Lost in Mainstreaming? Agrifood and Urban Mobility Grassroots Innovations with Multiple Pathways and Outcomes

Abstract

Grassroots innovations provide a significant contribution to sustainability transitions. They differ from other innovations as they originate in civil society and are mostly inspired by ideological values. While there is extensive literature on the embeddedness of grassroots innovations at the local scale, there is a lack of systematic analysis in the most prominent processes at supra-local and global scale, including mainstreaming. The mainstreaming of grassroots innovations is often characterized by ideological conflicts between (both grassroots and non-grassroots) actors that can give rise to multiple pathways, corresponding to different interpretations and divergent practices of the same grassroots innovation. This paper investigates two issues that are not considered by the relevant literature: 1) the factors underlying the generation of multiple pathways of the same grassroots innovation; 2) the relationship between the dynamics of each pathway and its outcome. Six agrifood and urban mobility grassroots innovations are considered: Fair Trade, Organic, Veganism, Carsharing, Cycling, Shared Space; their analysis is carried out through longitudinal global scale case studies. The comparison between the case studies put in evidence some recurrent patterns between the dynamics and outcome of grassroots innovation pathways. In particular, the presence of bifurcations resulting in multiple pathways is systematic and is always linked to mainstreaming. In terms of outcomes, a trade-off is observed between the congruence with original values (usually high in non-mainstreaming pathways and low in mainstreaming pathways) and the level of empowerment (usually low in non-mainstreaming pathways and medium-high in mainstreaming pathways). Compared to Big Firms, the involvement of institutions into mainstreaming results in less pronounced trade-offs and greater empowerment.

Grassroots innovation and social innovation in perspective

“…Forty-one scientific papers were found with the concept of grassroots innovations (see methodology section B). The term most commonly used in the papers was grassroots innovations, abbreviated as (GI) or (GRI) ( Boni et al, 2018 ; Boyer, 2018 ; Hossain, 2018 ; Lin et al, 2018 ; Nicolosi et al, 2018 ; Singh et al, 2018 ; Marletto and Sillig, 2019 ; Ng et al, 2019 ; Belda-Miquel et al, 2020 ; Gupta, 2020 ; Jiménez-Martínez and García-Barrios, 2020 ; Pellicer-Sifres, 2020 ; Singh et al, 2020b ; Sillig, 2022 ). Other terms used in this search were grassroots movements ( Hossain, 2018 ), grassroots initiatives ( Grandadam et al, 2021 ; Kump and Fikar, 2021 ; Dana et al, 2021 ; Mehr et al, 2019 ), grassroots NGOs ( Farid, 2019 ); or emergent grassroots innovations ( Rasillo, 2021 ).…”

“…More concretely, the main themes addressed in the papers analysed focused on sustainability, grassroots in the informal sector, networking capacities and grassroots innovations in ICT. Interestingly, most of the papers focused in the topic of sustainability, for example in sustainable practices ( Boyer, 2018 ; Hossain, 2018 ; Nicolosi et al, 2018 ; Jiménez-Martínez and García-Barrios, 2020 ; Singh et al, 2020b ), energy transformation, energy transitions or energy democratization ( Boni et al, 2018 ; Pellicer-Sifres, 2020 ; Magnusson et al, 2021 ), sustainable transformation and sustainable transitions ( Lin et al, 2018 ; Marletto and Sillig, 2019 ; Shin et al, 2019 ; Lang et al, 2020 ; Kump and Fikar, 2021 ), or even climate change adaptation ( Khalil et al, 2020 ). More specific fields refer to water innovation ( Ziegler, 2019 ) and waste management ( Jiménez-Martínez and García-Barrios, 2020 ).…”

“…First, one of the most common frameworks used were concepts of human development, multilevel perspective and capabilities approach ( Boni et al, 2018 ; Belda-Miquel et al, 2020 ; Pellicer-Sifres, 2020 ). Secondly, the framework of empowerment, such as new forms of activism, civil society and inclusive innovation ( Marletto and Sillig, 2019 ; Rasillo, 2021 ; Tan et al, 2021 ; Sillig, 2022 ). Thirdly, a frequently used framework was that of socio-technical transitions ( Ng et al, 2019 ; Belda-Miquel et al, 2020 ; Pellicer-Sifres, 2020 ).…”

Agrifood Sustainability Transitions in Firms and Industry: A Bibliographic Analysis of Research Themes

“…A clear distinction is made between disruptive and incremental innovation. Incremental innovations emerge within the established system or regime, whereas disruptive innovations aim to fundamentally transform the established regime (Marletto & Sillig, 2019;Meynard et al, 2017). Niches are another key concept and are identified as protective spaces for disruptive innovations to become established and then expand beyond the niche and destabilise the existing system (Davidson et al, 2016;Geels, 2011;Kuokkanen et al, 2019).…”

Breaking through banal consumerism? Representations of postconsumerist perspectives in mainstream press media

“…Numerous previous studies of these contemporary postconsumerist movements have focused on their differing rationales (ibid. ); their strategies for scaling (Marletto and Sillig, 2019; Persson and Klintman, 2022; Seyfang and Haxeltine, 2012); their effects beyond the already engaged (Zapata Campos and Zapata, 2017); their role in public policy and planning (Callmer and Bradley, 2021; Hult and Bradley, 2017); and their social stratification (Schor et al, 2016). Our contribution to this field consists in exploring to what extent postconsumerist perspectives and practices are able to break into mainstream media discourse.…”