Innovation intermediary challenging the energy incumbent: enactment of local socio-technical transition pathways by destabilisation of regime rules

ABSTRACT The energy sector needs to transform towards sustainability. The multi-level perspective on sociotechnical transitions is embracing an enactment perspective, which focuses on the agency of various actors in shifting transitions pathways but has yet to study local urban experiments from such an enactment perspective. Our empirical research examines an innovation intermediary’s work in destabilising the regime rules in relation to the local energy incumbent company in Helsinki, Finland. Our paper seeks answers to the questions: How does the collaboration of the intermediary and the local energy company unfold? What are the impacts of the intermediary work on the local energy company in terms of enactment of transition pathways and what are the mechanisms causing the impact? Our research shows that the intermediary contributes to the transition by disturbing existing rules, structures, practices and networks by convening innovation champions from different constituencies, renegotiating regime rules and disrupting existing R&D alliances.

[1]  Marko P. Hekkert,et al.  How mismatching institutional logics hinder niche–regime interaction and how boundary spanners intervene , 2015 .

[2]  K. Fichter Innovation Communities: The Role of Networks of Promotors in Open Innovation , 2009 .

[3]  F. Geels Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: Refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective , 2005 .

[4]  F. Geels The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms , 2011 .

[5]  Ronan Bolton,et al.  Berlin’s electricity distribution grid: an urban energy transition in a national regulatory context , 2016, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[6]  F. Geels Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study , 2002 .

[7]  Mike Hodson,et al.  Cities mediating technological transitions: understanding visions, intermediation and consequences , 2009, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[8]  R. Smits,et al.  The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy , 2004 .

[9]  Derk Loorbach,et al.  Actor roles in transition: Insights from sociological perspectives , 2017 .

[10]  Armi Temmes,et al.  Incumbent organisations shaping emerging technological fields: cases of solar photovoltaic and electric vehicle charging , 2018, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[11]  F. Geels,et al.  Exploring sustainability transitions in the electricity sector with socio-technical pathways , 2010 .

[12]  N. Frantzeskaki,et al.  Discursive regime dynamics in the Dutch energy transition , 2014 .

[13]  Frank W. Geels,et al.  Local and global dynamics in technological development: a socio-cognitive perspective on knowledge flows and lessons from reinforced concrete , 2006 .

[14]  Graham M. Winch,et al.  The Organization of Innovation Brokers: An International Review , 2007, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[15]  Lars Coenen,et al.  Local niche experimentation in energy transitions: a theoretical and empirical exploration of proximity advantages and disadvantages , 2010 .

[16]  Laurens Klerkx,et al.  The interaction of multiple champions in orchestrating innovation networks: Conflicts and complementarities , 2013 .

[17]  Bonno Pel,et al.  Trojan horses in transitions: A dialectical perspective on innovation ‘capture’ , 2016 .

[18]  L. Klerkx Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: insights from the Dutch agricultural sector , 2009 .

[19]  J. Howells Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation , 2006 .

[20]  H. Bulkeley,et al.  Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change , 2013 .

[21]  Frank W. Geels,et al.  The ongoing energy transition: Lessons from a socio-technical, multi-level analysis of the Dutch electricity system (1960-2004) , 2007 .

[22]  D. Hess Sustainability transitions: A political coalition perspective , 2014 .

[23]  Simon Watts,et al.  User Skills for Qualitative Analysis: Perspective, Interpretation and the Delivery of Impact , 2014 .

[24]  Harald Rohracher,et al.  Incumbent Actors as Niche Agents: The German Car Industry and the Taming of the “Stuttgart E-Mobility Region” , 2016 .

[25]  Y. Parag,et al.  More than filler: Middle actors and socio-technical change in the energy system from the “middle-out” , 2014 .

[26]  G. Seyfang,et al.  Grassroots innovations in community energy: The role of intermediaries in niche development , 2013 .

[27]  Frank W. Geels,et al.  Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy , 2008, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[28]  Eva Heiskanen,et al.  Making it experimental in several ways: The work of intermediaries in raising the ambition level in local climate initiatives , 2017 .

[29]  F. Geels,et al.  Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways , 2007 .

[30]  Dirk Roep,et al.  Scale dynamics of grassroots innovations through parallel pathways of transformative change , 2016 .

[31]  Paula Kivimaa Government-affiliated intermediary organisations as actors in system-level transitions , 2014 .

[32]  F. Geels,et al.  The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: A reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (1990–2014) , 2016 .

[33]  Jan Rotmans,et al.  A proposed theoretical framework for actors in transformative change , 2018 .

[34]  Laurens Klerkx,et al.  Towards a Typology of Intermediaries in Transitions: A Systematic Review , 2017 .

[35]  E. Heiskanen,et al.  From demand side management (DSM) to energy efficiency services: A Finnish case study , 2015 .

[36]  E. Heiskanen,et al.  Incumbent energy companies navigating energy transitions: strategic action or bricolage? , 2018, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions.

[37]  Lars Coenen,et al.  The Geography of Sustainability Transitions: Review, Synthesis and Reflections on an Emergent Research Field. , 2015 .

[38]  Lars Coenen,et al.  Towards a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions , 2012 .

[39]  Flor Avelino,et al.  Shifting Power Relations in Sustainability Transitions: A Multi-actor Perspective , 2016 .

[40]  Alexandra Nikoleris,et al.  Structure reconsidered: Towards new foundations of explanatory transitions theory , 2018 .

[41]  Adrian Smith,et al.  Niche construction and empowerment through socio-political work. A meta-analysis of six low-carbon technology cases , 2016 .

[42]  David Boyd,et al.  Exploring local projects for sustainable energy in system transition: local perceptions of success , 2017, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[43]  H. Rohracher,et al.  Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change , 2012 .

[44]  Florian Kern,et al.  The pace of governed energy transitions: Agency, international dynamics and the global Paris agreement accelerating decarbonisation processes? , 2016 .

[45]  Jason Seawright,et al.  Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research , 2008 .

[46]  S. Hyysalo,et al.  Intermediaries, Users and Social Learning in Technological Innovation , 2008 .

[47]  Cees Leeuwis,et al.  Anchoring of innovations: Assessing Dutch efforts to harvest energy from glasshouses , 2012 .

[48]  B. Flyvbjerg Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research , 2006, 1304.1186.

[49]  G. Verbong,et al.  Smart grids or smart users? Involving users in developing a low carbon electricity economy , 2013 .

[50]  J. Schot,et al.  Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation : the approach of strategic niche management , 1998 .