kivimaa et al. Reference Kivimaa, Laakso, Lonkila and Kaljonen2021). In the review, we defined disruption as a ‘high-intensity effect in the structure of the socio-technical system(s), demonstrated as long-term change in more than one dimension or element, unlocking the stability and operation of incumbent technology and infrastructure, markets and business models, regulations and policy, actors, networks and ownership structures, and/or practices, behaviour and cultural models’ (Kivimaa et al. Reference Kivimaa, Laakso, Lonkila and Kaljonen2021: p. 119).

In this chapter, we build on this definition of disruption and complement the understanding by reviewing the most recent literature on disruption, adding to the initial review comprising 47 articles. While disruption as a concept originates from the literature on disruptive innovation, we can see its recent expansion in transitions studies encompassing whole socio-technical systems. This chapter provides much-needed clarity on the conceptual confusion that has ensued and evaluates the links between the concept of disruption, and the ways in which mainstream technologies, practices and business models in socio-technical regimes need to be phased-out (Johnstone & Hielscher Reference Johnstone and Hielscher2017; Koretsky & van Lente Reference Koretsky and van Lente2020), destabilised (Karltorp & Sandén Reference Karltorp and Sandén2012; Turnheim & Geels Reference Turnheim and Geels2013; Turnheim Reference Turnheim, Koretsky, Stegmaier, Turnheim and van Lente2022) or decline (Koretsky et al. Reference Koretsky, Stegmaier, Turnheim and Lente2022; Novalia et al. Reference Novalia, McGrail, Rogers, Raven, Brown and Loorbach2022; Rosenbloom and Rinscheid Reference Rosenbloom and Rinscheid2020). We end by examining the relevance of the concept of disruption to emerging scholarly and societal debate on just transitions.

11.2 Conceptualising Disruption in Transition Studies

Disruptive innovation emerged in the 1980s and 1990s innovation management literature, which described it as innovation which has industry-changing effects (Christensen Reference Christensen1997; Tushman & Anderson Reference Tushman and Anderson1986). Early definitions also described disruptive innovations to constitute products and services which may perform worse than mainstream products but result in other benefits to customers (Christensen Reference Christensen1997; Christensen & Rayner Reference Christensen and Rayner2003). These were described to contrast sustaining innovations which incrementally improved existing products or processes (Christensen & Rayner Reference Christensen and Rayner2003). Later literature has critiqued early literature of too simplistic arguments but agreed with the interpretation that disruption is related to the activities of incumbent actors (Markides Reference Markides2006) in a way that may force them to change their actions. Disruption, therefore, also connects to how incumbency has often been framed in the transitions literature as something that needs changing (Stirling Reference Stirling2019).

The literature on disruptive innovation has developed since then to a more nuanced direction. For example, more recent argumentation increasingly emphasised that disruption does not mean the loss of all competencies for incumbent firms (Ho & Chen Reference Ho and Chen2018) – as indicated by Abernathy and Clark (Reference Abernathy and Clark1985). Instead, incumbent actors are diverse and are not only passive targets of disruption, destabilisation or regime decline. Therefore, disruptive innovation and broader disruptive influences alike rather create a reason for incumbents to change. This can occur, for instance, in the form of repurposing assets, reconfiguring products or reskilling workforce (Kivimaa & Sivonen Reference Kivimaa and Sivonen2023; Lonkila & Kaljonen Reference Lonkila and Kaljonen2021; Mäkitie Reference Mäkitie2020). Disruption can, in effect, lead to more substantial shifts in the practices of incumbents than more incremental change processes.

Figure 11.1 shows development in the use of the concept of disruption in innovation and transition studies from the 1980s until 2019. In both fields, one can see branching out to different uses and understandings.

Flowchart showing evolution of the ‘disruption’ concept from innovation management (new processes, competence reduction) to transitions literature (system-level impacts, transition processes).

Figure 11.1 Illustration of the evolution of the concept of disruption in innovation management and transition literatures.

Source: Reproduced from Kivimaa et al. (2021), under Creative Commons license.

One of the core arguments in the literature on disruption in sustainability transitions is that disruption can happen regarding different system dimensions (Johnstone et al. Reference Johnstone, Rogge, Kivimaa, Fratini, Primmer and Stirling2020). In the Kivimaa et al. (Reference Kivimaa, Laakso, Lonkila and Kaljonen2021) literature review, in addition to (1) technology, we identified four other dimensions regarding where disruptions may take place: (2) markets and business models, (3) regulations, policies and formal institutions, (4) actors and networks, as well as (5) behaviour, practices and cultural models. Table 11.1 provides some explanations regarding what disruption can mean in each of these categories.

Table 11.1 Dimensions of disruption in transitions (adapted from Johnstone et al. Reference Johnstone, Rogge, Kivimaa, Fratini, Primmer and Stirling2020 and Kivimaa et al. Reference Kivimaa, Laakso, Lonkila and Kaljonen2021)

Dimension of disruption	Explanation
Technology	– Novel technology disrupting dominating technology and infrastructure by differentiated qualities – Requires initial shielding from mainstream selection pressures
Markets and business models	– New value propositions and ways to capture value, changing relationships between producers and consumers, influence across supply chains – Pressure to renew incumbent business models, reducing market shares, reduced value of organisational assets and competences – New entrants and new business models from new actors or incumbents (connected to the actor dimension)
Regulations, policies and formal institutions	– Regulatory interventions triggering disruptive innovation or their diffusion – Removal of barriers created by existing regulation and policy structures – Policy mixes in the support of systemic disruption; push and pull mechanisms – Dis-alignments between disruptive innovation and existing regulation, calling for regulatory change – Disruptions of institutions via broader institutional shifts, such as closing down or creating new ministries or agencies; or reshuffling their structures, mandates or legitimacy – Deliberate decline of unsustainable industries, technologies or practices, regulated by the state
Actors and networks	– Disruption as a shift in power from incumbents to other actor groups and within innovation alliances; emergence of new disruptive actors in production and supply – Changing ownership of assets (in terms of kind of actors), with implications on justice and democracy – New skills and competencies required from actors – Incumbent actors’ reduced influence or fight back
Practices, behaviour and cultural models	– Innovations disrupting everyday practices, behaviour and ways of life – Existing practices behaviours and cultural models resisting disruption – Disruptions in housing, transport and eating having a strong influence on how living and working are organised on a community level – Institutional work on questioning assumptions and beliefs underlying practices – Disruption in business cultures

A second argument is that disruption can be characterised in terms of magnitude and speed of change. The most typical association of disruption, perhaps, is an initially small magnitude of change in the form of disruptive innovation. Examples include e-bikes and solar thermal water tanks and potentially electric vehicles (Wilson Reference Wilson2018). Introduction of plant-based proteins into food systems (Bulah et al. Reference Bulah, Negro, Beumer and Hekkert2023) is an example of gradual small magnitude of change that has not changed the power structures in the food chain. A larger magnitude of change would require major shifts in the relations between farmers, food industry and retail (Lonkila & Kaljonen Reference Lonkila and Kaljonen2021). In a transitions context, large magnitude of change covers multiple elements of systems (see Table 11.2). Such change can be gradual or rapid, the latter more frequently associated with discontinuity, breakdown and replacement. For instance, a large magnitude gradual change can be exemplified by the ways in which the diffusion of wind and solar power have substantially altered the electricity system in many countries (Johnstone et al. Reference Johnstone, Rogge, Kivimaa, Fratini, Primmer and Stirling2020). In turn, more rapid large changes can result from ‘landscape shocks’, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and wars (see Chapter 7). Examples include the rapid and persistent change to telework and hybrid work (Newbold et al. Reference Newbold, Rudnicka, Cook, Cecchinato, Gould and Cox2022; Verma et al. Reference Verma, Venkatesan, Kumar and Verma2022). Harnessing such disruptive landscape events for large changes has also been called for (Markard & Rosenbloom Reference Markard and Rosenbloom2020). The Kivimaa et al. (Reference Kivimaa, Laakso, Lonkila and Kaljonen2021) review argued that it is not only rapid changes which should be accounted for as disruption but also gradual changes of large magnitude that result in whole system reconfigurations.

Table 11.2Disruption in sustainability transitions in terms of speed and magnitude of change (Kivimaa et al. )
	Gradual change	Rapid change
Large magnitude of change, covering multiple system elements or dimensions of disruption	Disruption associated with gradual transformation and subtle reconfiguration of the whole system	Disruption characterised by discontinuity, breakdown and replacement, stretch-and-transform of the whole system
Small magnitude of change, covering a single system element or dimension of disruption	Non-disruptive incremental change, sustaining existing system configurations	Disruption associated with disruptive innovation, fit-and-conform, survival and return

Overall, in Kivimaa et al. (Reference Kivimaa, Laakso, Lonkila and Kaljonen2021), we emphasised that a multi-dimensional understanding of disruption is important, and it needs to go beyond technological change and high-tech innovation. Moreover, disruption in one system dimension can lead to a cascade of disruptions where, for instance, a technological disruption leads to business model disruption and a disruption in practices. For instance, technological advances in data sharing and programming created new business models around mobility-as-a-service with potential for broader transport transitions (Carbonara et al. Reference Carbonara, Messeni Petruzzelli, Panniello and De Vita2024; Kivimaa & Rogge Reference Kivimaa and Rogge2022). Or, alternatively, a disruption in actor-networks can create a regulatory or technological disruption. This is not, however, always the case. A technological disruption can also support established practices, such as in the case of biofuels or electric vehicles that maintain established private car-based mobility practices. There are many ways in which disruption in transitions unfold. In essence, disruption as a phenomenon is unpredictable and unruly, and, for instance, technological disruption can lead to changes to more unsustainable practices (Kivimaa et al. Reference Kivimaa, Laakso, Lonkila and Kaljonen2021).

11.3 New Understandings and Specifications

The research on disruption in transitions has expanded since late 2020, when the Kivimaa et al. (Reference Kivimaa, Laakso, Lonkila and Kaljonen2021) review was conducted. In 2020, a search of terms ‘disrupt*’ AND ‘sustainability transition*’ OR ‘socio-technical transition*’ OR ‘socio-technical transition*’ OR ‘societal transition*’ resulted in 47 relevant articles (Kivimaa et al. Reference Kivimaa, Laakso, Lonkila and Kaljonen2021: p. 112). In September 2023, the same search on Web of Science, for the years 2021–2023 resulted in 36 articles published as scientific articles (excluding our review article). The articles were published in a wide variety of sources, in 30 academic journals and over a dozen empirical contexts. The energy sector dominated with about a quarter of articles, followed by agriculture and food, COVID-19, urban development and circular economy. About a third did not have a specific country focus, while Germany was most often mentioned.

As an overview, it can be stated that no coherent interpretation of disruption still exists in the sustainability transitions’ literature. In general, the term ‘disruption’ or ‘disruptive’ are often used as regular descriptive words. In our updated light review, 20 articles out of the 36 articles found were discarded due to only using disruptive as descriptive term. A few discussed disruptions as transition phenomena but did not delve deeper into it empirically or conceptually. We analysed the remaining 13 articles more closely for the purposes of this book chapter to update the insights derived from the Kivimaa et al. (Reference Kivimaa, Laakso, Lonkila and Kaljonen2021) literature review. We identified how recent uses of the concept of disruption link to our previous categorisation in terms of technology, markets and business models, regulations, policies and formal institutions, actors and networks and practices, behaviour and cultural models (Table 11.1). The new articles especially addressed disruption in relation to niche or incumbent actors, the COVID-19 pandemic as a landscape disruption and the nature of disruption. We will sum up these insights below.

11.3.1 Actors and Disruption

Several of the new articles strengthen the understanding of niche actors in altering and disrupting existing practices and cultural models. For example, analysing institutional work related to plant-based protein innovations, Bulah et al. (Reference Bulah, Negro, Beumer and Hekkert2023) show that niche actors actively work to disrupt cultural norms and values upholding the meat regime. Disruptive actors also work to undermine the institutions upholding the regime and work to disrupt, for example, policy or monetary support to dominant regime technologies and practices. Also, Bobbins et al. (Reference Bobbins, Caprotti, de Groot, Pailman, Moorlach, Schloemann and Siwali2023) highlight the role of practices, community dynamics and lived experience of actors in enabling the disruptiveness of innovations, underlining that disrupting innovations never exist beyond and ‘apart from’ existing socio-technical systems and cultural dynamics but as integral parts of them.

Looking at the role of prosumers in the energy transition, Weigelt et al. (Reference Weigelt, Lu and Verhaal2021) show the active role of disruptive actors by illustrating that disruption emerges not only from disruptive technologies but also their application by actors. They found that prosumers applied niche innovations in a novel and disruptive manner, especially in relation to incumbent actors’ business models, showcasing an example of a ‘stretch-and-transform’ process (see Smith & Raven Reference Smith and Raven2012). Thus, recent research using the concept of disruption strengthens the understanding of disruptions as forces undermining regime institutions and their practices, and potentially accelerating transition to more sustainable practices. This is in accordance with the understanding of transition strategies by Smith and Raven (Reference Smith and Raven2012) and shows that niche actors can deploy innovations in disruptive or conforming ways in relation to the existing socio-technical regime.

In contrast to our earlier review of disruption (Kivimaa et al. Reference Kivimaa, Laakso, Lonkila and Kaljonen2021), recent work has paid more attention to the increasingly complex role of incumbents as agents in both promoting and resisting transition. While the traditional take on disruption regarding incumbent actors has been the reduced value of (i.e. a disruption to) existing skills and resources held by the incumbents (e.g. Abernathy & Clark Reference Abernathy and Clark1985; Turnheim & Geels Reference Turnheim and Geels2013), new research has revealed the opportunities for incumbents to repurpose their skills and resources in response to disruptions (Mäkitie Reference Mäkitie2020; Nemes et al. Reference Nemes, Chiffoleau, Zollet, Collison, Benedek, Colantuono and Dulsrud2021). Kivimaa and Sivonen (Reference Kivimaa and Sivonen2023) have interpreted this as a process of ‘disruption to and repurposing skills and assets’ in the context of regime decline (see chapter 11.4 on decline). While facing disruption of skills and assets, incumbents are in a rather passive position, repurposing them shows a more active reaction to the ongoing transition.

There are other possible actions too. In this vein, two papers highlight the multifaceted role of disruptive incumbent actors. Interestingly, Galvan et al. (Reference Galvan, Cuppen and Taanman2020) show, by analysing grid operators, that incumbent regime actors can engage in both disruptive and maintaining practices simultaneously. Incumbents’ work in disrupting institutions that create barriers for their interests may also open space for the growth of niches. In turn, Loehr et al. (Reference Loehr, Chlebna and Mattes2022) foreground that along disruptive actions of incumbents, it is also crucial to analyse defensive institutional work that aims to resist and prevent transition. Defensive work resists disruptions and is geared at maintaining existing practices of the regime. It can take the shape of delegitimising novel practices, rules and technologies (Lehmann et al. Reference Lehmann, Graf-Vlachy and Koenig2019; Loehr et al. Reference Loehr, Chlebna and Mattes2022). Defensive work may in its turn have a disruptive effect towards the transition process (Loehr et al. Reference Loehr, Chlebna and Mattes2022), in other words a disruption of disruption. This understanding of disruption as impeding ongoing developments towards sustainability offers a novel perspective on the dimensions of disruptive actors and disruptive behaviour and practices. We suggest that a more nuanced understanding of disruptive incumbency can open avenues for harnessing the role of incumbency in accelerating transition, while also offering conceptual tools for navigating the various forms of regime resistance as well as disruption.

11.3.2 The COVID-19 Pandemic and Disruption

Recent articles on disruptive landscape events, especially on the COVID-19 pandemic, highlight the usefulness of categorising different dimensions of disruption and a detailed analysis of what is being disrupted and by whom. While landscape-level shocks open an opportunity for rapid change on a large scale, recent research underlines the complexities and resistances faced by such disruptive processes. Nemes et al. (Reference Nemes, Chiffoleau, Zollet, Collison, Benedek, Colantuono and Dulsrud2021) emphasise how the COVID-19 pandemic is exceptional in its large-scale influence on all-encompassing disruption on supply chains, so essentially a substantial landscape shock (see Kanda & Kivimaa Reference Kanda and Kivimaa2020). They note that the pandemic revealed the need to develop more resilient socio-technical systems against future disruptions.

Markard and Rosenbloom (Reference Markard and Rosenbloom2020) argue that the disruptive power of landscape-level shocks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, must be actively harnessed to accelerate the decline of carbon-intensive technologies, industries and practices. Disruptive landscape events have potential to break ‘carbon lock-ins’ and open and accelerate low-carbon pathways, but this must be coupled with long-term processes of destabilisation and phase-out, to prevent a return to the preceding status quo once the initial landscape disruption has passed. This indicates that disruption on the level of institutions and regulations is needed to realise the disruptive potential of landscape shocks, again pointing out the interrelatedness of different spheres of disruption and the limits of one dimension alone. Indeed, Hirth et al. (Reference Hirth, Oncini, Boons and Doherty2022) have criticised the expectation that disruptive events kick-start systemic change towards sustainability. They showed that the COVID-19 pandemic did not disrupt regime practices in the context of different food provision sectors, because routinised and non-deliberative practices hindered transformation. This underlines that, other disruptions, influencing practices and behaviour, are needed to realise the disruptive potential of landscape shocks. Landscape disruption alone seems insufficient to stimulate sustainability transitions.

11.3.3 Nature of Disruption: Outcome Versus Process

Novel work on disruption continues to address the debate on whether disruption should be understood as a transition process or its outcome. For instance, Lazarevic et al. (Reference Lazarevic, Salo and Kautto2022: p.5) present dealignment and destabilisation as processes within the sustainability transition that facilitate “the development of disruptive policy frameworks and governance arrangements that challenge existing systems”. Hence, they indicate, too, that destabilisation is the process and disruption the outcome and the means to achieve transitions. This matches the definition presented above (and in Kivimaa et al. Reference Kivimaa, Laakso, Lonkila and Kaljonen2021) that portrays disruption as transition-related change. Also, Simoens et al. (Reference Simoens, Fuenfschilling and Leipold2022) associate disruption as an outcome, describing disruptive discursive change that can unlock previously unchallenged values and beliefs, creating openings for alternative discourse.

Contrary to this understanding, Blomsma et al. (Reference Blomsma, Bauwens, Weissbrod and Kirchherr2023) regard disruption as a process with three phases: release, reorganisation and eruption. They associate ‘circular disruption’ to a formation of a new paradigm which differs from the linear model of innovation and economy and which refers to systemic, widespread and fast change. This understanding is in partial contradiction to our previous proposal (Table 11.2), where certain types of disruptions are also associated with gradual transformative change and reconfiguration. Blomsma et al. (Reference Blomsma, Bauwens, Weissbrod and Kirchherr2023) also call for increased reflexivity among the transition studies community, to move from describing historic disruptions to outlining the conditions necessary for accelerating systemic change in close collaboration with other actors. On the other hand, Heiges and O’Neill (Reference Heiges and O’Neill2022) highlight the value of descriptive policy analysis when evaluating the impacts of past and existing disruptive or destabilising policies. They show that in the case of plastics recycling in the US, existing niches were not mature enough to become dominant regime actors when a major policy event took place. This opened space for the emergence of multiple co-existing regimes as a novel transition pathway, which can create further understanding for transition dynamics and governance. In other words, examining past and ongoing policy developments can reveal unexpected transition dynamics and add to existing understanding of potential transition pathways (Heiges & O’Neill Reference Heiges and O’Neill2022).

11.4 Disruption in Relation to Destablisation, Decline, Phase-out and Just Transition

Destabilisation, decline and phase-out are closely linked concepts to that of disruption in sustainability transition studies. In this literature, the concepts of disruption and destabilisation share some similar characteristics but differ in their origin (Kivimaa et al. Reference Kivimaa, Laakso, Lonkila and Kaljonen2021). While the concept of disruption originates from innovation and management studies as something contrary to incremental innovation (see Christensen Reference Christensen1997), the concept of destabilisation originates from the changes affected by or initiating from the socio-technical regime (see Turnheim & Geels Reference Turnheim and Geels2012, Reference Turnheim and Geels2013). Therefore, destabilisation is an original concept of transition studies, whereas disruption is an ‘imported’ one. Moreover, destabilisation is mostly used in the context of the Multi-level perspective (MLP) (see Chapter 2), while disruption is used more broadly in transition studies (Kivimaa et al. Reference Kivimaa, Laakso, Lonkila and Kaljonen2021). As the understanding of disruption has expanded from radical niche innovations to landscape events and regime changes in different dimensions, the two concepts have clearly moved closer to one another. Their intertwining is needed to understand the broader societal processes linked to disruptions.

Turnheim (Reference Turnheim, Koretsky, Stegmaier, Turnheim and van Lente2022: p. 45) defines destabilisation as “a longitudinal process by which otherwise relatively stable and coherent socio-technical forms (systems, regimes, institutional arrangements, sets of practices and networks) become exposed to challenges significant enough to threaten their continued existence and their “normal” functioning, triggering strategic responses of core actors within the frame of existing commitments (preservation) and in some circumstances away from such commitments (transformation).” Also, Ghosh et al. (Reference Ghosh, Kivimaa, Ramirez, Schot and Torrens2021: p. 17) define destabilisation as reducing alignment between the different system elements “resulting in a process in which regime actors abandon behaviors, beliefs and values constituting the [socio-technical] regime”. Destabilisation is hence mostly understood as a process (Martínez Arranz Reference Martínez Arranz2017; Turnheim & Geels Reference Turnheim and Geels2013), which is caused by rapid or gradual disruption(s). One could argue that the process of destabilisation that creates disalignment between system elements may then be followed by disruptive changes within these system elements, leading to disruptive outcomes.

Decline, in contrast, relates to often a more objectifiable or quantifiable degradation of system performance (e.g. size, economic viability, population, hegemonic power, legitimacy), which can (but rarely does) lead to total decline (Turnheim Reference Turnheim, Koretsky, Stegmaier, Turnheim and van Lente2022: p. 45). In this sense, it comes closer to understanding of disruption as an outcome. Deliberate decline (Rosenbloom & Rinscheid Reference Rosenbloom and Rinscheid2020) and phase-out (Johnstone & Hielscher Reference Johnstone and Hielscher2017; Koretsky & van Lente Reference Koretsky and van Lente2020), in turn, relate to deliberate interventions seeking partial or total discontinuation of a socio-technical form that is deemed undesirable (Turnheim Reference Turnheim, Koretsky, Stegmaier, Turnheim and van Lente2022). This perspective also relates to disruption in terms of regulations, policies and institutions. Deliberate decline and phase-out, hence, are best understood as governance objectives, forms of intervention and as processes including several temporal phases. Lonkila et al. (Reference Lonkila, Lukkarinen, van Oers, Feola and Kaljonen2024) talk also of deliberate destabilisation (see also Kivimaa & Kern Reference Kivimaa and Kern2016; van Oers et al. Reference van Oers, Feola, Moors and Runhaar2021). However, similarly to how the concept of disruption is understood, there are also different interpretations of decline and phase out. For instance, Koretsky & van Lente (Reference Koretsky and van Lente2020) describe phase-out as a disruption, or unravelling, of the linkages between materials, competencies and meaning (see Shove et al. Reference Shove, Pantzar and Watson2012). Since phasing out implies the disruption of links between the materials-meanings-competences triad, they underline that losing one of them would not be enough (Koretsky & van Lente Reference Koretsky and van Lente2020). Most often, however, phaseout has been a narrower concept than disruption, destabilisation or decline. It has mainly focused on technology (Andersen & Gulbrandsen Reference Andersen and Gulbrandsen2020; Koretsky & van Lente Reference Koretsky and van Lente2020) or discourses (Rosenbloom Reference Rosenbloom2018; Trencher et al. Reference Trencher, Healy, Hasegawa and Asuka2019).

Turnheim (Reference Turnheim, Koretsky, Stegmaier, Turnheim and van Lente2022) underlines destabilisation as a dynamic context of action, involving pressures, strategic responses, varying commitments to prevailing commitments and for navigating the changing opportunities. In this way, the concept of destabilisation aims to capture the political dynamics related to transitions in a much more thorough way than the literature concerning disruptions. As also van Oers et al. (Reference van Oers, Feola, Moors and Runhaar2021) and Lonkila et al. (Reference Lonkila, Lukkarinen, van Oers, Feola and Kaljonen2024) highlight the way in which destabilisation challenges the positions of those in power; the political nature of destabilisation cannot be escaped. Incumbent responses to destabilisation may focus on resisting, hindering and slowing down phase-out policies because they not only pose a threat for their vested interests (van der Ploeg Reference van der Ploeg2020) but also more change-oriented responses are possible as illustrated by empirical studies (e.g. Mäkitie Reference Mäkitie2020). Furthermore, the strategic defensive work of incumbents can in turn be disruptive in a negative manner (Lehmann et al. Reference Lehmann, Graf-Vlachy and Koenig2019; Loehr et al. Reference Loehr, Chlebna and Mattes2022), as noted above. Resistance-oriented responses have been shown to emerge within the processes that unsettle technical competency, but are likely to be even more poignant when they touch upon regionally embedded livelihoods, practices, behaviours and cultural models of people (Cha Reference Cha2020; Janssen et al. Reference Janssen, Beers and van Mierlo2022; Lonkila et al. Reference Lonkila, Lukkarinen, van Oers, Feola and Kaljonen2024).

Recent research on destabilisation has called attention to a more plural understanding of incumbency beyond the focus on the most powerful (Andersen & Gulbrandsen Reference Andersen and Gulbrandsen2020; Stirling Reference Stirling2019; Turnheim & Sovacool Reference Turnheim and Sovacool2020). Local communities, workers and civil society organisations also embody attributes of incumbency with strong cultural, material and financial ties to existing regimes. Deliberate destabilisation and disruption should recognise such plurality and complexity of the incumbent ties, from which the different incumbent groups benefit. Addressing the existing injustices within the regime can assist in finding alternative pathways forward (Kuhmonen & Siltaoja Reference Kuhmonen and Siltaoja2022; Lonkila et al. Reference Lonkila, Lukkarinen, van Oers, Feola and Kaljonen2024). Andersen & Gulbrandsen (Reference Andersen and Gulbrandsen2020) show how realising the potential of recombinations and diversification of diverse incumbent firms and actors may dampen the possible negative effects of transitions such as loss of jobs and bankruptcy of firms.

The recent political and academic discussion on just transition also aims to capture and navigate the repercussions caused by destabilisation, decline, phase out or disruption (Kaljonen et al. Reference Kaljonen, Kortetmäki, Tribaldos, Huttunen, Karttunen, Maluf and Niemi2021; Newell et al. Reference Newell, Geels and Sovacool2022; Williams & Doyon Reference Williams and Doyon2019). In this literature, however, disruption as a concept is seldom referred to. The recent developments within this realm are nevertheless helpful for capturing and navigating the broader societal effects and tensions arising from disruption and/or destabilisation (Turnheim Reference Turnheim, Koretsky, Stegmaier, Turnheim and van Lente2022). We want to especially highlight two lines of conceptual development, where the first concerns navigating the inherent tensions between rapid and just transitions (Newell et al. Reference Newell, Geels and Sovacool2022) and environmentally and socially just transitions (Ciplet & Harrison Reference Ciplet and Harrison2020; Heffron & McCauley Reference Heffron and McCauley2022; Huttunen et al. Reference Huttunen, Tykkyläinen, Kaljonen, Kortetmäki and Paloviita2024; Stevis & Felli Reference Stevis and Felli2020). The second line of development aims to bring together the recent understanding on deliberate destabilisation and transformative policy mixes (see Chapter 14) together for finding ways forward, towards more active and emancipatory just transition policies, in contrast to policy measures focusing solely on distributive outcomes (Kaljonen et al. Reference Kaljonen, Paloviita, Huttunen and Kortetmäki2024). This debate emphasises issues of interest for managing disruptive outcomes: as transitions embody winners and losers, how should the effects of disruption be lessened or compensated and to whom and how should the resulting benefits and disadvantages be assessed and valued, across different scales (from local to global) and between different socio-economic and cultural groups of societies.

As the discussion on disruption moves gradually closer to the debates on regime destabilisation, decline and phaseout, a more nuanced understanding of incumbents, niche actors and just transitions are important for broadening the discussion. Importantly, it can open novel avenues for addressing the existing injustices and power relations within the regime. Here the perspective on restorative justice can be helpful as a counterforce for disruption. Restorative justice gives attention to the management of severe injustices that have already occurred and examines avenues for mitigating those harms, both on individual and communal levels (McCauley & Heffron Reference McCauley and Heffron2018). Restorative justice introduces a historical and anticipatory temporal dimension to destabilisation and assists in moving away from sole reactive approaches to more emancipatory approaches in addressing existing injustices and creating just alternative future pathways (Hazrati & Heffron Reference Hazrati and Heffron2021; Kuhmonen & Siltaoja Reference Kuhmonen and Siltaoja2022; Lonkila et al. Reference Lonkila, Lukkarinen, van Oers, Feola and Kaljonen2024).

11.5 Conclusions and Future Research Needs

Disruption is a term often used in sustainability transition studies but with differing meanings from a more descriptive approach to an analytical concept increasingly related to conceptualisations of regime decline, destabilisation and phaseout. Whereas the concept originated from studies of disruptive innovation, it has broadened its use in transition studies covering niche innovations, regime dynamics and a descriptor of landscape influence. This chapter highlighted the definition and dimensions of disruption presented in an earlier review (Kivimaa et al. Reference Kivimaa, Laakso, Lonkila and Kaljonen2021) and added new discussion from more recent literature and in relation destabilisation, decline and just transitions.

Disruption can be defined as a high-intensity outcome in the structure of the socio-technical system, which includes more than one system dimension. These dimensions include technology; actors and networks; markets and business models; regulations, policies and formal institutions; behaviour, practices and cultural models. Whereas the first studies addressed mainly technological disruption, more research has oriented to disruption in the context of actors (niche actors and incumbency) and in policy and institutional interventions as well as the role of the COVID-19 pandemic as a landscape-level disruption. As noted above, when the disruption concept has expanded from disruptive innovation to deal with system-level transitions, it has become more closely associated with other concepts oriented to socio-technical regime transformation: destabilisation, decline and phase out. This perhaps means that the added value of the concept of disruption is becoming reduced. However, whereas, for instance, phaseout has oriented mainly to technologies and discourses, disruption is attempting a broader coverage of different system dimensions affecting whole socio-technical systems. In addition, whereas destabilisation places focus on process, disruption is often oriented to the magnitude of change as an outcome of transition-related processes.

The definition of disruption provided in Kivimaa et al. (Reference Kivimaa, Laakso, Lonkila and Kaljonen2021), hence, still holds its place. In the future, the processual, and political, understanding of destabilisation can strengthen the understanding of large and small magnitude of disruptions further. Here, especially the more nuanced understanding of incumbents is critical in understanding their varying roles in disruptions, which may also be positive. Moreover, as the urgency of achieving a system-wide sustainability transition increases, it is critical to link the concept of disruptions to the understanding of the ‘flipside’ transitions and its strategic resistances in order to accelerate the needed just transitions. Likewise, the ability to survive and quickly recover from extreme and unexpected disruptions deserves further attention in transitions studies. Although resilience is closely related to disruptions, in particular in the current era of large landscape disruptions, resilience as a concept did not feature prominently in our literature review. Hence, connections between disruptions and resilience in transition processes should be a focus of future research (Jasiūnas et al. Reference Jasiūnas, Lund and Mikkola2021). Paying deliberate attention to restorative justice (Hazrati & Heffron Reference Hazrati and Heffron2021) can also provide a counterforce to disruptions. In a turbulent world, with many overlapping disruptive developments, transition studies should start to analyse more carefully what are the technologies, actors and networks, business models, regulations and policies, practices and cultural models that we want to save from disruption – and what require rapid disruption to address the increasing environmental sustainability challenges.

References

Abernathy, W. J., & Clark, K. B. (1985). ‘Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction’, Research Policy, 14/1: 3–22. DOI: 10.1016/0048-7333(85)90021-610.1016/0048-7333(85)90021-6CrossRef Google Scholar

Andersen, A. D., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2020). ‘The innovation and industry dynamics of technology phase-out in sustainability transitions: Insights from diversifying petroleum technology suppliers in Norway’, Energy Research & Social Science, 64: 101447. DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2020.10144710.1016/j.erss.2020.101447CrossRef Google Scholar

Blomsma, F., Bauwens, T., Weissbrod, I., & Kirchherr, J. (2023). ‘The “need for speed”: Towards circular disruption – What it is, how to make it happen and how to know it’s happening’, Business Strategy and the Environment, 32/3: 1010–31. DOI: 10.1002/bse.310610.1002/bse.3106CrossRef Google Scholar

Bobbins, K., Caprotti, F., de Groot, J., Pailman, W., Moorlach, M., Schloemann, H., … & Siwali, S. (2024). ‘Beyond the grid: The micropolitics of off-grid energy in Qandu-Qandu, South Africa’, Antipode, 56/1, 49–71.10.1111/anti.12963CrossRef Google Scholar

Bulah, B., Negro, S., Beumer, K, Hekkert, M. (2023). ‘Institutional work as a key ingredient of food innovation success: The case of plant-based proteins’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 47: 100697, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2023.100697 CrossRef Google Scholar

Carbonara, N., Messeni Petruzzelli, A., Panniello, U., & De Vita, D. (2024). ‘Embracing new disruptions: Business model innovation in the transition to Mobility as a Service (MaaS)’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 464: 142744. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.14274410.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142744CrossRef Google Scholar

Cha, J. M. (2020). ‘A just transition for whom? Politics, contestation, and social identity in the disruption of coal in the Powder River Basin’, Energy Research & Social Science, 69: 101657. DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2020.10165710.1016/j.erss.2020.101657CrossRef Google Scholar

Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovators’ Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar

Christensen, C. M., & Rayner, M. E. (2003). The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar

Ciplet, D., & Harrison, J. L. (2020). ‘Transition tensions: mapping conflicts in movements for a just and sustainable transition’, Environmental Politics, 29/3: 435–56. Routledge. DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2019.159588310.1080/09644016.2019.1595883CrossRef Google Scholar

Galvan, M. G., Cuppen, E., & Taanman, M. (2020). ‘Exploring incumbents’ agency: Institutional work by grid operators in decentralized energy innovations’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 37, 79–92.10.1016/j.eist.2020.07.008CrossRef Google Scholar

Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). ‘Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways’, Research Policy, 36/3: 399–417. Elsevier BV. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.00310.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003CrossRef Google Scholar

Ghosh, B., Kivimaa, P., Ramirez, M., Schot, J., & Torrens, J. (2021). ‘Transformative outcomes: Assessing and reorienting experimentation with transformative innovation policy’, Science and Public Policy, 48/5: 739–56. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scab04510.1093/scipol/scab045CrossRef Google Scholar

Hazrati, M., & Heffron, R. J. (2021). ‘Conceptualising restorative justice in the energy Transition: Changing the perspectives of fossil fuels’, Energy Research & Social Science, 78: 102115. DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2021.10211510.1016/j.erss.2021.102115CrossRef Google Scholar

Heffron, R. J., & McCauley, D. (2022). ‘The “just transition” threat to our Energy and Climate 2030 targets’, Energy Policy, 165: 112949. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2022.11294910.1016/j.enpol.2022.112949CrossRef Google Scholar

Heiges, J., & O’Neill, K. (2022). ‘A recycling reckoning: How Operation National Sword catalyzed a transition in the US plastics recycling system’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 378, 134367.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hirth, S., Oncini, F., Boons, F., & Doherty, B. (2022). ‘Building back normal? An investigation of practice changes in the charitable and on-the-go food provision sectors through COVID-19’, Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 18/1, 410–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2022.2076352 Google Scholar

Ho, J. C., & Chen, H. (2018). ‘Managing the disruptive and sustaining the disrupted: The case of Kodak and Fujifilm in the face of digital disruption’, Review of Policy Research, 35/3: 352–71. DOI: 10.1111/ropr.1227810.1111/ropr.12278CrossRef Google Scholar

Huttunen, S., Tykkyläinen, R., Kaljonen, M., Kortetmäki, T., & Paloviita, A. (2024). ‘Framing just transition: The case of sustainable food system transition in Finland’, Environmental Policy and Governance, n/a. DOI: 10.1002/eet.209610.1002/eet.2096CrossRef Google Scholar

Jasiūnas, J., Lund, P. D., & Mikkola, J. (2021). Energy system resilience – A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 150, 111476.10.1016/j.rser.2021.111476CrossRef Google Scholar

Janssen, A., Beers, P., & van Mierlo, B. (2022). ‘Identity in sustainability transitions: The crucial role of landscape in the Green Heart’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 42: 362–73. DOI: 10.1016/j.eist.2022.01.00810.1016/j.eist.2022.01.008CrossRef Google Scholar

Johnstone, P., & Hielscher, S. (2017). ‘Phasing out coal, sustaining coal communities? Living with technological decline in sustainability pathways’, The Extractive Industries and Society, 4/3: 457–61. DOI: 10.1016/j.exis.2017.06.00210.1016/j.exis.2017.06.002CrossRef Google Scholar

Johnstone, P., Rogge, K. S., Kivimaa, P., Fratini, C. F., Primmer, E., & Stirling, A. (2020). ‘Waves of disruption in clean energy transitions: Sociotechnical dimensions of system disruption in Germany and the United Kingdom’, Energy Research and Social Science, 59. DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2019.10128710.1016/j.erss.2019.101287CrossRef Google Scholar

Kaljonen, M., Kortetmäki, T., Tribaldos, T., Huttunen, S., Karttunen, K., Maluf, R. S., Niemi, J., et al. (2021). ‘Justice in transitions: Widening considerations of justice in dietary transition’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 40: 474–85. DOI: 10.1016/j.eist.2021.10.00710.1016/j.eist.2021.10.007CrossRef Google Scholar

Kaljonen, M., Paloviita, A., Huttunen, S., & Kortetmäki, T. (2024). ‘Policy mixes for just transition: A holistic evaluation framework’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 52: 10085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2024.100885 Google Scholar

Kanda, W., & Kivimaa, P. (2020). ‘What opportunities could the COVID-19 outbreak offer for sustainability transitions research on electricity and mobility?’, Energy Research and Social Science, 68/May: 101666. Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2020.10166610.1016/j.erss.2020.101666CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Karltorp, K., & Sandén, B. A. (2012). ‘Explaining regime destabilisation in the pulp and paper industry’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2: 66–81. DOI: 10.1016/j.eist.2011.12.00110.1016/j.eist.2011.12.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F. (2016). ‘Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions’, Research Policy, 45/1: 205–17. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.00810.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008CrossRef Google Scholar

Kivimaa, P., Laakso, S., Lonkila, A., & Kaljonen, M. (2021). ‘Moving beyond disruptive innovation: A review of disruption in sustainability transitions’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 38: 110–26. Elsevier B.V. DOI: 10.1016/j.eist.2020.12.001 CrossRef Google Scholar

Kivimaa, P., & Rogge, K. S. (2022). ‘Interplay of policy experimentation and institutional change in sustainability transitions: The case of mobility as a service in Finland’, Research Policy, 51/1: 104412. North-Holland. DOI: 10.1016/J.RESPOL.2021.10441210.1016/j.respol.2021.104412CrossRef Google Scholar

Kivimaa, P., & Sivonen, M. H. (2023). ‘How will renewables expansion and hydrocarbon decline impact security? Analysis from a socio-technical transitions perspective’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 48: 100744. DOI: 10.1016/j.eist.2023.10074410.1016/j.eist.2023.100744CrossRef Google Scholar

Koretsky, Z., & van Lente, H. (2020). ‘Technology phase-out as unravelling of socio-technical configurations: Cloud seeding case’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 37: 302–17. DOI: 10.1016/j.eist.2020.10.00210.1016/j.eist.2020.10.002CrossRef Google Scholar

Koretsky, Z., Stegmaier, P., Turnheim, B., & Lente, H. van (Eds). (2022). Technologies in Decline: Socio-Technical Approaches to Discontinuation and Destabilisation. London: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/978100321364210.4324/9781003213642CrossRef Google Scholar

Kuhmonen, I., & Siltaoja, M. (2022). ‘Farming on the margins: Just transition and the resilience of peripheral farms’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 43: 343–57. DOI: 10.1016/j.eist.2022.04.01110.1016/j.eist.2022.04.011CrossRef Google Scholar

Lazarevic, D., Salo, H., & Kautto, P. (2022). ‘Circular economy policies and their transformative outcomes: The transformative intent of Finland’s strategic policy programme’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 379, 134892.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lehmann, J., Graf-Vlachy, L., & Koenig, A. (2019). ‘Forms of institutional work: a systematic review’, In Academy of Management Specialized Conference, Bled, Slovenia.10.2139/ssrn.3499467CrossRef Google Scholar

Loehr, M., Chlebna, C., & Mattes, J. (2022). ‘From institutional work to transition work: Actors creating, maintaining and disrupting transition processes’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 42, 251–67.Google Scholar

Lonkila, A., & Kaljonen, M., (2021). ‘Promises of meat and milk alternatives: An integrative literature review on emergent research themes’, Agriculture and Human Values 38, 625–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1046–020-10184-9 CrossRef Google Scholar

Lonkila, A., Lukkarinen, J. P., van Oers, L., Feola, G., & Kaljonen, M. (2024). ‘Just destabilisation? Considering justice in the phase-out of peat’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 52: 100867. DOI: 10.1016/j.eist.2024.10086710.1016/j.eist.2024.100867CrossRef Google Scholar

Mäkitie, T. (2020). ‘Corporate entrepreneurship and sustainability transitions: Resource redeployment of oil and gas industry firms in floating wind power’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 32/4: 474–88. Routledge. DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2019.1668553 CrossRef Google Scholar

Markard, J., & Rosenbloom, D. (2020). ‘A tale of two crises: COVID-19 and climate’, Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 16/1, 53–60.Google Scholar

Markides, C. (2006). ‘Disruptive innovation: In need of better theory’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23: 19–25.CrossRef Google Scholar

Martínez Arranz, A. (2017). ‘Lessons from the past for sustainability transitions? A meta-analysis of socio-technical studies’, Global Environmental Change, 44: 125–43. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.03.00710.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.03.007CrossRef Google Scholar

McCauley, D., & Heffron, R. (2018). ‘Just transition: Integrating climate, energy and environmental justice’, Energy Policy, 119: 1–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.01410.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.014CrossRef Google Scholar

Nemes, G., Chiffoleau, Y., Zollet, S., Collison, M., Benedek, Z., Colantuono, F., Dulsrud, A., et al. (2021). ‘The impact of COVID-19 on alternative and local food systems and the potential for the sustainability transition: Insights from 13 countries’, Sustainable Production and Consumption, 28: 591–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.spc.2021.06.022 CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Newbold, J. W., Rudnicka, A., Cook, D., Cecchinato, M. E., Gould, S. J. J., & Cox, A. L. (2022). ‘The new normals of work: A framework for understanding responses to disruptions created by new futures of work’, Human–Computer Interaction, 37/6: 508–31. Taylor & Francis. DOI: 10.1080/07370024.2021.198239110.1080/07370024.2021.1982391CrossRef Google Scholar

Newell, P. J., Geels, F. W., & Sovacool, B. K. (2022). ‘Navigating tensions between rapid and just low-carbon transitions’, Environmental Research Letters, 17/4: 041006. IOP Publishing. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac622a10.1088/1748-9326/ac622aCrossRef Google Scholar

Novalia, W., McGrail, S., Rogers, B. C., Raven, R., Brown, R. R., & Loorbach, D. (2022). ‘Exploring the interplay between technological decline and deinstitutionalisation in sustainability transitions’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 180: 121703. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.12170310.1016/j.techfore.2022.121703CrossRef Google Scholar

Rosenbloom, D. (2018). ‘Framing low-carbon pathways: A discursive analysis of contending storylines surrounding the phase-out of coal-fired power in Ontario’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 27: 129–45. Elsevier B.V. DOI: 10.1016/j.eist.2017.11.00310.1016/j.eist.2017.11.003CrossRef Google Scholar

Rosenbloom, D., & Rinscheid, A. (2020). ‘Deliberate decline: An emerging frontier for the study and practice of decarbonization’, WIREs: Climate Change, 11/6: 1–20. DOI: 10.1002/wcc.669 Google Scholar

Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The Dynamics of Social Practice. Everyday Life and How It Changes. London: SAGE.10.4135/9781446250655CrossRef Google Scholar

Simoens, M. C., Fuenfschilling, L., & Leipold, S. (2022). ‘Discursive dynamics and lock-ins in socio-technical systems: An overview and a way forward’, Sustainability Science, 17/5: 1841–53. DOI: 10.1007/s11625-022-01110-510.1007/s11625-022-01110-5CrossRef Google Scholar

Smith, A., & Raven, R. (2012). ‘What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability’, Research Policy, 41/6: 1025–36. Elsevier B.V. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.01210.1016/j.respol.2011.12.012CrossRef Google Scholar

Stevis, D., & Felli, R. (2020). ‘Planetary just transition? How inclusive and how just?’, Earth System Governance, Exploring Planetary Justice, 6: 100065. DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2020.10006510.1016/j.esg.2020.100065CrossRef Google Scholar

Stirling, A. (2019). ‘How deep is incumbency? A “configuring fields” approach to redistributing and reorienting power in socio-material change’, Energy Research & Social Science, 58: 101239. DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2019.10123910.1016/j.erss.2019.101239CrossRef Google Scholar

Trencher, G., Healy, N., Hasegawa, K., & Asuka, J. (2019). ‘Discursive resistance to phasing out coal-fired electricity: Narratives in Japan’s coal regime’, Energy Policy, 132: 782–96. Elsevier Ltd. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.06.02010.1016/j.enpol.2019.06.020CrossRef Google Scholar

Turnheim, B. (2022). ‘Destabilisation, decline and phase-out in transitions research’, In Koretsky, Z., Stegmaier, P., Turnheim, B., van Lente, H. (Eds.), Technologies in Decline. Socio-Technical Approaches to Discontinuation and Destabilisation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Turnheim, B., & Geels, F. W. (2012). ‘Regime destabilisation as the flipside of energy transitions: Lessons from the history of the British coal industry (1913–1997)’, Energy Policy, Special Section: Past and Prospective Energy Transitions – Insights from History, 50: 35–49. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.06010.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.060CrossRef Google Scholar

Turnheim, B., & Geels, F. W. (2013). ‘The destabilisation of existing regimes: Confronting a multi-dimensional framework with a case study of the British coal industry (1913–1967)’, Research Policy, Economics, innovation and history: Perspectives in honour of Nick von Tunzelmann, 42/10: 1749–67. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.04.00910.1016/j.respol.2013.04.009CrossRef Google Scholar

Turnheim, B., & Sovacool, B. K. (2020). ‘Forever stuck in old ways? Pluralising incumbencies in sustainability transitions’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 35: 180–4. DOI: 10.1016/j.eist.2019.10.01210.1016/j.eist.2019.10.012CrossRef Google Scholar

Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). ‘Technological discontinuities and organizational environments’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 31/3: 439–65. [Sage Publications, Inc., Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University]. DOI: 10.2307/239283210.2307/2392832CrossRef Google Scholar

van Oers, L., Feola, G., Moors, E., & Runhaar, H. (2021). ‘The politics of deliberate destabilisation for sustainability transitions’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 40: 159–71. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/j.eist.2021.06.00310.1016/j.eist.2021.06.003CrossRef Google Scholar

van der Ploeg, J. D. (2020). ‘Farmers’ upheaval, climate crisis and populism’, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 47/3: 589–605. Routledge. DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2020.172549010.1080/03066150.2020.1725490CrossRef Google Scholar

Verma, A., Venkatesan, M., Kumar, M., & Verma, J. (2022). ‘The future of work post COVID-19: Key perceived HR implications of hybrid workplaces in India’, Journal of Management Development, 42/1: 13–28. Emerald Publishing Limited. DOI: 10.1108/JMD-11-2021-030410.1108/JMD-11-2021-0304CrossRef Google Scholar

Weigelt, C., Lu, S., & Verhaal, J. C. (2021). ‘Blinded by the sun: The role of prosumers as niche actors in incumbent firms’ adoption of solar power during sustainability transitions’, Research Policy, 50/9, 104253.10.1016/j.respol.2021.104253CrossRef Google Scholar

Williams, S., & Doyon, A. (2019). ‘Justice in energy transitions’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31: 144–53. DOI: 10.1016/j.eist.2018.12.0010.1016/j.eist.2018.12.001CrossRef Google Scholar

Wilson, C. (2018). ‘Disruptive low-carbon innovations’, Energy Research & Social Science, 37: 216–3.10.1016/j.erss.2017.10.053CrossRef Google Scholar

Wilson, C., & Tyfield, D. (2018). ‘Critical perspectives on disruptive innovation and energy transformation’, Energy Research & Social Science, 37: 211–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2017.10.03210.1016/j.erss.2017.10.032CrossRef Google Scholar

Figure 11.1 Illustration of the evolution of the concept of disruption in innovation management and transition literatures.

Source: Reproduced from Kivimaa et al. (2021), under Creative Commons license.

Table 11.1 Dimensions of disruption in transitions (adapted from Johnstone et al. 2020 and Kivimaa et al. 2021)

Table 11.2 Disruption in sustainability transitions in terms of speed and magnitude of change (Kivimaa et al. 2021)

Accessibility standard: Inaccessible, or known limited accessibility

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The HTML of this book is known to have missing or limited accessibility features. We may be reviewing its accessibility for future improvement, but final compliance is not yet assured and may be subject to legal exceptions. If you have any questions, please contact accessibility@cambridge.org.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.