Sustainable market transformation: A refined framework for analyzing causal loops in transitions to sustainability

The versatile role of sustainable market entrepreneurs in market transformation: An intervention framework for institutional change

“…In sustainability transition research, scholars contemplate how changes at the organizational, business and market level might influence the broader institutional arrangements (Holtz et al, 2015; Köhler et al, 2018, 2019). Especially, the Multi‐Level Perspective (MLP) states that sustainable transformations occur through a nonlinear interaction between the three levels of a social system: niches (when radical innovation occurs), regimes (representing ‘the intangible and underlying deep structures’, Geels, 2011, p. 31) and the social‐technical landscape (which contains demographic shifts, macro‐economic trends and political development) (Geels, 2002; Kemp & Rip, 1998; Köhler et al, 2019; Nijhof et al, 2022; Rotmans et al, 2001; Smith et al, 2010). Initially, path dependence justifies a lock‐in situation which maintains unsustainable outcomes in action (Garud et al, 2010; Newig et al, 2019; Vergne & Durand, 2010).…”

“…Third — focusing on the ‘how’—to explain the conditions that underpin this article's contribution , the foregoing nature of institutional change accomplished by sustainable entrepreneurship is discussed in relation to a sustainable market transformation framework that forms part of recent studies which are currently developing in transition research (Hoogstraaten et al, 2020; Köhler et al, 2019; Kungl & Hess, 2021; Nijhof et al, 2022; van Doren et al, 2020; Vasquez‐Delsolar & Merino, 2021). This discussion indicates the possible avenues' actions which are available to sustainable market entrepreneurs in order to reach institutional change in several phases of market transformation towards sustainability.…”

Understanding the embeddedness of individuals within the larger system to support the energy transition

“…Others point out that studies in which human behavior has been connected to socio-technical transition theory mostly frame humans as rationally thinking entities (Bögel and Upham 2018). Bögel and Upham (2018) also point out that another limitation of studies using sociotechnological transition theory is it reducing behavior to consumer behavior (Nijhof et al 2022) and technology acceptance. Furthermore, studies combining behavioral aspects with socio-technical transition theory frame the social side of the transition as subject to rather than as an instigator of disruption (Kivimaa et al 2021).…”

“…While the socio-technical transition theory provides a framework to connect the technological with the social sphere, the role of the individuals within the transition process remains limited (Upham et al 2020). Individuals are reduced to the role of consumers and technology users (Avelino and Wittmayer 2016;Nijhof et al 2022), and the social sphere is subject to change rather than an instigator of it (Kivimaa et al 2021).Potentially alternative concepts need to be developed and employed to understand the role of the individual within the energy transition. With a focus on the energy transition, this special feature is dedicated to compiling scientific contributions that provide insights into how the individual is embedded within the larger system and how individuals are facilitating the energy transition.…”

“…While the socio-technical transition theory provides a framework to connect the technological with the social sphere, the role of the individuals within the transition process remains limited (Upham et al 2020). Individuals are reduced to the role of consumers and technology users (Avelino and Wittmayer 2016;Nijhof et al 2022), and the social sphere is subject to change rather than an instigator of it (Kivimaa et al 2021).…”