Following the tradition of using opposing concepts as a basis for organisational analysis, this article advances a theory‐based understanding of incumbent firms in sustainability transitions. Building on seminal transition studies, we propose innovating/defending and collaborating/competing as two useful spectra to describe organisational behaviours in transitions. Presenting the automotive industry as an explanatory case, we show results from a systematic literature review that reveal motives for diverging behaviours. Combining the spectra into a 2 × 2 matrix, we then introduce four conceptualisations to explain the observed motives and behaviours. The conceptualisations are associated with different streams of organisation theory: dynamic capabilities and the resource‐based view, resource‐dependence theory, neo‐institutional theory and theories on organisational learning and path dependence. Referring to organisational ambidexterity, value configurations and political arenas, we conclude that transitions research can reach a more multifaceted understanding by challenging the prevailing notion of the firm as a coherent actor.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The central question in this study is whether enhanced transparency allows an increase in the specific knowledge of one particular group and thereby boosts its power. The new knowledge examined in this case study is the access to public quality reporting (PQR) data by Dutch patients confronted with difficult care choices. PQR describes the practice whereby the information that hospitals collect for their internal quality reporting, is made public. I would like to highlight that the process of making this information public can be regarded as a form of "transparency inward", another central theme of this volume. In my case the inward transparency consists of providing patients with new insights into the quite complex and therefore often in-transparent institution hospital. For a long time hospitals have been collecting data on the quality of their care in order to monitor the performance of their departments (Faber et al., 2009). After the 2001 "landmark report" from the American Institute of Medicine (IOM) policymakers all over the world wished to increase the transparency of health care systems for patients (Kurtzman & Jennings, 2008, p.349), so that patients could judge the quality of care in hospitals (Faber et al., 2009). This led to the creation of multiple PQR initiatives. However, as patients were reluctant to use them, they remained rather unsuccessful (Faber et al., 2009). Starting from the observation that PQR incentives have proven so unsuccessful, the main question of this contribution is how (elective surgery) patients can be encouraged to use public reporting systems to take informed hospital choices. Elective surgery in the medical realm means that the