A sustainability network as a systemic innovation intermediary

A sustainability network: A mechanism as a systemic innovation intermediary Tipping points in the transition to sustainable development R.A.H.J. Clemens May 2015

Introduction Human development being sustainable for their species is a historically new phenomenon in human history. In human history we have never seen such a systemic and fundamental change as the transition to sustainable development we are in now. It affects all human beings and is irreversibly if the species wants to survive as a large group in the long run. The combination of population size and lifestyle makes the limits of the natural resources painfully clear, and makes subsistence structurally dependent on the inclusion of a significant part of its population, even if only as a way of risk management. A tipping point in development is the power structure beginning to adapt, taking on a more distributed dimension. For the first time, power is turning into a driver of change that is inherently linked to distributed knowledge that is starting to communicate better. These changes are irreversibly and more distributed power and leadership is becoming much more (sustainable) than the sum of its elements. Social, philosophical and (bio) physical elements are being moulded into the same concept. At work is the strongest possible driving force: the wish for survival.

This perception of the course of history obviously is not scientific, impossible to prove, and multidimensional. And although it is built on knowledge and experience, the turn it is taking is unanticipated and uncertain. But powerful. It doesn’t say we are doomed; on the contrary, it is a statement of confidence in human capacity for survival, based on a sense of urgency.

Sustainable development as a complex system Sustainable development is a continuous process of adaptation to unanticipated problems without a clearly defined end state (Kemp, Loorbach, & Rotmans, 2007; VoĂ&#x; & Kemp, 2006). Many of the problems we are facing are persistent and ever more apparent. Persistent problems are complex because they are deeply embedded in our societal structures; uncertain due to the hardly reducible structural uncertainty they include; difficult to manage, with a variety of actors with diverse interests involved; and hard to grasp in the sense that they are difficult to interpret and ill structured (Dirven, Rotmans, & Verkaik, 2002; Rotmans & Loorbach, 2009a). Because of these complex and deeply embedded structures, a transition to sustainable development essentially addresses system inherent failures and limitations and requires adaptive management mechanisms and styles to stay aligned.

System innovation refers to social, technical as well as sociotechnical systems but the challenge of (the transition to) sustainable development is first of all social in character. Sustainability is best viewed as a socially instituted process of adaptive change in which innovation is a necessary element (Kemp, Parto, & Gibson, 2005), but social policy and technique co-evolve in the context of (system) innovation.

1

Approaching persistent problems and uncertainty from a collective innovation perspective requires a structure where the different actors and subsystems can co-evolve. Innovation systems (IS) approaches emphasize the collective dimension of innovation pointing to the need to effect necessary linkages and interaction among multiple actors. IS thinking also pays attention to the co-evolution of innovation processes, arguing that successful innovation results from alignment of technical, social, institutional and organizational dimensions. These insights are increasingly informing interventions that focus on supporting multi-stakeholder arrangements such as innovation platforms (Kilelu, Klerkx, & Leeuwis, 2012). The functioning of platforms and networks for sustainable development is the main topic of the article and I will come back to this point later. It is clear that sustainable development and system innovation are closely linked, but it is important to stay critical since a transition to sustainable development by definition requires system innovation but innovation not necessarily gets us to more sustainable development. Established interests sometimes resist and there are circumstances under which established conditions might persist even when they are to some extent inferior to their new competitors (lock-in).

Science, policy and sustainable development Change results from knowledge and interest which exist in a wide variety. In science, sustainability research has been multi-disciplinary from the start and has developed as a result of academic debate. The notion of sustainability surged in the middle of global debates around (in)equality , poverty, pollution, climate changes and the loss of biodiversity. Even within the context of one discipline the sustainability debate is sometimes reflected by the development of alternative models.

For example within the economic science we now find the school of environmental economy and the school of ecological economy. The environmental economy has influenced the construction of “green growth” or “green economy”, where the ecological economy proposes a model that breaks away from the economic growth concept and concentrates on a broader concept of development (Selene, Paola; Martínez, 2014). An advantage of scientific knowledge is that it results from clearly defined methodologies which make it possible to check and relatively easy to value. Recent scientific debate about how to understand and stimulate innovation for sustainability has been considerably enriched with insights from the emerging stream of system innovation literature (Wieczorek, Hekkert, & Smits, 2010). Systems theory is an interdisciplinary field of science that studies the nature of complex systems in society, nature, science, and technology. It provides a framework by which a group of interrelated components that influence each other can be analysed. That group can be a sector, branch, city, organism, or even a society (Rotmans & Loorbach, 2009b).

But although science obviously is important, by definition it is limited and insufficient for policy. To problems of open societal systems such as sustainable development, the classical paradigm of science and engineering is not applicable. There is no definitive formulation of the problem exits, solutions are usually not true or false, but rather better or worse, stakeholders have radically different frames of reference concerning the problem, constraints and resources for solution change over time and the problem is never solved. Even worse, there are no "solutions" in the sense of definitive and objective answers. They are persistent problems (Rotmans & Loorbach, 2009b) or "wicked" problems (Peterson, 2009; Rittel & Webber, 1973). It is the job of policy to value the different types of arguments and to set the playing field. Science and policy, far from being mutually exclusive and 2

hermetic categories, co-evolve. Science–policy interfaces are defined as social processes which encompass relations between scientists and other actors in the policy process, and which allow for exchanges, co-evolution, and joint construction of knowledge with the aim of enriching decisionmaking (van den Hove, 2007). Co-evolution makes boundaries between science and policy blur (Guston, 2001) bringing non-scientific knowledge to the stage. This is yet another tipping point in development history and it creates perspectives and options that require new management styles and structures that go hand in hand with the inherent logic of sustainable development (decentralised, collaborative, multidisciplinary, co-production based on scientific and non-scientific knowledge).

Sustainable development and innovative management mechanisms Sustainable development follows from philosophy, interest and conviction turned into practice. Its internal logic significantly affects governance and requires adaptive management. The importance of context, the benefits of diversity and the inevitability of surprise all suggest that transparency and active public engagement are necessary qualities of governance for sustainability(Kemp et al., 2005).

Sustainable development is a multi-dimensional and dynamic concept and can neither be translated into the narrow terms of static optimisation nor is it adoptable to strategies based on direct control, fixed goals and predictability (Christian, Fritz, & Bechthold, 2004). Sustainability cannot be translated into a blueprint or a defined end state from which criteria can be derived and unambiguous decisions taken to get there. Instead, it should be understood as a specific kind of problem framing that emphasises the interconnectedness of different problems and scales, as well as the long-term and indirect effects of actions that result from it (Voß & Kemp, 2006).

Sustainable development is a science-policy interface that reflects tendencies in society and is by definition inclusive. This way it tries to make efficient use of available resources but is very demanding on management. To make the current development model more sustainable, system failures have to be tackled where the required high connectivity and transparency also brings in uncertainty and surprise. The adaptive mechanisms have to identify and value all kinds of knowledge (scientific and non-scientific) and experience, offering space and focusing emerging initiatives / ideas in order to meet, learn, coordinate and co-produce. About this last term (co-production), an important observation is in place here. Some consider the term confusing because often indirect and hard to discern and because of its resemblance with the notion of co-producing social order (e.g.

Jasanoff, 2004; Jasanoff and Martello, 2004; Latour, 1987) and therefore prefer to use the more specific concept joint knowledge production (Hegger, Lamers, Van Zeijl-Rozema, & Dieperink, 2012; van den Hove, 2007). However, since inclusion of these indirect and hard to discern mechanisms is essential e.g. for the identification of valuable emerging initiatives and the effectivity of collaborative leadership, in this article I use both terms depending on its character in the situation under consideration. Not excluding the use of the term “co-production” is in line with the co-evolution perspective, and both concepts are important elements when managing sustainability problems. Coevolution and co-production (including the more specific Joint Knowledge Production (JKP) that concentrates itself on direct and recognizable form of co-production: direct collaboration between scientists, policymakers and other societal actors in specific projects) are key concepts, inherent to the logic and needs of sustainable development.

3

In sustainability discussions the term co-evolution is frequently used when thinking about governance for sustainable development. Kemp et al. give two reasons for this: First, it accepts that we have cause-effect-cause loops across different scales and systems (‘positive feedback’ in systems terms). Second, very paradoxically, a co-evolutionary perspective sees developments in different subsystems as partially independent. The units of evolution enjoy relative autonomy in development.

Technical change co- evolves with institutional change (within systems of governance and organizations and culture), they are shaping but not determining each other. The co-evolutionary perspective implies that straightforward planning as well as incremental strategies are insufficient because these are not able to tackle system failures underlying persistent problems in an adequate manner, leading to suboptimal solutions. In transition terms we speak of co-evolution if the interaction between different societal subsystems influences the dynamics of the individual societal subsystems, leading to irreversible patterns of change (Kemp et al., 2007). These dynamics are the pillars that drive the mechanisms of an effective network for sustainable development.

The process of shaping co-evolution to sustainability goals, where different subsystems are shaping but not determining each other (relative autonomy) is called transition management (developed by Rotmans et al. 2000). It combines the capacity to adapt to change with a capacity to shape change (Rammel et al. 2004). Transition management can be seen as a model for managing processes of coevolution towards sustainable development (Kemp et al., 2007). This kind of adaptive management obviously is demanding on leadership. Co-evolution of the different units and their (unanticipated) coalitions that emerge in systems defined differently from those formed by the conventional firstline stakeholders, require trust, transparency and non-hierarchical adaptive management for optimal application of its capacity. Knowledge and experience from complementary domains such as sustainable development, (system) innovation and planning is needed in breeding innovative ideas for products and services but is not enough. Effective engagement requires collaborative capacity (Blomqvist & Levy, 2006) to create space for new ideas / initiatives to emerge and allow for the generation of (unanticipated) ‘clicks’. Collaborative capacity and network competence (Ritter, Wilkinson, & Johnston, 2002) are key assets for (members of) a network working at the frontier of innovation in a connected world.

The co-evolution of the drivers of change and their emerging co-productions are increasingly part of the system as decentralised knowledge and experience grows stronger. Perception of urgency and quickly increasing technical capacity bring the elements together and co-produce inclusive mechanisms for the effective and efficient use of (natural and human) resources.

Why would we want to bring both scientific and non-scientific knowledge and experience together into one process? Isn’t that too complex? Yes, it is, and that is exactly the point I am making here. To face the challenges of sustainable development requires inclusive mechanisms and management styles to adapt to uncertainty and unanticipated situations in large scale systems. The perception of urgency suggests us to make best use of whatever kind of knowledge (we can make) available and technology offers good opportunities to do so. Networks based on such inclusive mechanisms seem to be promising tools to operationalise such systems and to activate the existing and potential capacity needed for sustainable development.

Direct collaboration between scientists, policymakers and other societal actors in specific projects is essential and frequently takes the form of a platform, network or partnership. A partnership is a 4

governance system intertwining stakeholders from different domains who mean to embark on a process of co-evolution in order to produce knowledge and experience together for a specific goal, in this case, increasing sustainability. Sustainability partnerships have the potential to function as boundary organisations but little is known about the practice of knowledge production in such arrangements (Offermans & Glasbergen, 2015). Boundary organizations meet three criteria: first, they provide the opportunity and sometimes the incentives for the creation and use of boundary objects and standardized packages; second, they involve the participation of actors from both sides of the boundary, as well as professionals who serve a mediating role; third, they exist at the frontier of the two relatively different social worlds of politics and science, but they have distinct lines of accountability to each (Guston, 2001). Networks and partnerships have the potential to function as such. Offermans and Glasbergen (2015) show how in the case of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palmoil that science and scientific knowledge not necessarily play a dominant role in such a boundary organization. They show that an abstract concept like JKP can be operationalized and used to assess characteristics of knowledge production in partnerships. With the broader concept of a network designed to do just that, with management resulting in something more than the just the sum of its elements, it can be an efficient and effective boundary organization by itself and its mechanism could contribute significantly to better use of (emerging) knowledge, experience and resources.

A network mechanism reflecting sustainability characteristics Developing a more nuanced understanding of networks, community bonds, and social capital is of great practical importance, especially given the trend toward devolution or decentralization of natural resource management authority to local user groups. Although network structures act as a constraint on learning, theories of the conditions under which norms, behaviours, beliefs or policies diffuse, and the actual processes of diffusion, are still being developed. There are at least three major themes in the study of networks as social processes. First, networks can represent coordination and cooperation on shared activities, such as voluntary private-public partnerships focused on setting sustainability standards or improving livelihoods of local populations or alliances made between policy actors for the purposes of forming coalitions and influencing policy. This coordination or cooperation can take on the form of collaborative leadership. Second, networks can represent the distribution and sharing of resources, for example, the transfer of scientific knowledge and research funding or the exchange of favours. Third, networks can represent the exertion of social influence (Henry & Vollan, 2014). Decentralised, sharing, partnerships, collaborative leadership, exertion of social influence are key concepts of the mechanism for sustainable development that brings together scientific and non-scientific knowledge and experience to facilitate unanticipated innovation.

Approaching sustainable development as a continuous process of adaptation to unanticipated problems means that it cannot be translated into a blueprint or a defined end state from which criteria could be derived and unambiguous decisions be taken to get there (Kemp et al., 2007; VoĂ&#x; & Kemp, 2006). Building a network that reflects this concept in its management will facilitate truly innovative initiatives and knowledge production.

5

A network in support of transition management and offering collaborative leadership For a managing mechanism like a network to support and reach out to emerging initiatives, it should be sufficiently adaptive. Traditional hierarchical leadership won’t do. Collaborative leadership linked to emerging initiatives is inherent to the managed transition itself. PETER SENGE, senior lecturer and director of the Center for Organizational Learning at MIT Sloan School of Management, founding chair of The Society for Organizational Learning (SoL) and co-founder of the Academy for Systemic Change, Hal Hamilton, director of the Sustainable Food Lab and co-founder of the Academy for Systemic Change and John Kania, board member and managing director of FSG, a consulting company, give together a good insight in this concept of system leadership. In their article “The Dawn of System Leadership” (Senge, Hamilton, & Kania, 2015) they say we are facing a host of systemic challenges beyond the reach of existing institutions and their hierarchical authority structures and this requires unprecedented collaboration at different scales ad among different organizations and sectors. According to the authors, collaboration often has floundered in part because they failed to foster collective leadership within and across the collaborating organizations.

The purpose of their article is to share what they have learned about the system leaders need to foster collective leadership. One of the system leader’s core capabilities is their ability to see reality through the eyes of people very different from themselves and this encourages others to be more open as well. These leaders shift the conditions through which others—especially those who have a problem—can learn collectively to make progress against it. Indeed, one of their greatest contributions can come from the strength of their ignorance, which gives them permission to ask obvious questions and to embody an openness and commitment to their own ongoing learning and growth that eventually infuse larger change effort. […]There are three core capabilities that system leaders develop in order to foster collective leadership. The first is the ability to see the larger system. […]The second capability involves fostering reflection and more generative conversations. […]The third capability centers on shifting the collective focus from reactive problem solving to co-creating the future. (Senge et al., 2015). System leaders are people who catalyse collective leadership, the emerging, informal and dynamic kind of shared leadership that is brought about by the members of the collective itself. To possess all of the skills and abilities required to competently lead an organization today is increasingly hard to do, not to say impossible for any single individual. As a result, there has been a surge of both theoretical and empirical research over the past decade, to explore the possibilities of this new leadership paradigm.

In the first phase of building critical mass in the transition process, a network for sustainable development might take on the role of a system leader itself. Once a small network is op and running, well monitored and evaluated, only then it can open up and shift its role to one of a collaborative leader in a constant learning process. Leadership and knowledge production are ever more subject to co-evolution and co-production, are intimately intertwined and essential elements of network functioning. The challenge now is how to define ‘useful’ knowledge and then bring it together into a result that is more than the sum of the elements. A network with the right mechanism can identify the elements and facilitate ‘clicks’ and joint production of values, knowledge and experience that might otherwise not have emerged.

6

This article focuses on the main characteristics of the intermediary of a decentralised network facilitating the emergence of innovative initiatives and targeting sustainable development. A network mechanism offering space and support to emerging initiatives will be operating in the frontline of innovation with interdependency, collaborative leadership, strong communication capacity and a long-term perspective as guidelines.

References: Blomqvist, K., & Levy, J. (2006). Collaboration capability – a focal concept in knowledge creation and collaborative innovation in networks Kirsimarja Blomqvist * and Juha Levy. Management, 2(1), 31–48. doi:10.1504/IJMCP.2006.009645 Christian, U. R., Fritz, H., & Bechthold. (2004). Governing Sustainable Development; A co-evolutionary perspective on transitions and change. Governance for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from http: Dirven, J., Rotmans, J., & Verkaik, A. (2002). Samenleving in Transitie : een vernieuwend gezichtspunt Inhoudsopgave :, 1–59.

Guston, D. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction.

Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 399–408. doi:10.1177/016224390102600401 Hegger, D., Lamers, M., Van Zeijl-Rozema, A., & Dieperink, C. (2012). Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: Success conditions and levers for action. Environmental Science and Policy, 18, 52–65. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.002 Henry, A. D., & Vollan, B. (2014). Networks and the Challenge of Sustainable Development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 39(1), 583–610. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-101813013246 Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2007). Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. International Journal Of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 78–91.

Kemp, R., Parto, S., & Gibson, R. B. (2005). Governance for sustainable development : moving from theory to practice. International Journal for Sustainable Development, 8(1/2), 12–30. doi:10.1504/IJSD.2005.007372 Kilelu, C. W. C., Klerkx, L., & Leeuwis, C. (2012). Unraveling innovation platforms–Insights from coevolution of innovation in a smallholder dairy development program in Kenya. IFSA 2012: Producing and Reproducing Farming Systems, 1–11. Retrieved from http://www.ifsa2012.dk/downloads/WS2_3/Kilelu et al _tjek op p? denne.pdf Offermans, A., & Glasbergen, P. (2015). Boundary work in sustainability partnerships: An exploration of the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil. Environmental Science & Policy, 50, 34–45. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.01.016 7

Peterson, H. (2009). Transformational supply chains and the’wicked problem'of sustainability: aligning knowledge, innovation, entrepreneurship, and leadership. Journal on Chain and Network Science, 1–11. Retrieved from http://wageningenacademic.metapress.com/index/V43K7X0NVWJ482X1.pdf Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(December 1969), 155–169.

Ritter, T., Wilkinson, I. F., & Johnston, W. J. (2002). Measuring network competence: some international evidence. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 17(2/3), 119–138. doi:10.1108/08858620210419763 Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2009a). Complexity and transition management. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 13(2), 184–196. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00116.x Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2009b). Complexity and Transition Management. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 13(2), 184–196. doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00116.x Selene, Paola; Martínez, V. (2014). Redefiniendo el papel de la empresa en al desarrollo de la sociedad: El imperativo de la sustentabilidad. In Sustentabilidad y gestión en las organizaciones.

Perspectivas teóricas e implicaciones prácticas (1st ed., pp. 15 – 35). México D.F. Senge, P., Hamilton, H., & Kania, J. (2015). The Dawn of System Leadership. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter.

Van den Hove, S. (2007). A rationale for science-policy interfaces. Futures, 39(7), 807–826. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2006.12.004 Voß, J., & Kemp, R. (2006). Sustainability and reflexive governance: introduction. In Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development (pp. 3–28).

Wieczorek, A. J., Hekkert, M. P., & Smits, R. (2010). Systemic policy instruments and their role in addressing sustainability challenges.

8