Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability

University of Groningen

Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability

Patterson, James; Schulz, Karsten; Vervoort, Joost; van der Hel, Sandra; Widerberg, Oscar;

Adler, Carolina; Hurlbert, Margot; Anderton, Karen; Sethi, Mahendra; Barau, Aliyu

Published in:

Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions

DOI:

10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.001

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from

it. Please check the document version below.

Document Version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date:

2017

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):

Patterson, J., Schulz, K., Vervoort, J., van der Hel, S., Widerberg, O., Adler, C., Hurlbert, M., Anderton, K.,

Sethi, M., & Barau, A. (2017). Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards

sustainability. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 24, 1-16.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.001

Copyright

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Environmental

Innovation

and

Societal

Transitions

jo u r n al ho me p ag e :ww w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / e i s t

Survey

Exploring

the

governance

and

politics

of

transformations

towards

sustainability

James

Patterson

_,

_Karsten

_Schulz

_,

_Joost

_Vervoort

_,

_Sandra

_van

_der

_Hel

_,

Oscar

Widerberg

_,

_Carolina

_Adler

_,

_Margot

_Hurlbert

_,

_Karen

_Anderton

_,

Mahendra

Sethi

_,

_Aliyu

_Barau

a_{InstituteforEnvironmentalStudies(IVM),VUUniversityAmsterdam,TheNetherlands} b_{GovernanceandSustainabilityLab,UniversityofTrier,Germany}

c_{CopernicusInstituteofSustainableDevelopment,UtrechtUniversity,TheNetherlands} d_{CopernicusInstituteofSustainableDevelopment,UtrechtUniversity,TheNetherlands} e_{InstituteforEnvironmentalDecisions,ETHZurich,Switzerland}

f_{DepartmentofJusticeStudies,DepartmentofSociologyandSocialStudies,UniversityofRegina,Canada}

g_{TransportStudiesUnit,SchoolofGeographyandtheEnvironment,OxfordUniversityCentrefortheEnvironment,UK} h_{NationalInstituteofUrbanAffairs,India}

i_{UnitedNationsUniversity-IAS,Japan}

j_{UniversitiTeknologiMalaysia,FacultyofBuiltEnvironment,Malaysia}

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory: Received29April2015

Receivedinrevisedform11July2016 Accepted6September2016 Availableonline14September2016 Keywords: Sustainabilitytransformations Transitions Transformativechange Pathways Societalchange Institutionalchange

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Thenotionof‘transformationstowardssustainability’takesanincreasinglycentral posi-tioninglobalsustainabilityresearchandpolicydiscourseinrecentyears.Governanceand politicsarecentraltounderstandingandanalysingtransformationstowardssustainability. However,despitereceivinggrowingattentioninrecentyears,thegovernanceandpolitics aspectsoftransformationsremainarguablyunder-developedintheglobalsustainability literature.Avarietyofconceptualapproacheshavebeendevelopedtounderstandand analysesocietaltransitionortransformationprocesses,including:socio-technical tran-sitions,social-ecologicalsystems,sustainabilitypathways,andtransformativeadaptation. Thispapercriticallysurveysthesefourapproaches,andreflectsonthemthroughthelensof theEarthSystemGovernanceframework(Biermannetal.,2009).Thiscontributesto appre-ciatingexistinginsightsontransformations,andtoidentifyingkeyresearchchallenges andopportunities.Overall,thepaperbringstogetherdiverseperspectives,thathavesofar remainedlargelyfragmented,inordertostrengthenthefoundationforfutureresearchon transformationstowardssustainability.

©2016TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierB.V.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCC BYlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

∗ Correspondingauthor.

E-mail addresses: james.patterson@uqconnect.edu.au, james.patterson10@gmail.com (J. Patterson), schulzk@uni-trier.de (K. Schulz),

joost.vervoort@eci.ox.ac.uk (J. Vervoort), s.c.vanderhel@uu.nl (S. van der Hel), oscar.widerberg@vu.nl (O. Widerberg), carolina.adler@env.ethz.ch

(C. Adler), Margot.Hurlbert@uregina.ca (M. Hurlbert), karen.anderton@ouce.ox.ac.uk (K. Anderton), mahendrasethi@hotmail.com (M. Sethi),

aliyubarau1@yahoo.co.uk(A.Barau).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.001

2210-4224/©2016TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierB.V.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

1. Introduction

Thenotionof ‘transformationstowardssustainability’takesanincreasingly centralpositionin globalsustainability researchandpolicydiscourseinrecentyears.Forexample,itisoneofthreecorethemesoftheglobalsustainabilityresearch platformFutureEarth(FutureEarth,2014a),andfrequentlyemployedindiscussionsontheGlobalGoalsforSustainable Development(e.g.HLPEP,2013;Hajeretal.,2015).Interestintransformationsreflectsenthusiasmwithinglobal sustain-abilitydiscourseformovingfrom‘describingproblems’to‘identifyingsolutions’,andforbetterunderstandingpossible pathwaysofsustainableenvironmentalandsocietalchangewithintheloomingAnthropocene(Rockströmetal.,2009; Raworth,2012;Baietal.,2015).Governanceandpoliticsarecentraltounderstanding,analysing,andshaping transfor-mationstowardssustainability.Thisisbecause:(1)governanceisinherentlyimplicatedinanyintentionalefforttoshape ‘transformationstowardssustainability’,and(2)transformationstowardssustainabilityaredeeplyandunavoidably politi-cal,andneedtoberecognisedassuch.However,despitereceivinggrowingattentioninrecentyears,waysofunderstanding andanalysinggovernanceandpoliticsremainunder-developedinacademicliteratureontransformations.

Thenotionoftransformationappearsincreasinglyattractivetoarticulateaspirationsforsignificantandenduringchange inhumansocietytowardsmoresustainableandequitableglobalfutures(FutureEarth,2014a,b).‘Transformationstowards sustainability’refertofundamentalchangesinstructural,functional,relational,andcognitiveaspectsof socio-technical-ecologicalsystemsthat leadtonewpatternsof interactionsand outcomes(drawing onde HaanandRotmans, 2011; HackmannandSt.Clair,2012;O’Brien,2012;Feola,2014).Itplacesanexplicitfocusontheprocessesofchangeinhuman societyinvolvedinmovingtowardsmoresustainableandequitablefutures,whichcanbeapproachedinbothanormative way(e.g.asagood/desirablethingtodo)aswellasananalyticalway(e.g.whatactually‘happens’,andhowandwhy).Efforts tobringabouttransformationstowardssustainabilityhowever,arelikelytobedeeplypoliticalandcontestedbecause dif-ferentactorswillbeaffectedindifferentways,andmaystandtogainorloseasaresultofchange(Meadowcroft,2011;van denBerghetal.,2011).Moreover,framingsandnarrativesoftransformationprocessesaresociallyconstructedandmay bevieweddifferently,duetodifferingjudgmentsaboutproblemboundaries,perceptionsofchangeprocesses,contested uncertaintiesandambiguities,andsometimesincommensurablevaluesets(Stirling,2011;O’Brien,2012).Forexample,the needforurgentdecarbonisationofenergysystemsinsocietyisframed,promotedandresistedbydifferentactorsinawide varietyofways,andcontinuestoproveextremelycomplexandchallengingtobringaboutatasocietallevel(WBGU,2011; Hilldingsson,2014).

Researchinterestinsustainabilitytransformations1 _{isgrowingacrossarangeofproblemdomainsand(inter)} disci-plinaryperspectives.Forexample,sustainabilitytransformationsareexploredindiverseproblemdomainssuchasenergy systems(LoorbachandRotmans,2010;WBGU,2011),watersystems(Pahl-Wostletal.,2010;Fergusonetal.,2013),food systems(Vermeulenetal.,2013;Gliessman,2015),urbansystems(McCormicketal.,2013;Revietal.,2014),andgreenjobs (Fischer-Kowalskietal.,2012).Avarietyofapproachestoconceptualisingtransformationstowardssustainabilityhavebeen developedintheliterature,includingsocio-technicaltransitions(e.g.Geels,2002;GeelsandSchot,2007),andtransitions management(Kempetal.,2007;Loorbach,2009),social-ecologicaltransformations(e.g.Olssonetal.,2006,2014;Westley etal.,2011),transformativepathwaystosustainability(e.g.Leachetal.,2012,2013;Stirling,2014),andtransformative adaptation(e.g.Pelling,2011;O’BrienandSelboe,2015).Thereisoftenoverlapbetweentheseapproaches,buttheyare alsodistinctandsomewhatdivergentinhowtheyconceptualisetransformations.Thisburgeoninginterestandconceptual experimentationprovidesarichlandscapeforthestudyoftransformationstowardssustainability.However,whilethe fun-damentalimportanceofgovernanceandpoliticsisincreasinglyrecognised,theseaspectsarguablyremainunder-developed, particularlyinlightoftheirfundamentalimportancetounderstandingandanalysingtransformations.

Thereisaneedtoplacegovernanceandpoliticsatthecentreofresearchontransformationstowardssustainability(Smith etal.,2005;SmithandStirling,2010;O’Brien,2012;Olssonetal.,2014;Scoonesetal.,2015).Thispaperaimstoexplore thegovernanceandpoliticsoftransformationstowardssustainabilitybyapplyingaconceptuallensthattakesapolitical perspectiveofgovernanceforsustainability:theEarthSystemGovernance(ESG)framework(Biermannetal.,2009).This frameworkisusefulbecauseitarticulatesahigh-levelsetofdimensionsandthemesthatareessentialtounderstandingand analysingthegovernanceandpoliticsofglobalsustainabilityissues.Ithasbeenwidelypeer-reviewedandistheorganising principleforthelargestglobalnetworkofsocialscientistsinenvironmentalgovernance(the‘EarthSystemGovernance Project’).Thepaperfirstconsiderstherelationshipbetweengovernanceandtransformationstowardssustainability(Section

2),andthencriticallysurveysseveralprominentconceptualapproachestotransformationsin theglobalsustainability literature(Section3).TheseapproachesarethencomparedthroughthelensoftheESGframeworkinordertoidentifykey insightsandtheexistingstateofknowledgeontransformationsregardinggovernanceandpolitics(Section4).Research challengesandopportunitiesareidentifieddiscussedbycollectivelyconsideringthefourapproachesinthecontextofthe

1 _{Weusetheterm’sustainabilitytransformations’asanumbrellatermtoencompassdiverseperspectivesontransitionsandtransformationsinthe} globalsustainabilityliterature,includingthoseaddressedinthispaperbutpotentiallyalsoothers.Debatesaboutthesetermsareongoing,andwefollow

Stirling(2014),inusing’transformation’asabroadencompassingterm.Nonetheless, ¨theutilityofthisdistinction[betweentransitionandtransformation] isheuristic...ratherthanformalordefinitive.Therealvalueliesinconsideringimplicationsonaconcretecasebycasebasis,byreferencetoreal-world examplesandsettings....thepointhereisnottoinsistonparticulardefinitionsforspecificwords...[and]Muchexistingusageofeitherterm,often legitimatelyalsoimpliestheother¨(Stirling,2014,p.13).

broadernotionoftransformationstowardssustainability(Section5).Thepaperconcludeswithcriticalreflectionsonthe potentialofthenotionoftransformationstowardssustainability,andoftheESGframeworkasalensforunderstandingand analysingtransformations(Section6).

Thepapercontributestobuildingonrichbutfragmentedexistingliteratureinordertolayafoundationforprogressing researchonthegovernanceandpoliticsoftransformationstowardssustainability.Itcomparesandassessessesmultiple differentperspectivesontransitionandtransformationwithintheglobalsustainabilityliterature.Thisisimportantbecause abroadrangeofscholars,policymakersandpractitionersareincreasinglylookingtobetterunderstandthediverserange ofperspectivesontransitionandtransformationpresentintheliterature.However,thiscanbeconfusing,especiallyto peoplenotdeeplyfamiliarwiththeresearchtraditions,theoreticalconceptualizations,andkeyargumentsputforward byvariousdifferentschoolsofthought.Weaimtocontributeto‘makingsense’ofthemultiple,sometimesoverlapping, perspectivesintheliteraturebysteppingbacktocompareandassessdifferentapproachesandtheirviewsonhowprocesses oftransition/transformationinsocietyoperate,withaparticularfocusongovernanceandpolitics.

2. Governanceandtransformations

2.1. Thenotionoftransformations

Whilethenotionoftransformationsisonlyrecentlybeingtakenupasaspecificfocuswithinglobalsustainability dis-course,ithasalonger(althoughsporadic)backgroundacrossseveralbodiesofliterature.Anearlyuseofthenotionof transformationsinthecontextofsocietalsystemswasbythepoliticaleconomistPolanyi,whoexaminedpoliticaleconomic transformationintheemergenceofthemodern‘marketstate’.Polanyi(1944)describedtransformationasafundamental alteringofhumankind’smentalitieswhichcreatesnewinstitutionsreconstructingthestate,theeconomy,andrelationsof distribution.Overlaterdecades,publicpolicyresearcherstendedtofocusonexplanationsof‘punctuatedequilibrium’to explainradicalinstitutionalchange,whichinvolvesperiodsofstabilityandoccasionalabruptchangewhenthedistribution ofpoweramongdominantactorschangessignificantly(BaumgartnerandJones,1993).However,afocusonpunctuated equilibriumisincompleteforunderstandingthemanygradualwaysinwhichinstitutionalchangeandsocietal transfor-mationcanoccur(Thelen,2009;MahoneyandThelen,2010).Morebroadly,Norgaard(1995,2006)arguesthatpatternsof humandevelopmentandsocietalchangearecoevolutionaryandemergefromongoingmutualinteractionbetweenhuman systems(e.g.,values,knowledge,organisation,technology)andenvironmentsystems.

Collectivelythispriorscholarshipoffersseveralsignificantinsightsforunderstandingandanalysingtransformations towardssustainability.First,transformationsarecomplex,dynamic,political,andinvolvechangeinmultiplesystems(e.g., social,institutional,cultural,political,economic,technological,ecological)(vandenBerghetal.,2011).Second,trajectories oftransformativechangearelikelytoemergefromcoevolutionaryinteractionsbetweenmultiplesystems,andthuscannot beviewedinanarrowdisciplinary-boundedordeterministicway.Takentogether,thisraisesmajorquestionsaboutwhat ‘governing’transformationstowardssustainabilitymightinvolve.Forexample,howcangovernancecontributetoshaping orsteeringtransformations,particularlywithinthereal-worldconstraintsofactualgovernancecontexts(e.g.,fragmented institutionalarrangements,contestedpolicyprocesses,andtightlyconstrainedorpoorlydelineatedrolesandcapabilitiesof policymakersandadministrators),andgiventhecomplex,contestedandcoevolutionarynatureofsocietalchange?Which governancesystemssupportsocietaltransformations,andwhendosocietaltransformationsrequireorenforce transfor-mationsingovernance?Finally,itcannotbeassumedthatchangewillnotbemetwithresistance,especiallywhendeeply heldnormsandvaluesarequestioned—indeed,transformationsmayinvolve‘battlesofinstitutionalchange’(Chhotrayand Stoker,2009),buttheprocessesandimplicationsofsuchdisruptivechangearelittleunderstood.

2.2. Theroleofgovernance

Governancereferstothestructures,processes,rulesandtraditionsthatdeterminehowpeopleinsocietiesmakedecisions andsharepower,exerciseresponsibilityandensureaccountability(Folkeetal.,2005;Lebeletal.,2006;CundillandFabricius, 2010).Thisincludesmultiplepossiblemodesofpolicyanddecisionmaking(e.g.,hierarchical,market,network),andmultiple possibleactors(e.g.,government,industry,research,civilsociety).WedrawonthedefinitionoftheEarthSystemGovernance Project,thatgovernancerefersto“theinterrelatedandincreasinglyintegratedsystemofformalandinformalrules, rule-makingsystems,andactor-networksatalllevelsofhumansociety(fromlocaltoglobal)thataresetuptosteersocieties towardspreventing,mitigating,andadaptingtoglobalandlocalenvironmentalchangeand,inparticular,earthsystem transformation,withinthenormativecontextofsustainabledevelopment”(Biermannetal.,2009).Governancecanbeseen inseveralways,including:asascientificconceptemployedtoconceptualiseandempiricallytracetransformationsand institutionalisedinterventionsinsocieties;asanormativeprogrambasedontheambitiontorealiseandmanagepolitical change;andasacriticalsocietaldiscourselinkedtowiderdebatesonglobalchange(Eguavoenetal.,2015).

Itisimportanttothinkcriticallyaboutthenotionoftransformations,andthevalueitcanpotentiallyaddtotheexisting businessofenvironmentalpolicyandgovernance.Forexample,isthenotionoftransformationsusefulforpurposefully steer-ingsocietytowardssustainability,orisitlargelyconfinedtoanex-postroletodescribechangeprocessesaftertheyoccur?

Thisraisesquestionsabouttheroleofgovernanceinshapingtransformationstowardssustainability.Several sometimes-overlappingviewsongovernanceandtransformationarereflectedintheglobalsustainabilityliterature:

• governancefortransformationsi.e.,governancethatcreatestheconditionsfortransformationtoemergefromcomplex dynamicsinsocio-technical-ecologicalsystems,

• governanceoftransformationsi.e.,governancetoactivelytriggerandsteeratransformationprocess,and • transformationsingovernancei.e.,transformativechangeingovernanceregimes.

Forexample,social-ecologicalsystemsscholarshavefocusedonunderstandinghowadaptivegovernancecanfacilitate adaptabilityandtransformabilityinsocial-ecologicalsystems(Walkeretal.,2004;Folkeetal.,2005;Olssonetal.,2006). Thishasincludedproposalsthat‘governancefornavigatingchange’requiresadualfocusonboth‘adapting’(i.e.“shortand long-termresponsesandstrategiestobufferperturbationsandprovidecapacitytodealwithchangeanduncertainty”),and ‘transforming’(i.e.“strategiestocreateafundamentallynewsystemwhencurrentconditionsmaketheexistingsystem untenable”)(ArmitageandPlummer,2010).Transitionsscholarshaveexploredthegovernanceoftransitionsin socio-technicalsystems(e.g.,Smithetal.,2005;Foxonetal.,2009;Loorbach,2009), assumingthatwhilstchangecannotbe controlleditcanneverthelessbesteeredthrough‘goal-orientedmodulation’ofco-evolutionarychangeprocesses(Kemp etal.,2007).Developmentscholarshavearguedvigorouslyfortheneedtofocusonthesocially-embeddedand power-ladennatureofsustainabilitygovernancecontexts,placingacentralfocusonmarginalisedgroups(Leachetal.,2007a,b), andto“cultureplural[formsof]radicalprogress”throughrecognisingdemocratic struggleasa fundamentalforcefor societaltransformation(Stirling,2014).Morebroadly,politicalscientistshavelongemphasisedthedeeplypoliticaland normativeaspectsofgovernanceforsustainability(Meadowcroft,2007)suchasthedominanceof(neo)liberalenvironmental normsinglobalenvironmentalgovernance(Bernstein,2002),andtheimportanceofpluralismanddemocraticdebateas abasisforsustainabilityagendas(Meadowcroft,1997).Thesedifferentapproacheshavedifferentkindsofimplicationsfor understandinggovernanceinregardtotransformationstowardssustainability.

Underanormativeviewoftransformation,itisimportanttoconsiderhowandtheextenttowhichitispossiblefor governancetopurposefullyfostertransformations.Forexample,indiscussinggovernanceforglobalenvironmentalchange,

Duitetal.(2010)invokeLindblom’s(1959)conceptofpolicymakingasaprocessof‘muddlingthrough’,statingthat:“at theendoftheday,governancesolutionsformanyofthoseproblemsrootedincomplexsystemsdynamicswill,asalways, consistinincrementallyimplemented,heterogenic,andpiecemealmixesofpolicyinstruments,institutions,networksand organizations”.However,itisalsoimportanttorecognisewhenincrementalchangeisinsufficientformeetingdesiredgoals, andthuswhentransformativechangemustbepursued(KennyandMeadowcroft,1999;Katesetal.,2012).Otherscholars havetriedtobridgethegapbetweeneitherincrementalismortransformativechange,tofindamorefruitfulmiddleground.

WeissandWoodhouse(1992)respondtokeycritiquesof‘incrementalism’(i.e.lackofgoalorientation,conservatism,limited applicability,unconducivenesstoanalysis),arguingthatnotonlyarethesecritiquesoverblown,theyalsolargelyreflecta deeperanxietyabout“thedeepandtroublingquestionsraisedforpoliticalorganizationandactionbythesharpconstraints onhumancapacitiesforunderstandingpolicyproblemsandoptions”(WeissandWoodhouse,1992,p.270).Thisanxietyis unlikelytohavedisappearedintheperiodsincethisworkwaspublished.HenceWeick’s(1984)suggestionremainstimely, thatrespondingtocomplexsocietalpolicyproblemscouldbenefitfromanapproachfocusingon“smallwins”,whichrefers to“concrete,completeoutcomesofmoderateimportance”thatcancreatemomentumforlarger-scalechange.Interestingly,

Weick(1984,pp.43–44)statesthat“carefulplottingofaseriesofwinstoachieveamajorchangeisimpossiblebecause conditionsdonotremainconstant”,andthereforewhatmattersmostis“identifying,gathering,andlabelingseveralsmall changesthatarepresentbut[largely]unnoticed”,andcreatingnewnarrativesthatlinkupsmallchangesinmultipleas-yet unconnectedareas.Thereforewhileparticularinterventionsmaybeincrementalorpiecemeal,smalltomoderatechanges couldhavethepotentialtocumulateintomoresubstantialtransformationovertime.

Henceperhapsgovernanceforsustainabilitytransformationsentailsadualfocusonhigh-level,longer-term transforma-tioncombinedwithanhonestrecognitionoftherealitiesofnear-termincrementalismatthesametime.Thatis,astrategyof incrementalchangewithatransformativeagenda,whereanormativefocusonsustainabilitytransformationshelpstoorient incrementalefforts(suchaspolicychange)withinabroadernarrativeoftransformativechange.ThisalignswithLevinetal. (2012)whocallforafocuson‘progressiveincremental’change,wherepolicy-makersfocusonrelativelysmallyetcumulative incrementalstepsthatcontributetocreatingnewpath-dependenciestowardsmoredesirablefutures,andalsoGrunwald’s (2007)notionof‘directedincrementalism’thataimstoconnectlong-termnormativesustainabilitygoalswiththerealities ofincrementaldecisionsinthepresent.Italsoalignswithemergingideasfrominstitutionalliteratureontheoftengradual natureofinstitutionalchange(StreeckandThelen,2005;MahoneyandThelen,2010),whichexplores“howtransformative changescanhappenonestepatatime”(StreeckandThelen,2005,preface).Italsoresonateswiththeideaofaplanning modalityof‘mutualadjustment’where“planningforsustainabledevelopmentimpliesadegreeofforward-orientedthought andactionbygovernment[but]doesnotrequiredirectingsocietytowardssomecomprehensivelypre-determinedsocial endstate”(KennyandMeadowcroft,1999,p.18).

Fig.1.ApplyingtheexistingESGframework(Biermannetal.,2009)tothechallengeofunderstandingandanalysingtransformationstowardssustainability.

2.3. TheEarthSystemGovernanceframework

TheEarthSystemGovernance(ESG)framework(Biermannetal.,2009)ishighlyrelevanttothechallengeof under-standingandanalysingthegovernanceandpoliticsoftransformationstowardssustainability.It comprisesamatrixof keygovernanceproblems,andcross-cuttingthemesthatareinherenttodealingwithglobalsustainabilityproblems.Key governancechallengesarecaputuredunder“fiveA’s”of:architecture,agency,adaptiveness,accountability,andallocation andaccess.Architecturerefersto“theoverarchingsystemofpublicorprivateinstitutions,principles,norms,regulations, decision-makingproceduresandorganizationsthatarevalidoractive”in[aparticular]issuearea”(Biermannetal.,2010). Agencyisconstitutedbytheactionsofactors(e.g.,individuals,organizations,states),whichinteractwithsocialand institu-tionalstructures(Archer,2000)toshapechangeinsocio-technical-ecologicaldynamics(Biermannetal.,2010).Adaptiveness describes“changesmadebysocialgroupsinresponseto,orinanticipationof,challengescreatedthroughenvironmental change...[and]includesthegovernanceofadaptationtosocial-ecologicalchange,aswellastheprocessesofchangeand adaptationwithingovernancesystems”(Biermannetal.,2010).Accountabilityandlegitimacyarekeyconcernsinregard todemocraticgovernanceandalsoininfluencinginstitutionaleffectiveness(Biermannetal.,2010).Allocationandaccess entailsissuesrelatingtomechanismsforaddressingquestionsof“whogetswhat,when,whereandhow”which“isakey questionofpolitics”thatfundamentallyinvolvesmoralandethicalissues(Biermannetal.,2010).Thecross-cuttingthemes ofpower,knowledge,norms,andscalefurtherhighlightpolitically-ladengovernancechallenges.AtthecentreoftheESG frameworkareparticularproblemdomains(i.e.energy,food,water,climate,andeconomicsystems),whicharelikelytobe thefocusofeffortstobringabouttransformationstowardssustainability.TheESGframeworkhasbeenextensively peer-reviewed(e.g.,see:Biermannetal.,2009,2010,2012)andistheorganisingprincipleforthelargestglobalnetworkofsocial scientistsinenvironmentalgovernance(the‘EarthSystemGovernancenetwork’).

WeextendtheESGframeworktoincludeanexplicittemporaldimensionwhenapplyingtheframeworkinthecontext oftransformationstowardssustainability,asshowninFig.1.Thisisusefulinbringingtoattentionthekindsofgovernance dimensionsthatneedtobeconsideredinunderstandingandanalysingtransformationstowardssustainability,especially becausedifferentconceptualapproaches(e.g.socio-technicaltransitions,social-ecologicaltransformations,sustainability pathways,transformativeadaptation)mayemphasisedifferentsubsetsofthesegovernancedimensions.Theframework doesnotprescribeormakejudgementsaboutthenatureoftransformationprocesses,nordoesitprivilegeanyparticular conceptualapproach.Inthisway,itprovidesameta-frameworkforsystematicallyconsideringkeyaspectsofthegovernance andpoliticsoftransformations,whichisflexibleenoughtoaccommodateamultiplicityofspecificconceptualapproaches. Thisisbeneficialforallowingstructuredreflectionandcross-caseanalysis(evenwhendifferingconceptualapproachesto transformationsareapplied)thatcaninformtheory-buildingovertime.Theframeworkalsoprovidesaboundaryconceptfor researchersfromdiversedisciplinestoappreciatethediversegovernanceandpoliticalaspectsoftransformationstowards sustainability,andtoidentifycommonresearchquestionsandgaps.

3. Fourconceptualapproachestotransformations

In this section, we briefly describe the historical background and key propositions of four prominent conceptual approachestotransformationsintheglobalsustainabilityliterature:socio-technicaltransitions,social-ecological

trans-formations,sustainabilitypathways,andtransformativeadaptation.Whilethefourperspectivesoftenoverlap,theyeach contributeimportantinsightsandadistinctiveviewontransformationstowardssustainability.

3.1. Transitionsapproaches

Socio-technicaltransitionsandtransitionsmanagementapproaches(’transitionsapproaches’)havebeenformativein influencingandunderpinningmuchresearchconcernedwithlong-termsocietalchangetowardssustainability,asreaders ofthisjournalwouldbestronglyaware.Collectively,thedisciplinaryrootsoftransitionsapproachesarebroad,weaving togetherstrandsofscholarshipfromtechnologystudies,complexsystems,institutionalanalysis,andevolutionaryand insti-tutionaleconomics(e.g.Kempetal.,2007;vandenBerghetal.,2011).Prominentconceptsincludeamulti-levelperspective (i.e.niche,regime,landscapelevels)wheretransitionisunderstoodtoinvolvechangeatmultiplelevels,andco-evolutionary changeinvolvingtechnological,social,institutional,andeconomicsystems(Kempetal.,2007;Geels,2002;GeelsandSchot, 2007).

Therearedifferentemphaseswithincontemporarytransitionsscholarshipfocusingoneithera‘multi-levelperspective’ or‘transitionmanagement’(vandenBerghetal.,2011).Themulti-levelperspectiveviewstransitionsasoccurringthrough niche-levelinnovationsthathavethepotentialtodisruptestablishedsocio-technicalregimes,embeddedwithinabroader socio-technicallandscape(Geels,2002).Underthisview,avarietyoftransitionspathwayscanarise,notallofwhich consti-tute‘complete’transitionasthepathwaysmaybecomestalledorlocked-inalongtheway(GeelsandSchot,2007).Transitions managementfocusesonthecomplexadaptivesystemsnatureoftransitions,anddrawsonsystemsthinkingconcepts(e.g. self-organisation,attractors,feedback)tounderpinapurposefulapproachtoshapingtransitionprocessesthrough culti-vatingexperiments,focusingonfrontrunners,andcollaborativevisioning(Foxonetal.,2009;Loorbach,2009).Transitions pathwaysemergefromfourinterconnectedspheresofactivity:strategic(creatingatransitionarena,particularlyfocusing on‘frontrunners’andvision),tactical(developingaconcretetransitionagendasuchaspossibletransitionpaths,andbarriers tobeovercome),operational(transitionsexperimentsareencouragedandattemptsmadetoscale-uppromisingoptions), andreflexive(monitoringandevaluationofactors,actions,andprogresstowardsthetransitionagenda)(Loorbach,2009). 3.2. Social-ecologicaltransformations

Asocial-ecologicalsystemsperspectiveisanotherbodyofscholarshipthathasstronglyinfluencedemergingnotions oftransformationstowardssustainability.Itsdisciplinaryrootsarehistoricallyassociatedwithecology,butovertimethis hasmergedwithaneclecticdiversityofsocialsciencesdisciplinaryperspectives,althoughnotwithoutcritique(e.g.Cote andNightingale,2012).Social-ecologicalsystemsliteratureisbasedoncomplexadaptivesystemstheory,andhighlights ‘transformability’,alongwithresilienceandadaptability,asakeypropertyofinterestinsocial-ecologicalsystems(Gunderson andHolling,2002;Berkesetal.,2003;Walkeretal.,2004;Folkeetal.,2010).Transformabilityisdefinedas:“thecapacityto createafundamentallynewsystemwhenecological,economic,orsocial(includingpolitical)conditionsmaketheexisting systemuntenable”(Walkeretal.,2004),whichresultsin“differentcontrolsoversystemproperties,newwaysofmakinga livingandoftenchangesinscalesofcrucialfeedbacks”(Chapinetal.,2009).Itislinkedtoresilience,because“transformational changeatsmallerscalesenablesresilienceatlargerscales”(Folkeetal.,2010)and,conversely,undesirabletransformations implyalossofresilience.

Itisproposedthattransformations“canbepurposefullynavigatedorunintended”(Chapinetal.,2009),andparticular attentionhasbeengiventoactivelynavigatedtransformationprocesses(e.g.Olssonetal.,2004,2006;Gelcichetal.,2010; PellingandManuel-Navarrete,2011).Transformationprocesseshavebeenconceptualisedasinvolvingthreekeysteps: beingpreparedoractivelypreparingasystemforchange;navigatingatransitioninmanagementandgovernanceregimes whenasuitablewindowofopportunityopens;andthenworkingtoconsolidateandbuildtheresilienceofthenewregime (Folkeetal.,2005;Olssonetal.,2006;Chapinetal.,2009).Somescholarshaveparticularhighlightedtheroleofsocial innovation(e.g.,Biggsetal.,2010;WestleyandAntadze,2010;Westleyetal.,2011,2013)and‘strategicagency’(Westley etal.,2013)withintransformationprocesses.Althoughoverall,trajectoriesoftransformativechangeareviewedasemerging frominterplaybetweentop-downinstitutionalconditionsandbottom-up(catalyticanddisruptive)innovation,leveraged throughtheagencyofinstitutionalentrepreneursandnetworksacrossmultiplelevelsoforganisation(Westleyetal.,2011). 3.3. Sustainabilitypathways

‘Sustainabilitypathways’isanapproachthatispromotedfordealingwithcomplexanddynamicsustainability prob-lemsfrombothresearch(Leachetal.,2007a)andgovernance(Leachetal.,2007b)perspectives.Itprimarilyconstitutesan orientationforunderstandingandanalysingtransformationsinawaythatissensitivetothefundamentallypoliticaland intersubjectivenatureofsustainabilityproblems.Ithasdiversedisciplinaryroots,drawingonanthropology,development studies,economics,politicalscience,andcomplexsystems,thoughisperhapsmoststronglyorientedasacritiqueof tech-nocraticanddepoliticiseddevelopmentapproaches.Itmeritsbeingviewedasadistinctperspectivebecauseitmakesa rangeofconceptualclaimsaboutthenatureofsustainabilitytransformations.Forexample,itemphasisesthatsustainability problemsinvolvedynamics,complexity,incertitude,andcontestedinterests(Leachetal.,2010).Therefore,effortstoshape pathwaystowardssustainabilityinvolvedealingwithcontestedvalues,multiplenarrativesofchange,andthepoliticsof

knowledge,andrequirequestioningdominantnarratives,empoweringmarginalisedactors(Stirling,2014;Scoonesetal., 2015),and“puttinginstitutionsandpoliticscentrestage”(Leachetal.,2007a).

Morerecently,thesustainabilitypathwaysapproachhasbeenbroadenedbyincorporatinginsightsfromsocial-ecological resiliencethinkingonplanetaryboundaries(Leachetal.,2012,2013).Theplanetaryboundariesframeworkidentifieskey globalbiophysicalthresholdsthatcannotbecrossedwithoutfundamentallycompromisingtheresilienceofplanetarylife supportsystems(Rockströmetal.,2009).Ithasbeenarguedthatsocialconditions(e.g.,equity,justice)areequallyimportant andshouldformanothersetofboundariestobemet(Raworth,2012).Newhybridnarrativeshavebeencreatedthatframe transformationstowardssustainabilityasbeingaboutnavigatingpathwaysofhumandevelopmentbetweenthe‘foundation’ ofsocialboundariesandthe‘ceiling’ofplanetaryboundaries(Leachetal.,2012,2013).

3.4. Transformativeadaptation

‘Transformativeadaptation’isanemergingperspectivearisingparticularlyinresponsetovulnerabilityandequity con-cernslinkedtoclimatechange(e.g.Pelling,2011;O’Brien,2012).Thisapproachhasdisciplinaryrootsinhumangeography, politicalecology,anddevelopmentstudies.Itpivotsongrowingattentiontotheproblemofadaptingtoglobalchange, arguingthatitisinsufficientforadaptationtofocusonlyonaccommodatingchange,andmustalsofocusoncontesting changeandcreatingnewalternativesandpossibilities(Pelling,2011).Thisliteraturefocusesontheinterfacebetweenlocal problemsofvulnerability,andthebroaderglobalconditionsanddynamicsthatproducetheseproblems.

Inthecontextofdeliberatesocialtransformationsunderclimatechange,transformativeadaptationseekstoinstigate fundamentalchangesatastructurallevelofcomplexsocio-technical-ecologicalsystems.Thekeypoliticalargumentfora transformativeapproachtoadaptationholdsthatadjustingincrementallytoanthropogenicchangesintheEarthsystem willremainineffectiveunlessthesystemicaspectsofvulnerabilityandunsustainabilityaresufficientlyaddressed(Ribot, 2011;O’Brien,2012).Transformativeadaptationthusaimstoalterfundamentalsystemicstructuresandparadigmsthat producevulnerabilityinthesocialsphere(SchulzandSiriwardane,2015).Toinitiatesocialactionforchange,transformative adaptationaccentuateshumanagencyand‘intrinsic’formsofmotivation,whichmaybecognitive,emotionalorvalue-based (O’BrienandWolf,2010).

4. ReflectionsontheconceptualapproachesthroughtheESGframework

ThissectionreflectsonthefourconceptualapproachestotransformationdescribedinSection3,throughthelensofthe ESGframeworkdescribedinSection2.Itfirstdisentanglesthedifferingfociofeachapproach(i.e.howproblemdomainsare constructed),andthenconsiderseachapproachagainsthethreeaxesoftheadaptedESGframeworkpresentedinFig.1:the verticaldimension(the“5A’s”),thehorizontaldimension(cross-cuttingthemes),andthetemporaldimension(trajectories ofchangeovertime).Thishelpstoidentifycomplementaryinsightsamongthevariousapproaches,andtoappreciateexisting insightsonthegovernanceandpoliticsoftransformations.

4.1. Whatisbeingtransformed?

Firstly,thefourconceptualapproachestakedifferingperspectivesontheproblemdomainathand(i.e.,whatisbeing ‘transformed’).Transitionsapproachesoftentakeasectoralperspective(e.g.energy,waste,water,foodsystems),andfocus ontransformationinhuman-technologicalinteractionsforachievingsustainablepatternsofproductionandconsumption. Thereisalsoemergingattentiontothe‘geographyoftransitions’(spatiallocation,scale)(Coenenetal.,2012;Hansenand Coenen,2014).Social-ecologicaltransformationapproachestakeaplace-basedperspectiveoflinkedhumanandecological systems,andfocusontransformationinhuman-ecosysteminteractionsforresilientnaturalresourceuseandmanagement. Sustainabilitypathwaysapproachestakeacontextually-groundedsustainabledevelopmentperspective,andfocuson trans-formationinhumandevelopmentforsustainableandjustpathwaysofchange.Transformativeadaptationapproachestakea systemicandstructuralperspectiveonhumanvulnerabilityandfocusonpowerassymetrieswithintransformativeprocesses inordertocreateopportunitiesandnewpossibilitiesforvulnerablegroupsandsocieties’futures.

4.2. ThefiveA’s:architecture,agency,adaptiveness,allocationandaccess,andaccountability

Intermsofarchitecture,allapproachesemphasisethemulti-levelnatureofthestructuralcontextswithinwhich transfor-mationsplayout(e.g.geographically,institutionally,temporally),andhighlightthattransformationtowardssustainability involveschangesplayingoutacrossmultiplelevels.Although,howtheyconceptualise“levels”varies.Transitionsapproaches (underamulti-levelperspective)viewlevelsaslevelsoftimescaleandofstructuration,ratherthanhierarchicallevels(Geels andSchot,2007;SchotandGeels,2008).Social-ecologicaltransformationsapproachesplacecentralimportanceon multi-scalardynamics,andtheinterplayofinnovationatlocalscaleswithchangesininstitutionalconditionsatbroaderlevels (Westleyetal.,2011).Sustainabilitypathwaysapproachesfocusoninstitutionalstructuresintermsoftheireffectinenabling orconstrainingtheabilityofpoorerandmarginalizedpeopletoparticipateinpoliticaldecision-makingabouttheirfuture (Leachetal.,2007b).Transformativeadaptationapproachesfocusmoreconceptuallyontheideaoftransformingsocialand politicalstructuresandrelationsinsociety(O’BrienandSelboe,2015).

Allapproachesstronglyemphasisetheroleofagencyinprocessesoftransformation.Transitionsapproachesemphasise theimportanceofentrepreneursandleaders(e.g.‘frontrunners’)ininnovationprocesses(Loorbach,2009),andtheroleof atransitionteaminsteeringcollectiveefforts(Grinetal.,2010).Social-ecologicaltransformationsapproachesemphasise socialandinstitutional entrepreneurshipinfosteringsocialinnovation(Westleyetal.,2011,2013),and leadershipfor activelynavigatingtransformationprocesses(Olssonetal.,2006).Sustainabilitypathwaysapproacheshighlighttheneed torecogniseandenablepoorerandmarginalisedpeopletoexerttheiragencyinpoliticaldecision-making(Leachetal., 2007b).Transformativeadaptationapproachesarguefor“deliberatetransformations”thatare“notaboutsocialengineering or‘designing’thefuture,butratheraboutrecognizingthatsomefundamentalshiftsarenecessarytoenabledesirablefutures toemerge”(O’Brien,2012).

Allapproachesplacecentralconceptualsignificanceonadaptiveness,includinglearningandreflexivity(whetherimplied orexplicit),withinunfoldingtransformationcontexts.Transitionsapproaches(especiallytransitionsmanagement) empha-sisethecomplexsystemsnatureoftransitions,andtheimportanceoflearningandreflexivityintransitionsgovernance (Foxonetal.,2009;Loorbach,2009;Grinetal.,2010).Social-ecologicaltransformationsarebuiltontheorythatiscentrally focusedonchangeandadaptivenessincomplexanddynamicsystems(Walkeretal.,2004;Folkeetal.,2005;Armitageand Plummer,2010).Sustainabilitypathwaysapproachesplaceimportanceonadaptiveandreflexivegovernancefordealing withuncertainty,contestedknowledge,andpowerdifferences(Leachetal.,2007b;Scoonesetal.,2015).Transformative adaptationapproachesfundamentallyemergedinresponsetothechallengeofadaptiveness,butasacritiqueofconventional depoliticizedmeaningsofadaptingtoclimatechange,promptingapivottowardstransformation(Pelling,2011;O’Brien, 2012).

Allocationandaccess,whichrelatestoconsiderationsofpower-distribution,equity,andjustice,isathemethatisless con-sistentlyaddressed.Transitionsapproachesandsocial-ecologicalsystemsapproacheshavebeencritiquedbysomescholars foralackofattentiontoissuesofpowerandpolitics(e.g.SmithandStirling,2010;Fabinyietal.,2014),althoughthereis significantgrowingattentiontothesetopics(seeSection4.3).Onthewholehowever,thereappearstobelittleattentionso fartoquestionsrelatingtoallocationandaccess(e.g.equity,justice).Ontheotherhand,sustainabilitypathwaysapproaches placecentralfocusonthesekindsofconcernsthroughcriticallyreflectingonhowtransformationstowards sustainabil-ityperformintermsofpovertyreductionandsocialjusticeoutcomes(Leachetal.,2007a,2013).Similarly,transformative adaptationapproachesarestronglymotivatedbyconcernsaboutallocationandaccessofvulnerableormarginalizedgroups, andtheneedtocontestexistingpowerstructuresproducinginequitableoutcomes(O’BrienandSelboe,2015;Schulzand Siriwardane,2015).

Lastly,accountabilityisanareawherealltheconceptualapproachessurveyedappeartobeweak.Accountabilityentails bothanswerabilityandenforceabilitymeaningthatactorsanswerfortheiractionsandthemeanstoenforcecommitments whenthesearenotreached(Newell,2008).Issuessuchaswhooughttohavetheresponsibilityfortransformationstowards sustainability,andwhatarethemechanismsforholdingsomeoneaccountableifitfails,areimportant.Thereisthusa relationalelementtoaccountabilitybetweenaccountabilityholdersandaccountabilitytakers,whichbecomeschallenging inmulti-levelperspectiveswheredemocraticallyelectedgovernmentisnotperceivedastheultimateactors.Forexample, transitionsapproacheshavebeencritiquedforimplyingthat“transitionmanagersappearasavanguardsittingapartfrom governanceactors...butnonethelessseekingtointerveneandtransform”(SmithandStirling,2010).Moregenerally,it iscrucialtoconsidertherelationshipbetweenaccountabilityanddemocraticdecision-makingwithinpurposefulefforts tofostertransformations(HendriksandGrin,2007;Smithand Stirling,2010).Sustainabilitypathwaysapproaches are strongestinthisregardinemphasizingdemocraticconcerns(Stirling,2014).Ontheotherhand,questionsarealsoraised aboutaccountabilitiesforchangeoverthelongtimeframesoverwhichtransformationsarelikelytounfold.

4.3. Power,knowledge,norms,scale

Thesefourcross-cuttingthemesoftheESGframeworkarestronglyinterconnectedanddifficulttoseparateona theme-by-themebasis.Hencethefourconceptualapproachesarediscussedmorecomparativelyinthissection,particularlywhere similaritiesareobservedbetweenthetransitionsapproachesandsocial-ecologicaltransformationsapproachesontheone hand,andthesustainabilitypathwaysandtransformativeadaptationapproachesontheother.

Transitionsapproachesandsocial-ecologicalsystemsapproacheshavebeencritiquedforatendencytounder-appreciate dilemmasassociatedwithpowerdifferencesand contestednormsandvalues amongactors(SmithandStirling,2010; Fabinyietal.,2014).Forexample,fundamentalquestionssuchaswhomakesdecisions,whatisconsideredadesirable future,and(evenifweassumeconsensus)howdowegetthere,arenotoftendirectlyaddressed.Nevertheless,thetopic ofpowerhasbeenreceivingincreasingattentioninthetransitionsliteratureinrecentyears.Forexample,Avelino(2009)

andAvelinoandWittmayer(2015)relatepowerandempowermenttocorenotionsoftransitionsstudies,suchasthemulti levelperspective,bytheorisingcategoriesofpowerinthespecificcontextoftransitionsstudies,andexploringtensions betweenaspirationsforempowermentcontrastedagainstthechallengeofovercomingconstraintsonempowerment(such asshort-termtimeframes,andfamiliaritywithextrinsicratherthanintrinsicincentivesforaction).Hoffman(2013)relates powertothemultilevelperspectivethroughdrawingonGrin(2010)andotherswhoidentifydifferenttypesofpower atdifferenttransitionlevels,exploringhowideasaboutagency,creativity,andsocialfieldshelptounderstandinterplay betweenpowerandstructuralchange.Wittmayeretal.(2014)investigateactionresearchasawayofempoweringcitizens

whofeelpowerless,andWittmayerandSchäpke(2014)explorehowresearchersengagedinactionresearchwithintransition contextscandealwithpowerbothinternalandexternaltogroupprocesses.

Morebroadly,Meadowcroft(2011)callsforattentiontothepoliticaldimensionsofsocietaltransitions,“becausepolitics playsapotentiallypowerfulrole”inwayssuchas“definingthelandscape,proppingupordestabilizingregimes,[and] protectingorexposingniches”.Fromabroadsustainabilityperspective,Stirling(2014)arguesthatviabletransformations aremorelikelytoarisefromcontextsofpluralknowledgesandvalues,ratherthanasingularvision.Inthesocial-ecological systemsliterature,CoteandNightingale(2012)statethattheapplicationofecologicalprincipleswithinthesocialrealm hasreducedopportunitiestoaskimportantnormativequestionsconcerningtheroleofpowerandculture.Inreflecting comparativelyonbothoftransitionsandsocial-ecologicalapproaches,Olssonetal.(2014)suggestthatkeyareasrequiring attentionare:powerrelationsandintereststhatreinforceexistingsystemconfigurations,politicalpoweracrossscales, agencyofactorsinitiatingtransformations,andparticipationanddeliberationwithintransformationprocesses.

The relative emphasis on knowledge varies between transitions approaches and social-ecological transformations approaches.Thesocial-ecologicalsystemsliteraturehasstronglyemphasizedtheimportanceofmultiplekindsofknowledge, particularlytheimportanceofbringingtogetherlocalknowledgewithscientificknowledge(Berkesetal.,2003;Chapinetal., 2009).Transitionsapproacheshavebeenlessexplicitinregardstotherolesofdifferentkindsofknowledge,althoughthe importanceofnon-technicalalongsidescientificknowledgeisimpliedbytheemphasisonnichespracticesandinnovations. Sustainabilitypathwaysandtransformativeadaptationapproachesparticularlyemphasisepower,knowledge,andnorms, andcontestationsrelatedtotheseissues.Forexample,sustainabilitypathwaysapproachesfocusonknowledgepolitics, contestednormsandvalues,anddifferingassumptionsabouthowchangehappens(Leachetal.,2007a;Scoonesetal.,2015). Theyalsohighlightcontestedandpluralframingsregardingtransformation,forexample,Scoonesetal.(2015)identify multiplenarrativesreflectingtechnocratic,marketised,state-led,andcitizen-ledperspectives.Theyarguethatnosingle normativeversionofthefuturewillbecompleteoruniversallydesirable,andwethereforeneedtocultivateaplurality ofpossiblepathwayswithmultiplesetsofnormsandvalues(Stirling,2014).Transformativeadaptationapproachestake asastartingpointthatpowerrelationsconditiontheoptionsavailabletomarginalandvulnerablegroupstoshapetheir owndesirablefutures,thusrequiringkeenattentiontoissuesofsocialdifference,power,andknowledge.Theyparticularly highlighttheroleofnormsinsettingthecognitiveboundsofunderstanding‘whatispossible’intermsoftransformation, andhighlighttheimportanceofcontestingchangetocreatealternativepossibilitiesandnewsocialandpoliticalrelations anddistributionsofpower(Pelling,2011;O’Brien,2012;O’BrienandSelboe,2015).

Allapproachesrecognizeissuesofscale,buttransitionsapproachesandsocial-ecologicaltransformationsapproaches particuarlyemphasisethemulti-scalarnatureoftransformativechangeasacentralconcept.Transitionsapproacheshavea multi-levelconceptionofsocietalorganization(niche/micro,regime/meso,landscape/macro)asacoretenet(Rotmansetal., 2001;Geels,2002).Social-ecologicaltransformationsapproachesviewcross-scaledynamicsasafundamentalattributeof social-ecologicalsystems,andemphasisetheinterrelationshipbetweenresilienceandtransformationatdifferentscales (Walkeretal.,2004;Folkeetal.,2005).Sustainabilitypathwaysapproachesalsogivestrongregardtoscalethrougha politicallensinemphasizingthatactorsatdifferentscalesperceiveandexperiencechangedifferently,andtheenablingor constrainingeffectofsocietalstructuresatdifferentscalesontheabilityofpoorerandmarginalizedpeopletoparticipate inpoliticaldecision-making(Leachetal.,2007b).Transformativeadaptationapproachesarelikelytobeopentoaccounting forissuesofscaleintransformingsocialandpoliticalrelations,althoughthisthemeisnotnecessarilyemphasisedsofar.

4.4. Trajectoriesofchangeovertime

Alltheapproachesareinterestedinunderstandingdeliberateordesirabletransformationsinsociety,althoughhowthey conceptualisetrajectoriesofchangeovertime(ordonot),especiallylookingforwardintothefuture,variessignificantly.

Transitionsapproachesandsocial-ecologicaltransformationsapproacheshavebeenperhapsthe‘boldest’in hypothesis-ingtrajectoriesofchange.Socio-technicaltransitions,underamulti-levelperspective,hasproposedatypologyoftransition pathways(GeelsandSchot,2007).Strategicnichemanagement“suggeststhatsustainableinnovationjourneyscanbe facili-tatedbycreatingtechnologicalniches...asbuildingblocksforbroadersocietalchangestowardssustainabledevelopment”, butisnowsituatedwithinabroadermulti-levelperspectivethatemphasizesinterplaybetweennichesandbroaderlevel dynamics(SchotandGeels,2008).Transitionsmanagementfocusesonusingnicheexperimentationandvisioningwithin ‘transitionarenas’(involvingbothnicheandregimeactors)totriggeremergentchangesinthebroaderregime,basedona complexadaptivesystemsperspective(Loorbach,2009).Together,thesemultipleviewsindicatethatresultingpatternsof changeareshapedbytransitioncontext(whethertransitionsarepurposefullysteeredorunintended,andwhetherresources toinnovatearewithinorexternaltothesysteminquestion),aswellasspecificeffortstowardstransitionsmanagement(de HaanandRotmans,2011).

Froma social-ecological transformationsperspective, it hasbeen proposedthat activelynavigated transformations involveseveralphases:triggers,preparationforchange,navigatingatransition,andinstitutionalizingthenewtrajectory (Olssonetal.,2006;Mooreetal.,2014).Anotherviewfromabroaderscaleisthattransformationsemergefrominterplay betweentop-downinstitutionalconditionsandbottom-up(catalytic,disruptive)innovation(Westleyetal.,2011).Hence transitionsapproachesandsocial-ecologicaltransformationsapproachestakealargelyconceptualorientationtowardsthe questionofhowtrajectoriesofchangeunfoldovertime.

Sustainabilitypathwaysandtransformativeadaptationapproachesarelessfocusedonconceptualizingmechanismsand trajectoriesofchangeperse,andmorefocusedonapplyingacriticalperspectivetoideasoftransformations.Sustainability pathwaysapproachemphasisetheneedto‘cultivatepluralpathways’(Stirling,2014)becausenosingleactorhasamonopoly onvisionsofthefuturethatareappropriateforeveryone,sustainable,just,andcomplete(Scoonesetal.,2015).Hence tra-jectoriesofchangeareviewedasemergingfrompoliticalanddiscursivestrugglesthatplayoutincomplex,dynamic,and contestedsituationsinwaysthatarehighlycontextual(Stirling,2014).However,atthesametime,sustainabilitypathways approacheshavebegunconceptualizingpathwaysofchangeasbeingaboutnavigatingtrajectoriesofdevelopmentbetween a‘ceiling’ofacceptableecologicallimitsanda‘foundation’ofacceptablesociallimits(Leachetal.,2012,2013). Transfor-mativeadaptationapproachesfocusoncontestingchange,andtransformingsocialandpoliticalrelationsandparadigmsto openupnewpossibilitiesforthefuture(SchulzandSiriwardane,2015).Apluralistapproachtosocialchangeand experimen-tationistaken,astrajectoriesofchangearelargelyleftopen.Hencesustainabilitypathwaysandtransformationadaptation approachestakeapluralandemancipatoryorientationtowardsthequestionofhowtrajectoriesofchangeunfoldovertime.

5. Researchchallengesandopportunities

Thissectiondiscussesresearchchallengesandopportunitiesforunderstandingandanalysingtransformations,building onthepreviousdiscussionofconceptualapproachesinSections3and4.Theseissuesareplacedwithinthecontextofthe broadernotionoftransformationstowardssustainability.Keyissuesdiscussedare:dealingwiththedeeplypoliticalnature oftransformations,thechallengesofthinkingabouttransformationex-ante,andtensionsbetweensteeringtransformations andtheiropen-endedandemergentnature.

5.1. Thedeeplypoliticalnatureoftransformations

Transformationstowardssustainabilityaredeeplypolitical(e.g.Leachetal.,2007b;Meadowcroft,2011;WBGU,2011; Scoonesetal.,2015).Thefundamentalimportanceofgovernanceandpoliticsinregardtosocietaltransformationsshouldbe clearbecausetransformationsarelikelytohaveredistributionalimpacts,resultingin(actualorperceived)winnersandlosers (Meadowcroft,2011;vandenBerghetal.,2011),normativesustainabilitygoalsinvokepoliticalstancesanddemands(Schulz andSiriwardane,2015),andactorswhopromotetransformationsdosofromparticularpoliticalperspectives,carryingwith themasetofworldviewsandvaluesthatinfluencetheirvisionofwhatconstitutesadesirablefuture(Hulme,2009;Stirling, 2011,2014).Concernsrelatingtowhose knowledgecounts,what changesarenecessaryanddesirable,and evenwhat constitutestheendgoaloftransformationareallintenselypoliticalprocesses.

Thefourconceptualapproachesprovidearichrangeofinsightsonthegovernanceandpoliticsoftransformations.There arealsomajoruntappedopportunitiesforcross-fertilisinginsightsamongtheapproaches.Forexample,theorientation towardsconceptualisingtransformativechangeprocessesofferedbythetransitionsapproachesandsocial-ecological trans-formationsapproaches,couldbeenrichedbylearningfromthepoliticalandemancipatoryorientationofthesustainability pathwaysandtransformativeadaptationapproaches,andviceversa.However,aweaknessrevealedbytheanalysisusing theESGframeworkisthatissuesofaccessandallocationneedtobemoreexplicitlyaddressed(e.g.equity,fairness,justice). Afurthercriticalgapisthataccountabilitydoesnotseemtobegivensufficientattentionintheapproachesanalysed.

Moregenerally,deeplypoliticalchallengesthatconfronttransformationstowardssustainabilityinclude:timepressure onincrementalpolicychangeand theinadequacyofshort-termisminpolicy-making;dealingwithpowerfulopposing interestsandforceslinkedtoexistingpath-dependencies;institutionalfragmentationandpoorcoordination;anddeficits inrepresentation(e.g.,voicesnotheard,includingfuturegenerations)(WBGU,2011).Inthiscontext,theGermanAdvisory CouncilforGlobalChange(WBGU,2011)emphasisetheneedfora‘newsocialcontract’forsustainabilityanda‘proactive state’that“activelysetsprioritiesforthetransformation,atthesametimeincreasingthenumberofwaysinwhichitscitizens canparticipate”(WBGU,2011).However,thisalsoraisesquestionsaboutpower,norms,andaccountability.Forexample, hownewnormsmayariseandbecomeembeddedamongsocietalactors,andwhethertherearetensionsbetweenasingular overarchingtransformationagendaasopposedtoamorepluralistperspectiveoftransformation‘pathways’indifferent culturalcontexts(Stirling,2014).Questionsalsoariseregardingsourcesofagency(e.g.,whetherfromstateornon-state actors)anditsroleinmulti-scaletransformations(Folkeetal.,2005;Olssonetal.,2006;Westleyetal.,2011).

5.2. Thechallengesofthinkingabouttransformationsex-ante

Thinkingabouttransformationstowardssustainabilityraisesthemajorchallengeofunderstandingandanalysingchange inalargelyex-ante(forwardlooking)sense.Itiscommonlysuggestedthathistoricaltransformationscanhelptounderstand futuretransformationstowardssustainability(e.g.,WBGU,2011;FutureEarth,2014a,b).However,this maybe insuffi-cientgiventheunprecedentedchallengesoftransformationstowardssustainability(Scoonesetal.,2015).Transformations towardssustainabilityarelikelytobeverydifficulttounderstandlookingforwardbecausetheremaybe“noobvious turn-ingortippingpoints...forclearlyindicatingthebeforeandafterofatransformation”(WBGU,2011).Similarpointsare alsomadeinrelationtouncertaintiesregardingthresholdsgoverningtransformationswithinresilienceliterature,anditis difficulttoknowthedistancetoathresholduntilithashappened(Rockströmetal.,2009).Furthermore,fostering trans-formationsmayrequirechangesinthecriteriausedtojudgetheappropriatenessandperformanceofsystemsinsociety

thataretheobjectoftransformation(KempandvanLente,2011).AsvandenBerghetal.(2011)state,“inordertosupport long-termstructuralshifts,policiesmayhavetointeractwithmanytransformativechangesastheyunfoldratherthanbeing definedandfixedatsomeinitialdate”.Suchissuesraiseimportantquestionsabouttheshort-termandlong-termdynamics oftransformations.Forexample,whatdotheearlystagesoftransformationslooklike(e.g.,timescaleofyears),andwhat typesofdynamicsareinvolvedoverthelonger-term(e.g.,timescaleofdecades)?

Transitionsapproachesinparticularhavebeenoneofthemainpioneersofex-anteconceptsandmethodsfor under-standinglarge-scalesystemicchangetowardssustainability.Thishasincludedextensiveandongoingworktotheorise, study,andexperimentwithchangeprocessesinsociety.Italsoincludesthedevelopmentofmanyconceptsand heuris-ticsthatareinfluentialinthinkingaboutex-anteprocessesofchange,suchasthemulti-levelperspectiveandtransition pathways(Geels,2002;GeelsandSchot2007),andkeycontributionstobroadertopicssuchascomplexadaptivesystems (Loorbach,2009;deHaanandRotmans,2011),scenarios(HofmanandElzen,2010),andreflexivegovernance(Grinetal., 2004;Voßetal.,2006).Forexample,SchotandGeels(2008)emphasisethatunderstandingfuture‘innovationjourneys’ needstorecognisemulti-levelrelationshipsbetweennicheinnovation(theroleofwhichisto“allownurturingand exper-imentationwiththeco-evolutionoftechnology,userpractices,andregulatorystructures”(SchotandGeels,2008,p.538)) andbroaderexternalprocessesat‘regime’and‘landscape’levels(e.g.theauthorspointtowardstheimportanceofpolitical economicprocessessuchasglobalcommoditypricesandeffectsoftradeliberalization(SchotandGeels,2008,p.544)).

HofmanandElzen(2010)developedamethodofsocio-technicalscenarioswhichparticularlyhighlightssocialdimensions ofchangeprocesses,suchastheinherentneedforre-organizationofactorsandrulesrelatedtotechnologicalchangesto facilitatetransformationalchange.Inotherwords,the“co-evolutionoftechnologyanditssocietalembedding”(Hofmanand Elzen,2010,p.656),focusingnotonlyonoutcomesbutalsoontransitionspaths(HofmanandElzen,2010,p.668).deHaan andRotmans(2011)emphasisethecomplexadaptivesystemsnatureoftransitionprocesses,andarguethatunderstanding transitionpathsneedstofocusonunderstandingcomplexchainsofconvergingfactorsthatplayoutdynamicallyovertime. Interestinex-anteanalysisandexplorationofscenariosoftransformationpathwaysisalsoincreasingelsewhere(e.g.,

Smithetal.,2005;BernsteinandCashore,2012;Fischer-Kowalskietal.,2012;Sachsetal.,2014),includingthroughtheuse offoresightapproaches.Anexampleisthe“RoadsfromRio+20”studyconductedbytheDutchEnvironmentalAssessment Agency(PBL,2012)thatsoughttoquantifythefeasibilityofmultipletransformativepathwaystowardachievingthe Sus-tainableDevelopmentGoals.Buildingonthisinitiative,the“Worldin2050”initiative,ledbytheSustainableDevelopment SolutionsNetwork,theEarthInstitute,theInternationalInstituteforAppliedSystemsAnalysisandtheStockholmResilience CentreisseekingtodevelopquantifiedpathwaystowardacommonvisionbasedontheSDGswithleadingglobalresearchers andsupportfromglobaldevelopmentorganizations.Abottom-upapproachistakenbytheFutureEarth“BrightSpots—Seeds ofaGoodAnthropocene”projectwhichaimstoidentifyawiderangeofpracticesthatcouldbecombinedtocontributeto large-scaletransformativechange.Suchforesightinitiativeshavetodealquestionsoflegitimacyandrepresentativeness, credibilityandsaliencetosocietalactorsacrossdifferentscalesinordertobeuseful(Cashetal.,2003).

TheseconceptsandexperiencescanprovidemanyideasforESGscholarsinframingandconceptualizingtransformations inanex-antesense.However,wealsoarguethatitiscrucialtogivestrongregardtoquestionsofpoliticsandgovernance inthinkingaboutsustainabilitytransformationsex-ante.Thediversityofactors,values,sense-makingframes,scalesand prioritiesinvolvedsuggeststhatinclusive,pluralisticanddynamic,iterativeanddialogue-basedapproachesmaybeworth aspiringto;yetapproachessuchasforesightruntheriskofbeingtooscatteredandlackingthepowerofstrongorganizing ideasandmetaphors(Newell,2012).Theyarealsolikelytobedeeplychallengedbyissuesofpolitics(e.g.ambiguity,contested interests),power(e.g.vestedinterests,obscurelocationsof power),andexogenousforcesthatconstrainopportunities forchange(e.g.broaderpoliticaleconomicsystems,dominantdiscoursessuchasneoliberalism).Theremaybetrade-offs betweenthestrengthsanddrawbacksofmorecentralizedversusmorepluralisticapproachestoforesightrelatedtothe governanceoftransformationsastheyaretakenforward,intermsoftheirabilitytounderstandaswellashelpfacilitate transformativechange.ESGscholarsareparticularlywellplacedtobringtobearknowledgeongovernanceandpoliticsto contributetoaddressingthesetopicsandthuscontributetoenrichingunderstandingsustainabilitytransformationsina forward-lookingsense.

5.3. Tensionsbetweensteeringchangeanditsopen-endedandemergentnature

Tensionsareevidentinthewaysscholarstalkaboutthepotentialforshapingtransformations,versustheopen-ended, emergent,andtoalargedegreeunpredictablenatureoftransformations.Ontheonehand,governanceofandfor trans-formations(suchasviatheUNSustainableDevelopmentGoals)maybeimportantfordrivingdeepsocietalchange.Earth systemgovernanceintheAnthropoceneisunderstoodtorequirearethinkingofexistingglobalinstitutionstobetterequip themforcontemporarychallengesandfordrivingdeepsocietalchange(Biermann,2014).Atthesametime,itisalso impor-tantthatafocusonglobal-levelapproachesdoesnotleadtoa‘cockpit’viewwhereitisassumedthat“top-downsteering bygovernmentsandintergovernmentalorganizationsalonecanaddressglobalproblems”(Hajeretal.,2015).Both top-downsteeringandbottom-upself-organisationarelikelytobeneeded,becausetransformationswillemergefromcomplex andco-evolutionaryinteractionsacrossmultiplesectorsofhumansocietyandscalesovertime,whichoftenmaynotbe possibletopredict.Itseemsvitaltoconsiderhowbothtop-downsteering(e.g.theroleofa‘strongstate’)andbottom-up self-organisation,contributetotransformations(followingSmithetal.,2005;Westleyetal.,2011).

Itisalsoimportanttocriticallyreflectontherelationshipbetweenincrementalchangeandlonger-termtransformation.Is itpossibletopursueincrementalchangewithatransformativeagendathroughsituatingincrementalefforts(suchaspolicy change)withinabroadertransformationsnarrative(Section2.2)?Canincrementalreformswithageneralcommitmentto sustainabilityactuallyleadtosystemictransformations(Pelling,2011)?Scoonesetal.(2015,p.21)arguethat“ratherthan therebeingonebiggreentransformation,itismorelikelythattherewillbemultipletransformationsthatwillintersect, overlapandconflictinunpredictableways”.Thishighlightstheneedtoconsiderchangeinmultipleinterconnectedareas(e.g., social,institutional,political,ecological,technological,cultural)incontextuallyrelevantwaysthatappreciatethepotential forco-evolutionaryandnon-linearoutcomes.

Thiswouldrequiresignificantcapacityforlong-termthinking(Voßetal.,2009)andreflexivityingovernance(Hendriks andGrin,2007;Grinetal.,2010;VoßandBornemann,2011)toidentifyearlysignalsofchange(orlackofchange)andto adaptcollectiveeffortsovertime.Forexample,Grinetal.(2004)explorethechallengeofcreatinginstitutionalarrangements toallow‘reflexivepolicydesign,whichinvolves“reciprocal,argumentativeexchange”(Grinetal.,2004,p.128)amongactors involvedandaffectedbyaproblem,withafocusonreachinglegitimateandeffective“congruencey”aroundacourseofaction (c.f.consensus).Significantlyhowever,theyfindthat“creatinganappropriateinstitutionalarrangementisanecessarybut notsufficientcondition”andofcriticalimportanceis“theartofdealingwiththosecircumstancesthatcannotbeadequately pre-emptedbysuchrules”(Grinetal.,2004,p.140).Anotherpossibilityistotrytocreatepositivefeedbackmechanismsthat allowpolicychangesto‘stick’overthelong-term(JordanandMatt,2014).Additionally,basedonthegapidentifiedinSection

4.2regardingaccountability,itwouldbecriticaltoconsiderhowpurposefuleffortstofostertransformationsgiveregard toaccountability(orperhapscreatenewaccountabilities?)withininstitutionalandpoliticalsystems.Newaccountability mechanismsmaybeneededtoensurethatactorswho‘should’beresponsible,actuallyare,bothintheshorttermand longer-term,althoughhowtoachievethisisanopenquestion.

6. Conclusions

Theemergingnotionof‘transformationstowardssustainability’offersapromisingnewnarrativeforfocusingresearch andpolicyattentiononbringingaboutdeepchangeinhumansocietyforenvironmentalsustainabilityandhumanwellbeing. Whiletheimportanceofgovernanceandpoliticsisrecognisedwithinvariousconceptualapproachestotransformations, particularlytheliteraturecitedinthispaper,overallitisunderdevelopedandneedsgreaterattention.Inorderforthenotion oftransformationstomovebeyondmetaphor(Feola,2014)andbemeaningfulforshapingaction,itisvitaltoengagewith thegovernanceandpoliticsoftransformations.Fortunately,richbodiesofliteratureexistthatconceptualisetransformations inarangeofways.Thereisalsomajoropportunitytostrengthentheseapproachesbycross-fertilisinginsightsamongthem, anddrawingonothersalientbodiesofliteraturethathaveuntilnowlargelyremaineduntapped,suchasonallocationand access(e.g.equity,fairness,justice),andaccountability.

Apluralityofconceptualapproachesisusefulforgivingdifferingandcomplementaryinsightsonunderstandingand analysingtransformations,whichisbeneficialforexposingblindspotsofdifferentapproaches(Feola,2014).Approaches needtobeboldinproposingwaysofunderstandingtransformations,butalsocriticalandreflexive,andparticularlyattentive tothechallengesofreal-worldsituations.It isnotnecessaryordesirabletoaspiretoa singleconceptualapproachto transformations,andcontinuedexperimentationfrommultipleangleswillbecrucialtoongoingtheorydevelopment.In thislight,theESGframeworkisusefulasameta-frameworkforhighlightingdiscursive-normative,governanceandpolitical aspectsoftransformations.Itisahigh-levelframeworkforthinkingaboutgovernance,anddoesnotgivespecificguidanceon processesoftransformation,butisflexibleenoughtoaccommodatedifferentconceptualapproachesthatmightbeappliedby differentscholars.Itthereforedoesnotinanywayusurpspecifictraditionsofthoughtontransitionsandtransformations,but isusefulasaheuristicforguidingaresearchinquiryintodifferentdimensions/topicsofgovernancethatmaybeimportantin anyparticularsituation.Itcanhelprevealaspectsofgovernanceandpoliticsthatarelikelytobeimportanttoconsider,and supportstructuredreflectionandcross-caseanalysis(evenwhendifferingconceptualapproachestotransformationsare applied)whichcouldinformtheory-buildingovertime.Thiswillbeespeciallyusefulastheemergingfieldoftransformations continuestoflourishanddevelopindiversedirectionsintothefuture.

AnimportantareaforfutureresearchregardingtheESGframeworkitself(withtheaddedtemporaldimensioninFig.1) istorelatetoexistingworkontemporalaspectsofsustainabilitytransformations.Forexample,strongopportunitiesexist inrelationtothemulti-levelperspective(e.g.SchotandGeels,2008),andinregardstoreflexivegovernanceforlong-term problems(e.g.Voßetal.,2009;LissandrelloandGrin,2011).Fornow,thetemporaldimensionappliedinFig.1hasbeen usedinamoreheuristicfashioninordertoexploretheapplicabilityoftheframeworkforgovernanceandpoliticsquestions relatingtosustainabilitytransformations.However,itisacknowledgedthatthisisanaspectrequiringfurtherwork.

Overall,avarietyofquestionsareopenedupwhichgovernancescholars(suchasthoseworkingwiththeESGframework), aswellasthosewithinparticularresearchcommunitiesonsustainabilitytransformations,shouldbeconcernedwith.For example,questionsregardingtheprocessesoftransformationinclude:

• Whataretheshort-termand long-termdynamicsoftransformations,andhow canwe observewhen(orwhennot) transformationsareoccurring?

• Whatarethesourcesofagencyandrolesforbothstateandnon-stateactorsinenablingandsupportingtransformations? • Whatdrivestransformationstowardssustainabilityoverlongtimeframes,andhowdothesedriversarise?

Questionsregardinginstitutionsandgovernancesystemsinclude:

• Whattypesofinstitutionsandgovernancearrangementsareneededtoenableandshapetransformationstowards sus-tainabilityacrossmultiplescales?

• Whatkindsofinnovationininstitutionsandgovernancearrangementsareneededindifferentproblemdomains,andhow mightthisinnovationariseanddiffuse?

• Howmight‘battlesofinstitutionalchange’(ChhotrayandStoker,2009)playout,particularlywhenchangeisdisruptive andmetwithstrongresistance?

• Howcanpolicyanddecision-makingthatisanticipatoryandlong-termbeencouragedovershort-termism? Questionsregardingcultural-cognitivedynamicsinclude:

• Howmightnewnorms,ethicsandvaluesneededtounderpintransformationstowardssustainabilityarise? • Howcoulda‘newsocialcontract’forsustainability(WBGU,2011)becreated?

• Whatarethebenefitsanddrawbacksbetweenasingletransformationsagendaversusmorepluralisticapproaches,and howaredifferentperspectivesheardandnegotiatedinthecontextofcontestedknowledge?

Finally,questionsregardingembeddednesswithinbroaderpoliticalsystemsinclude:

• Howcanaccountabilitymechanismsbedevelopedtoensurethatactorswho‘should’beresponsible,actuallyare,bothin theshorttermandlonger-term?

• Bywhichmechanismscanpowerinequalitiesbeproductivelyaddressedtoallowactorswhoarepoorlyrepresentedto meaningfullyparticipateinshapingtransformationprocesses?

• Howcanpowerfulopposinginterestsandforceslinkedtoexistingpath-dependenciesbeaddressed?

• Morebroadly,“howdoglobalandregionalpoliticaleconomiesinfluencetransformationstosustainabilityindifferent domains?”(FutureEarth,2014b).

Thesearepressingquestionsforfutureresearchwhichrequireinsightsfrommultiplescholarlycommunities,witha particularfocusongovernanceandpolitics.Webelievethatthereareincrediblyfruitfuloverlapsandcomplementarities waitingtobefoundthroughcross-fertilisingideasandinsightsfromvariousscholarlycommunities,andhavesoughtto contributetobringingtogetherdiverseperspectivestostrengthenthefoundationfordoingso.

Acknowledgements

Thispaperarosefrominitialdiscussionsina workshopforearlycareerresearchersheld atthe2014EarthSystem GovernanceconferenceinNorwich,UK.Weacknowledgethe37earlycareerresearcherparticipantsandparticularlythank fiveseniorscholarswhoassistedwithfacilitatingdiscussionsinthisworkshop:AssociateProfessorMatthewHoffman, UniversityofToronto,Canada;ProfessorAndyJordan,UniversityofEastAnglia,UK;ProfessorLeslieKing,RoyalRoads University,Canada;ProfessorOranYoung,UniversityofCalifornia,SantaBarbara,UnitedStates;andAssociateProfessor AnneJerneck,LundUniversity,Sweden.Weacknowledgeandthanktheconferenceorganisersforsupportingthisworkshop. Wealsothankthreeanonymousreviewersfortheirinsightfulcommentsthatgreatlyimprovedthismanuscript.Ofcourse, responsibilityforanyerrorsliesentirelywiththeauthors.

References

Archer,M.,2000.BeingHuman:TheProblemofAgency.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,UK.

Armitage,D.,Plummer,R.,2010.Chapter14:AdaptingandTransforming:GovernanceforNavigatingChange,in:Armitage,D.,Plummer,R.(Eds.) AdaptiveCapacityandEnvironmentalGovernance.Berlin,Germany,287–302.

Avelino,F.,Wittmayer,J.M.,2015.Shiftingpowerrelationsinsustainabilitytransitions:amulti-actorperspective.J.Environ.PolicyPlann.,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1523908x.2015.1112259.

Avelino,F.,2009.Empowermentandthechallengeofapplyingtransitionmanagementtoongoingprojects.PolicySci.42,369–390,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9102-6.

Bai,X.,vanderLeeuw,S.,O’Brien,K.,Berkhout,F.,Biermann,F.S.,Brondizio,E.,Cudennec,C.,Dearing,J.,Duraiappah,A.,Glaser,M.,Revkin,A.,Steffen,W., Syvitski,J.,2015.PlausibleanddesirablefuturesintheAnthropocene:anewresearchagenda.GlobalEnviron.Change,XX:X-X.

Baumgartner,F.R.,Jones,B.D.,1993.AgendasandInstabilityinAmericanPolitics.UniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago,USA.

Berkes,F.,Colding,J.,Folke,C.,2003.NavigatingSocial-EcologicalSystems:BuildingResilienceforComplexityandChange.CambridgeUniversityPress, Cambridge,UK.

Bernstein,S.,2002.Liberalenvironmentalismandglobalenvironmentalgovernance.GlobalEnviron.Politics2(3),1–16.

Bernstein,S.,Cashore,B.,2012.Complexglobalgovernanceanddomesticpolicies:fourpathwaysofinfluence.Int.Aff.88(3),585–604.

Biermann,F.,Betsill,M.M.,Gupta,J.,Kanie,N.,Lebel,L.,Liverman,D.,Schroeder,H.,Siebenhüner,B.,Conca,K.,daCostaFerreira,L.,Desai,B.,Tay,S., Zondervan,R.,2009.EarthSystemGovernance:People,PlacesandthePlanet.ScienceandImplementationPlanoftheEarthSystemGovernance Project.EarthSystemGovernanceReport1,IHDPReport20.IHDP,TheEarthSystemGovernanceProject,Bonn.