Green transformation is a boundary object: An analysis of conceptualisation of transformation in Norwegian primary industries

Abstract

The concept of green transformation is burgeoning in the academic literature and policy discourses, yet few empirical studies investigate what the concept actually means to diverse actors, and how it manifests in practices. This paper contributes to filling that gap. Through an analysis of policy documents and interviews, we investigate how central policy actors and interest organisations in Norwegian farming, fisheries and aquaculture conceptualise and enact transformation. The analysis of the policy documents shows that the concept ‘transformation’ is mentioned more frequently, and a rhetoric with close connotations to green growth is increasingly applied, which may leave the impression that there is consensus concerning what the concept means and entails. The interviews however leave a more nuanced picture. Among most of the actors, transformation is interpreted in terms of green growth, while a minority of the actors argue for a deeper sustainability, pointing to planetary limits. Clearly, what transformation is and what it entails is embedded in interpretive flexibility. The concept ‘transformation’ is plastic enough to be applied in several different, and partly conflicting, policy discourses and arenas. We argue that transformation can be understood as a boundary object, and different actors perform different sorts of boundary work to adapt the boundary object of ‘transformation’ to fit their agendas. Thus, it makes more sense to think of transformation in plural – transformations – instead of a single, consensual discourse. We find that the very practices of most of the actors are not transformative in the theoretical understanding of the concept and that inadequate attention is given to potential negative sides of transformation. Consequently, both scholarly and practical discussions on how to achieve transformation should take into account that different and (partly) conflicting interpretations will continue to exist and contribute to distinguish between different degrees of sustainability and related pathways.

Modeling environmental regulations in regional green economy efficiency of Halimun Salak: Empirical Evidence from National Park

“…That's why the change efforts are being made today with real efforts towards green transformation. Amundsen and Hermansen (2020) found that differences in approach or level of change, in deep transformation and gradual change can be represented by threestage change. In the first stage of change, the status quo is protected, and only minor adjustments are made.…”

Sustainable Tourism in Svalbard: Balancing economic growth, sustainability, and environmental governance

“…Major changes, inherent in ambitious sustainability targets, come with trade-offs between different values, groups, and activities, and therefore point to investigations on who prioritises what to understand what transformation may demand of different segments of society. Recent findings show that there is an obvious gap between how transformation is portrayed and pursued at the international level, at the national sectoral levels, and in locally based sectors (Amundsen & Hermansen, 2020). Understanding and applying local perceptions of societal transformation may be useful for revealing what different local actors view as meaningful and acceptable transformation directions .…”

Spaces of the forest-based bioeconomy in Finnish Lapland and Catalonia: practitioners, narratives and forgotten spatialities

“…The way how the narratives described above are grasped and reproduced by those in charge of creating and implementing the policies locally, play a key role in determining whether the spatialities in which the F-BB interact are reflected or not (Amundsen & Hermansen 2020). I will explore this argument in the following sections.…”

“…The case studies show that those narratives favour the transition of specific economic sectors but hide diverse socio-spatial configurations and, ultimately, downplay the role of the bioeconomy in a larger regional transformation (understood as a larger societal transformation that includes as much industrial modernisation and economic growth as civil society participation, social innovation and environmental justice). Empirical studies explaining how local and regional actors interpret and adapt green policies are still scarce (Amundsen & Hermansen 2020), and with this paper I intend to contribute to this debate. I begin with an overview of the multiple definitions given to the bioeconomy, paying special attention to the branch of the bioeconomy based on forest resources, as it is the dominant type of bioeconomy in Lapland, and gaining relevance in Catalonia.…”