Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Research & Social Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss

Review

Industrializing theories: A thematic analysis of conceptual frameworks and

typologies for industrial sociotechnical change in a low-carbon future☆
Benjamin K. Sovacool a, b, c, *, Marfuga Iskandarova a, Jeremy Hall a
a
Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex Business School, United Kingdom
b
Center for Energy Technologies, Department of Business Development and Technology, Aarhus University, Denmark
c
Department of Earth and Environment, Boston University, United States of America

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Decarbonizing industry represents a critical challenge, requiring massive technology up-scaling, accelerated
Industrial decarbonization investment, and substantial science-supported policy changes. Such broad challenges call for inputs from diverse
Net-zero disciplinary perspectives. In this paper we identify, analyze and synthesize theories and conceptual frameworks
Sustainability transitions
shaping industrial decarbonization research, with the aim of exploring those most relevant for understanding
Sociotechnical change
industrial sociotechnical change in a low-carbon future. We draw from an expert-guided process covering 71
Conceptual frameworks
Theory years of academic literature to present 88 distinct theories connected to industrial decarbonization and change.
Based on an expert review, a literature review, and thematic analysis, we identify eight families of perspectives:
theories of sociotechnical transitions, innovation and diffusion, social equity and acceptance, space place and
geography, organizational behavior and management, politics and governance, risk and communication, and
industrial ecology and sociology. We analyze these theories in terms of their ‘fit’ to the topic of industrial
decarbonization, with 25 theories identified as being core. The second part of the study delves more deeply into
typologies of underlying focus, theoretical emphasis, scale and unit of analysis, temporality, and theoretical
crossovers. We conclude with implications for synthesis and lacuna in theory selection. In doing so, we seek to
broaden conceptual debates that often risk being narrowly discussed in silos, missing opportunities from cross-
disciplinary pollination. We provide a toolkit for researchers to utilize when studying industrial decarbonization,
decline, and change. We also offer strategies for ordering, selecting, and synthesizing diverse theoretical options.

1. Introduction carbon dioxide (GtCO2) in 2020, meaning they represent almost one-
quarter (24 %) of all global emissions. To put this amount in perspec­
Decarbonizing industry and the distinct industrial sectors that tive, if the industrial sector was a country, it would come second for total
comprise it, such as steelmaking, cement, refining, and chemical emissions after China (at 10.1 GtCO2 in 2020) and significantly ahead of
manufacturing, represents a critical sociotechnical challenge for at­ the United States (5.4 GtCO2), India (2.6 GtCO2), and Russia (1.7 GtCO2)
tempts to achieve a net zero emissions goal by 2050 [1,2]. The Inter­ [3]. The decarbonization of industry is also key for green economic re­
national Energy Agency [3] reports that direct industrial carbon dioxide covery while emerging from the current pandemic crisis, by providing a
emissions, including process emissions, reached about 8.5 Gigatons of reliable backbone for markets and establishing a society more resilient

Abbreviations: DD, Deliberate Decline; DI, Disruptive Innovation; DILC/TEC, Dialectical Lifecycle and Triple Embeddedness Framework; GoDD, Geographies of
Deep Decarbonization; GtCO2, Gigatons of carbon dioxide; IA, Industrial Agglomeration; LTS, Large Technical Systems; MLP, Multi-Level perspective; NIMBY, not-in-
my-backyard; NIS, national innovation systems; PED, Political Economies of Decarbonization; RDF, Regime Destabilization Framework; RIS, Regional Innovation
Systems; RRI, responsible research and innovation; SCOT, Social Construction of Technology; SD, Systems Disruption; SoD, Sociology of Deindustrialization; TCOS,
Technological, Commercial, Organizational and Societal uncertainties of innovation; SNM, strategic niche management; TEF, Triple Embeddedness Framework; TIS,
Technological Innovation Systems; TPO, Technology Phase-Out; UTAUT, Unified Theory for the Adoption and Use of Technology.
☆
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge support from the Industrial Decarbonisation Research and Innovation Centre (IDRIC) in the United
Kingdom, funded via the ESRC and EPSRC via Grant EP/V027050/1.
* Corresponding author at: Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex Business School, Jubilee Building, Room 367, Falmer, East Sussex BN1 9SL,
United Kingdom.
E-mail address: [email protected] (B.K. Sovacool).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.102954
Received 28 September 2022; Received in revised form 5 December 2022; Accepted 12 January 2023
Available online 6 February 2023
2214-6296/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

to unforeseen shocks [4]. of consensus and diverging cultures of research that can be used to
Notwithstanding these benefits, industrial decarbonization will critically interrogate any of the 88 theories we identify.
require massive upscaling of technology [5,6], accelerated finance and
investment [374] and transformative changes in policy [7,8]. In this 2. Research design: an expert-guided meta-theoretical review
paper, we ask: What concepts, theoretical lenses, or frameworks do we
have to best understand industrial decarbonization? Theories, in the Our research design for the study was intended to be comprehensive
broadest sense of the term, offer heuristic devices that enable analysts to in terms of covering a wide range of approaches and topics but also
filter large volumes of data, and frameworks offer roadmaps for how to robust in terms of being grounded in a well-designed methodology. We
carry out empirical research [9]. Moreover, structured and sustained thus relied on an expert guided review, a literature review, and thematic
dialogue is often needed among practitioners of different disciplines in analysis. We classify our approach as a theoretical survey or “meta-
order to tackle complex or ‘wicked’ problems via comparative, cross- theoretical” process because we sought to compile and examine the
disciplinary research [10]. Nevertheless, theories specifically appli­ strengths and weaknesses of individual theories in isolation, before
cable to industrial decarbonization seem elusive—while they exist, they working towards potential juxtaposition and synthesis [15]. We
remain discussed almost entirely within their respective academic dis­ acknowledge such an approach cuts across the notions of a theory (a
ciplines and silos [2,11–14]. Economists or historians may talk about subset of variables that posits relationships from them), a conceptual
path dependence and lock-in, sociologists about practices, geographers framework (a more systematic view of data, phenomena, themes, or
about place-based approaches, behavioral scientists and business analysis), a processes (phenomena such as acts of deindustrialization or
scholars about firm strategy. Yet the sheer scale of the problems asso­ decarbonization), a heuristic or approach (a way of condensing infor­
ciated with climate change, coupled with the scale and breath of mation and data into a more usable form or construct), and a model (a
financial, technological and policy transformation needed to address it, parametrization of the relationship between variables within a given
demands cross-disciplinary approaches. context) [9,16–18].
To answer our research question and break down the problem of Given our central goal was to explore theories and conceptual
disciplinary silos, we draw on a relatively novel methodology by frameworks related to industry, technology and society, and especially
combining an expert guided review, a literature review, and thematic the patterns of adoption, diffusion, and technological change, we felt
analysis, resulting in 88 distinct theories connected to industrial such overlap was necessary and even desirable, given that it combines
decarbonization. These theories fall across eight families of perspectives: ways of looking with ways of explaining and ways of evaluating, all of
sociotechnical transitions; innovation and diffusion; social equity and which are necessary for sustainable transitions. Similar to how Sovacool
acceptance; space place and geography; organizational behavior and and Hess [9] defined theories in the domain of sociotechnical transi­
management; politics and governance, risk and communication; and tions, some theories may be closer to entire approaches or topics (e.g.,
industrial ecology and sociology. The first part of the study explains our ‘Sustainable Development,’ ‘Discursive Institutionalism’) or sub-
research methodology and introduces the 88 specific theories. We then disciplines (e.g., ‘Political Ecology’ or ‘Energy Justice’), especially
analyze their suitability for industrial decarbonization, with 25 theories when they become dominant within a particular epistemic community.
identified as being core to the topic and explored in greater depth. The We include these approaches as well under ‘theories’ to recognize such
second part of the study then delves into typologies of underlying focus contributions but also respect the blurring of boundaries between the­
and theoretical emphasis as well as scale and unit of analysis along with ories, approaches, and disciplines.
the theories' treatment of temporality, with implications for synthesis
and lacuna in theory selection. We explore whether existing theories 2.1. Expert guided review
dealing with other phenomena such as firm behavior, policy processes,
innovation dynamics or sustainability transitions can be applied to We began our data collection with an expert guided review, a tech­
address, explain, or interpret industrial issues in the context of net-zero nique more commonly used in other areas, such as medicine or child
ambitions. We also explore whether theories that already apply to in­ nutrition [19–21], geography and political ecology [22], and computer
dustry can be tweaked to address decarbonization and related processes, science and the programming of software systems [23,24]. However, the
issues, or challenges. approach has only recently been utilized in the sustainability transitions
The aims and objectives of the paper are threefold, and rooted in or research policy fields.
conceptual, methodological, and empirical advances. Our primary An expert review - in this case, approaching experts via email or face-
contribution is conceptual, and to broaden conceptual debates and dis­ to-face to ask for their input in generating a list or inventory - offers a
cussions that are often polarizing and risk being narrowly discussed in tool that is sufficiently comprehensive to capture a range of comparative
silos with limited cross-disciplinary pollination. We examine the studies and sources, but also sufficiently rigorous to minimize bias and
fundamental assumptions and synergies within/between theories, with capture studies highly regarded as having strong credibility within
an eye towards making them work better, towards more synthesis or particular communities of scholarship. As explained by Sovacool [22],
“industriousness” by being made more robust and resilient. Second, and the approach begins by asking experts to recommend important, semi­
more methodological, we outline underlying practical elements such as nal, or highly cited work on a topic. They then make suggestions to the
unit of analysis, scale, and phase models that can be useful for how the authoring team(s), who catalogue responses and build an inventory of
theories are applied, especially in an industrial context. This is "indus­ evidence. In this particular study, the resulting inventory relates to
trializing" theories by revealing the available evidence which can aid different theories or conceptual approaches focused on industrial
practitioners in assembling research teams or promoting interdisci­ decarbonization. Experts could recommend anything they deemed
plinary collaborations relevant to industry. Finally, and more empiri­ applicable, with the understanding that the results had to satisfy four
cally, the study is about "industrializing" in terms of scaling up or making criteria as shown in Table 1, the first two relating to scope (topical and
stronger the application of many non-industrial theories to industrial temporal), and the other two related to quality and accessibility.
topics. This form of industrializing recognizes the complexity of indus­ No results were filtered or excluded providing they met the four
trial decarbonization as a topic, calling for more plasticity in moving criteria, and all recommended theories (and suggested readings) were
away from rigid disciplinary boundaries by recognizing the merits of treated as equally valid. Experts were given one month to complete their
different perspectives. For researchers and students that appreciate task, with one reminder, and were welcome to nominate their own work
theory, this form of industrializing attempts to provide a toolkit to un­ alongside others.
derstand the dynamics of industrial decarbonization. It also offers in­ The authors began the expert review process by contacting 36
sights into how theorists approach the topic, revealing an apparent lack prominent experts with field expertise on industrial decarbonization as

2
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

Table 1 Table 2
Criteria for expert reviews utilized in this study. Climate change and decarbonization studies using various forms of expert
Scope Topical Dealing with industrial decarbonization, industrial
elicitation.
change, or industrial-society relations (and not Paper Topic No. experts
other areas such as household transitions, climate
mitigation, or the decarbonization of transport); Sovacool [22] Climate change mitigation 50
Temporal Published in the past 71 years, i.e. between 1950 This study Industrial decarbonization 36
and 2021, when knowledge about climate change Honneger et al. [26] Decarbonization 31
became established and both energy and climate Dai et al. [27] Decarbonization 26
policy architectures begin to emerge; Vaughan and Gough [28] Decarbonization 18
Quality & Validity Published in peer reviewed literature (i.e. including Average 32.2
Accessibility books but excluding unpublished or non-peer Source: Authors.
reviewed papers, or in non-final form such as
conference proceedings or working papers).
Language Published in English, the most accessible language of time, the risk of fatigue, and the fact that data was collected during a
of the international scientific community. global pandemic), we supplemented our expert elicitation process with a
secondary, and more systematic and targeted, literature review. Grant
and Booth [29] discuss fourteen types of literature reviews. Based on
well as conceptual frameworks and theories (see Appendix I). These
their categorization scheme, our approach can be classified as a mix of a
experts were selected because their work is well known within the
mapping review (which categorizes the literature to commission further
discourse, having either published on the topic of industrial decarbon­
reviews and gaps); an overview (which summarizes a body of literature
ization in the past five years (from 2017 to 2021), and/or were eminent,
to describe its general characteristics); a scoping review (which assesses
highly cited scholars and theorists on the topic of science and technology
the size and quality of available literature on a topic); a state-of-the-art
policy, innovation studies, or sustainability transitions. Our sample of
review (which offers new perspectives on an issue in contrast to being
experts is distinguished, with a collective 262,490 citations (from Sco­
only retrospective); a systematized review (which aims to produce “best
pus) and an average (mean) h-index of 32.4 (see also Appendix I).
evidence synthesis”); and an umbrella review (which compiles evidence
The experts were explicitly asked: “Do you know of any relevant
from different evidence bases as well as previous reviews). This makes
theories, conceptual frameworks, or heuristics within the literature that
our review forward looking, summative, evaluative, inclusive, system­
could be applied for studying sociotechnical change in an industrial
atic, and multi-disciplinary. Such “mixed” or “hybrid” literature reviews
decline, decarbonization, net-zero context?” “If so, can you share read­
that combine more than one type, or involve multiple review stages, are
ings on them?” These experts are based in 31 institutions across nine
increasingly common within innovation studies and sustainability
countries (Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Norway,
transitions, with recent examples being Kivimaa et al. [367], Turnheim
Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States) and represented 26
and Sovacool [30], Stornelli et al. [31], and Hurmelinna-Laukkanen and
different disciplines including business and management, economic
Yang [32]. Consistent with Grant and Booth [29], our search process can
geography, environmental psychology, history, political science, science
be considered inclusive (we did not discard any results), our synthesis
and technology studies, and sociology. Their full names, institutions,
process was inductive (as opposed to adhering to a single theory or
and field expertise are listed in Appendix I. The aim of this expert elic­
deductive), and our analysis process was conceptual and thematic (as
itation and the review process was not to present all possible social
opposed to quantitative).
science theories and concepts, but instead to present those interpreted as
In terms of the mechanics of our review, we searched the Scopus
most relevant by study participants, including the material they shared
Database for three sets of terms in the titles, keywords, and abstracts of
that are currently dominating study on decarbonization.
articles published over the course of 1950 to 2021, covering more than
By undertaking an expert review that includes such a diverse number
seventy years of scholarship:
of experts, we hedge against the risk that individual accounts of exper­
tise may be biased, self-serving or unreliable, thus minimizing insuffi­
- “Industry” or “industrial” and
cient or misleading examples of expertise such as selective recall or self-
- “Decarbonization” or “decline” or “reconfiguration” or “deindustri­
serving biases [25]. Our approach thus allows us to document the
alization” or “reorientation” or “restructuring” or “phaseout” or “net-
strength and evidence on the topic, but buffers against importing
zero” or “carbon-neutral” or “low-carbon” and
disguised political or disciplinary agendas from any single expert or peer
- “Theory” or “theoretical construct” or “conceptual framework” or
due to the involvement of a larger pool of experts. We suggest that our
“analytical tool” or “heuristic” or “analytical framework” or
expert data is thus likely to be more reliable than, but not identical to,
“concept” or “model” or “approach.”
knowledge. Knowledge refers generally to repositories of images, doc­
uments, or routines, i.e. external data that people can view and interpret
This resulted in more approximately 500 studies deemed relevant for
as they try to solve a problem, or undertake decision-making [25]. By
examination which have been listed in Appendix II, or cited in the
contrast, our approach forced our experts to interpret their knowledge on
Supplementary Online Material.
the topic of industrial decarbonization and make an expert judgment
about the relevance and fit of particular theories and approaches.
We found that consistency and repetition of the theories began to 2.3. Thematic analysis
emerge after engaging with 20 experts, with only a small number of
additional theories being identified after 30, thus implying that data After conducting and evaluating both the expert inventory of the­
saturation had occurred. Also note that our final tally of 36 experts falls ories and literature reviews of the 500 studies, the authoring team un­
well above the average number of other expert elicitation studies in the dertook thematic analysis of the results. Thematic analysis is a ‘type of
general area of climate change and decarbonization (see Table 2). qualitative analysis’ used to ‘analyze classifications and present themes
(patterns) that relate to the data’ ([33]:39). Thematic analysis thus re­
fers to a form of pattern recognition that involves identifying core
2.2. Literature review themes (in this case, ‘theories’ or ‘approaches’) via the careful reading,
and rereading, of the material [34]. Similar to other approaches within
To support the elicitation process and improve triangulation, and the social sciences such as ethnography, phenomenology, and content
accommodate the fact that we did not go back to the experts to ask them analysis, thematic analysis extracts meaning from data and encompasses
to validate our final inventory of theories (due to saturation but also lack the pinpointing, sharpening, recording, and/or evaluation of recurring

3
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

themes [35]. involves drawing knowledge from a diverse variety of institutions and
In our case, one positive aspect of our thematic analysis is that it is sources (which we do via our expert review and literature review). The
able to capture, in detail, diverse subjects and interpretations of those dialogic element refers to treating results as interrelated and with the
subjects. Much of our data was qualitative, and thus usually dependent capacity to reflect multiple simultaneous views, a plurality of findings
on interpretation. This means that the data may not be explained by a rather than one definitive finding. This contrasts with the more tradi­
single interpretation, and instead may require several explanations. tional Mode 1 Knowledge Production which is, among other factors,
Although it may appear that this was a linear, step-by-step process, the disciplinary, and homogenous.
research analysis was an iterative and reflexive undertaking, with data As discussed in Section 3, the resulting corpus of evidence suggested
analysis and coding done concurrently, and analysis proceeding with by our experts, or identified through our literature review, amounts to
multiple reads of both the expert responses and literature to ensure that 88 distinct theories summarized in Appendix II. Such a meta-theoretical
all identified theories were grounded in the data. Analysis and inter­ review and inventory helps explicitly counter Norgaard's [40] criticism
pretation were merged together, creating an overlap between them. that too many theories or frameworks serve as “complexity blinders”
Following the guidelines from Javadi and Zarea [35], we undertook that oversimplify the system's nature of a topic, exacerbating bounded
an inductive thematic analysis, where the findings were not pre­ rationality [41]. We explicitly address this challenge by critically
determined towards any particular theory, but were instead grounded analyzing multiple theories to reveal collectively a greater number of
entirely in the data. We included both semantic themes, that is data variables (to better capture ‘complexity’) than any single approach
about industrial decarbonization theories explicit and evident in the could by itself. Consistent with Stern [42], we believe that “nothing
material, but also latent themes, which are more interpretive and based advances theory better than tackling a practical problem by integrating
on an emergent understanding of the material. We lastly undertook our different perspectives.”
thematic analysis within the following steps or phases: Although it has these three strengths, our approach does have limi­
tations. Hessels and van Lente [39] note that with Mode 2 knowledge it
• Recognizing and listing the data (parts of patterns), that is carefully is not always easy to reach theoretical consensus; that research results
reading and rereading all collected material; will differ unevenly to problem contexts and diffuse unevenly to prac­
• Combining nascent patterns into themes, which included generating titioners; and that due to a wider and even incommensurate set of
our initial codes, creating transcripts of all relevant material, to help quality criteria, it becomes even more difficult to determine ‘good sci­
convert it in its raw form (expert reply, published study) into a more ence’, as it is no longer limited to the judgment of a single discipline or
usable form (notes and nodes); peer [43]. Moreover, given that our assessment evaluates qualitative
• Searching for themes and recognizing subthemes and sub-patterns, literature, we are essentially providing a qualitative assessment of
in particular taking note of recurring patterns in the material and qualitative research assessed by others, an interpretation of
beginning to cluster results according to different “families” (which interpretations.
we will explain more in Section 3); In evaluating industrial decarbonization theories below, we do not
• Further synthesizing subthemes into themes, and refining both the distinguish between fundamental types of theory insofar as their un­
unit of analysis (our “theories”) as well as the ‘families’ with which derlying assumptions, e.g., positivist, pragmatist, critical realist, inter­
they belong; pretivist, post-modern [38], or those based on functionalism,
• Reviewing and refining themes, that is intense discussions within the interpretivism, humanism or conflict [9], as this was outside of the core
authoring team about theory identification, placement, and mission of the project funding the work. Some of our approaches may
interpretation; critique industrial decarbonization as a process, others may envision
• Formulation of results, finalizing our themes, and drafting the industrial decarbonization as a problem to be solved and are therefore
analysis. geared towards the development of appropriate interventions—creating
a distinction between analytic (descriptive/explanatory), evaluative and
The thematic analysis undertaken by the research team took more interventionist approaches. Our theoretical meta-survey involves all of
than six months, and involved the interactive process of defining, these types of approaches, even though some can be seen as ‘hatchets’
reviewing and refining themes. The result is far more than merely a (that seek to critique or destroy existing paradigms) whereas others can
paraphrase of the material, or a bibliometric assessment, but rather a be seen as ‘seeds’ (that seek to grow new paradigms) [44].
robust and critical analysis of the material, especially for themes that The nonrandom sample of our expert guided review also has several
have high levels of overlap and may lack coherence and consistency. limitations. First, although the experts listed in Appendix I come from
over two dozen disciplines, the sample was confined primarily to a
2.4. Novelty, limitations, and future gaps smaller sample of social science researchers known to have published in
the academic literature on the topic of industry and sociotechnical
The combination of methods undertaken—expert review, literature change in the past five years (from 2016 to 2021). Second, although the
review, thematic analysis—involves the application of new and perhaps experts represent a strong diversity in terms of institutions, the sample
unconventional methods to industrial decarbonization. Our research focused on the category of “experts”, meaning mostly senior and
design has the benefit of combining data-driven (assessing the litera­ eminent researchers. The sample thus made it possible to develop a
ture) and knowledge-driven (soliciting expert opinion) approaches picture of what is considered important from the perspective of highly
suggested by McDermott et al. [36]. Koppman and Leahey [37] suggest cited scholars familiar with relevant theoretical debates and frame­
that the combination of methods can result in a new form of knowledge works, but not those at other career stages. Third, the sample is limited
production, more valid than relying on any single method, and more demographically. The full global range of work on technology and so­
socially distributed than within one institution alone. This therefore ciety is thus likely not included, especially considerations or published
reflects an ‘epistemological turn’ towards eclecticism, and the promo­ research from the Global South. Given these limitations, this first part of
tion of ‘umbrella advocacy’ which argues in favor of broad perspectives the study should be interpreted as an analysis of what a nonrandom or
encompassing a diversity of elements [38]. Hessels and van Lente [39] targeted sample of leaders of the field(s), or a network of people with
classify such a methodology as ‘Mode 2’ New Production of Knowledge, prominent field positions, perceive to be important theoretical
which is transdisciplinary, heterogenous, and dialogic. The trans­ frameworks.
disciplinary element involves the mobilization of a range of theoretical Lastly, some of the assumptions about interlinkages between
perspectives (rather than relying on only one or a single discipline) to different theories or academic communities could be tested formally
provide perspective on a given problem. The heterogenous element with citation network analysis (e.g. [45]), which we refrain from doing

4
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

here due to lack of space. Similarly, future work could reflect and trace theory would not explicitly discuss decarbonization, but would be
the extent that various theories and conceptual terminologies have been relevant at exploring how industries or clusters adopt or resist new
picked up by practitioners working in the area of industrial change technologies. A peripheral theory was identified as dealing most broadly
policies and business activities, where they are visible in the “real world” with industrial-society relations, policy, or strategy, but not specifically
or in authoritative texts on decarbonization such as those authored by with decarbonization or industrial change. Even if a peripheral theory
the World Bank, the International Energy Agency, the Organization of remains foundational within a discipline, it is still classified here as
Economic Cooperation and Development, Intergovernmental Panel on peripheral to our specific topic of industrial decarbonization. A pe­
Climate Change, and other United Nations institutions. One useful ripheral theory may be groundbreaking to the field of study, but suffi­
template for this approach would be Meckling and Allan [46], who ciently broad in its application that it lacks adequate focus as a lens to
traced how economic ideas influenced climate policy advice by major understand decarbonization on its own.
international organizations.
3.1. Sociotechnical transitions
3. Results: inventorying and classifying theoretical concepts
and approaches Eleven of our 88 theories (12.5 %) fall into the family of socio­
technical transitions and change, a broad camp of approaches drawing
To grapple with the 88 theories on industrial decarbonization and from science and technology studies, the history of technology, the so­
change arising from our data collection, we began by summarizing each ciology of technology, and sustainability transitions. This family of
theory according to its name, key author(s), short description, and perspectives had the largest number of core theories (seven, or 28 % of
illustrative references (Appendix II). Based upon our thematic analysis all core theories) summarized in Table 3. See the Supplementary Online
explained in Section 2.3, we grouped the 88 theories into eight broad Material for more detailed descriptions of each of these theories,
disciplinary families of perspectives as shown in Fig. 1: including key diagrams and display items.
The Triple Embeddedness Framework focuses on how new issues (i.e.
(1) Sociotechnical transitions dealing with patterns of continuity and societal problems) gradually emerge and how industries respond to
change including the decline or destabilization of industrial them (initially with denial, then generally articulating the difficulty or
clusters, technologies or sectors; expensiveness in addressing them, followed by incremental change, then
(2) Innovation and diffusion theories emphasizing patterns of hedging or diversification, and finally full reorientation). Its exemplar
improvement or performance within technologies or patents and case is the automotive industry faced with pressures to become more
the adoption, or rejection, by users or organizations; sustainable. It also harnesses a ‘dialectic issue lifecycle model’ because it
(3) Social equity and acceptance theories focusing on the social aims to capture the multidimensional struggles related to the greening of
legitimacy, social acceptability and justice implications of in­ industry.
dustrial decarbonization; Deliberate Decline seeks to explain what is meant by decline in the
(4) Space place and geography theories emphasizing spatial patterns context of decarbonization, especially in terms of reconfiguring industry
of industrial development or the embedding of industrialization to no longer utilize fossil-fuels.
within particular locations and communities; The Regime Destabilization Framework aims to offer an analytical
(5) Organizational behavior and management theories highlighting perspective integrating existing views on destabilization and conceptu­
business models, industrial strategy, firm management and alizes the process as a multi-dimensional and enacted phenomenon
institutional dynamics of industrial change; involving technical, economic, political, and cultural processes, thereby
(6) Politics and governance theories illustrating notions of political showing how the process can be understood as entailing both external
economy, policymaking, norms, or collective action dilemmas pressures and endogenous responses. Destabilization can even be
that arise within industrial decarbonation; interpreted as the ‘flipside’ of innovation processes for how they are
(7) Risk and communication theories highlighting the conception undone; it also proposes that constellations of interests and power re­
and definition of particular risks, as well as how they are lations will dictate which interests are prioritized during destabilization,
distributed and risk management strategies, along with how risks whose voices count, and which social groups are poised to benefit.
are discursively constructed or rhetorically framed and The concept of a Technology Phase-Out seeks to capture the
communicated; managed and often gradual or stepwise intentional ending or unfolding
(8) Industrial ecology and sociology theories revealing the coevolu­ of a particular technology or system over time, with examples most
tionary and selection pressures facing industrial clusters as well relevant to industrial decarbonization including ozone depleting sub­
as needed industrial nutrients and metabolic practices along with stances, per-fluorinated compounds, and coal (in some contexts). In
the social shaping of relations and identities. doing so, this framework identifies relationships between both emerging
and declining technology value changes, as well as changes in the sec­
In addition to classifying theories by their disciplinary family, our tors producing those technologies, along with cross-sectoral dynamics
thematic analysis involved assessing their relevance. Fig. 1 presents the and effects on adjacent firms.
authors' determination as to whether such theories were “core”, “semi- The Multi-Level Perspective on sustainability transitions has been
core”, or “peripheral” to the specific aims and objectives of under­ applied to study various household, commercial, national, and even
standing industrial decarbonization and change. A core theory had to international low-carbon transitions. It has also been adapted to inves­
deal expressly with industrial decarbonization, destabilization, recon­ tigate novel innovations that emerge in protected niches, incorporation
figuration or decline. It has to mention these topics repeatedly and in- of new technology and transformation of industrial systems. The theory
depth. This includes theories intently developed for studying these describes differing pathways of emergence, diffusion, and reconfigura­
phenomena, e.g. the Triple Embeddedness Framework, Regime Desta­ tion across industrial sectors as diverse as plastics, cement, steel, ship­
bilization, Geographies of Deep Decarbonization, or Political Economies ping, aviation, agriculture, and automobiles; other work features the
of Decarbonization, as well as theories developed in other areas but ‘discontinuation’ of particular technologies or sociotechnical systems.
extended, modified, or applied to the topic, e.g. the Multi-Level Social practice theory examines the social behaviors or practices as a
Perspective, Technological Innovation Systems, Organizational Decline fundamental unit of analysis (often typified to be composed of materials,
or the Discourse Institutionalist Approach. A semi-core theory was meanings, and skills or forms of competence) to reveal insights about
deemed as still relevant to the topic, but only in a way where it dealt patterns of societal change, and the challenges and opportunities asso­
more generally with industrial change or technology adoption. Such a ciated with decarbonization.

5
 B.K. Sovacool et al.
6

Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

Fig. 1. Visualizing theories of industrial decarbonization and change by families of perspectives
Source: Authors, derived by the expert elicitation process and our extensive literature review. The diagram includes theories that have been applied to industry or decarbonization or could be. NIMBY = not-in-my-
backyard. DILC/TEC=Dialectical Lifecycle and Triple Embeddedness Framework. TIS = Technological innovation systems. MLP = Multi-Level perspective. UTAUT = Unified Theory for the Adoption and Use of
Technology. RIS = regional innovation systems. TCOS = Technological, Commercial, Organizational and Societal uncertainties of innovation. SNM = strategic niche management. RRI = responsible research and
innovation. NIS = national innovation systems. Note: Core theories relate centrally to the topic of industrial decarbonization, destabilization, reconfiguration or decline—that is they specifically address it or have been
applied to it. Semi-core theories relate to industrial change and technology adoption, but not necessarily decarbonization or decline. Peripheral theories are the most general and relate to broader issues of industrial
society relations, industrial strategy, or industrial policy. TIS is often placed in the family of perspectives dealing with sustainability transitions, but we have placed it in the innovation family given the specific
connections made to Schumpeter and innovation scholars when applied to the topic of industrial decarbonization. Social practice theory is often placed into the family of perspectives on sociology (or behavioral
science), but we place it into sustainability transitions family given the specific application of the theory within that literature. RIS is sometimes placed in the family of perspectives on geography, but we put them in the
innovation family given the roots of the particular literature examined, i.e. systems theory, innovation policy, and network science. Some particular theories (actor network theory, social construction of technology) are
not included given they were not mentioned during the expert review nor did they arise from the literature review. We discuss lacunae further in Section 4.6.
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

Table 3 Finally, Large Technical Systems theory draws from history to

Summary of core theories on industrial decarbonization and change empha­ explore the emergence and growth of large-scale, capital-intensive
sizing sociotechnical transitions. socio-material systems and sub-systems. It also includes a phased model
Theory or Description Key themes or concepts of technical evolution consisting of invention, expansion, growth, path
framework dependence, and style, with later work adapting it to also include
Triple Reveals selection pressures Industry regime (composed of reconfiguration, contestation, and stagnation and decline.
embeddedness from the broader social, regulations and standards,
framework political, or economic missions, norms, technical 3.2. Innovation and diffusion
environment and describes knowledge, capabilities, and
how firms respond, including beliefs), core and peripheral
better managing their supply firms, economic or task Nineteen theories (21.6 %) reside in the family of innovation and
chains, changing marketing environment, institutional or diffusion theories (the largest of any family), a body of research drawing
or operations practices, or sociopolitical environment from innovation studies, history, and science policy as well as some
lobbying for political support systems theory, geography (especially regionalism and economic geog­
Deliberate decline A synthetic theory of Relative position, low-carbon raphy), business and management. This family of perspectives has five
intentional decline that seeks alternatives, carbon-intensive core theories (20 %) summarized in Table 4 (with the Supplementary
to combine concepts of arrangements, technological
Online Material offering extended descriptions and visualizations).
phase-out, divestment and lock-in, sociotechnical
regime destabilization pathways Technological Innovation Systems emerged to study innovation
ecosystems of almost any scale, scope or type (from households to
Regime Analytical perspective Five stages of decline (hubris,
destabilization integrating the technical, undisciplined pursuit, denial,
products to technological regimes or entire sociotechnical systems or
framework economic, political, and grasping for salvation, countries). Such innovation systems are argued to consist of the func­
cultural processes of capitulation), reorientation, tions of the system, its application to specific products or perspectives,
destabilization and the recreation, dissolution, and the manner by which it restricts or shapes actors, institutions, and
weakening of regimes deliberate destabilization
networks key to the innovation process. It has been adapted to purpo­
Technology phase- A governance approach, Regulatory intervention by sively explore decline by tapping into the work of Schumpeter’s “crea­
out policy, or regime pathway the state, bans, moratoriums,
tive destruction” as well as specific mechanisms, including de-
that actively seeks the policy targets, firm exit, firm
sequential termination of a diversification, value chains
legitimation, market decline, and resource demobilization.
specific technology, Disruptive Innovation explores how advances in technology, busi­
substance, or process, at ness models, or products can surpass a seemingly superior incumbent
times combining literatures technology in the market, because they bring other benefits to customers
on transitions and phase-out,
such as convenience or efficiency, expanding to new groups of users. In
technological innovation
systems, diversification, and the context of industrial decarbonization, these disruptive technologies
industrial context would embody substantial improvements in sustainability or reduced
Multi-level A framework that provides Niche-regime interaction, carbon intensity.
perspective on an overall view of the multi- experimentation, Rather than individual technologies, products or processes the
transitions dimensional complexity of intermediaries, de-alignment, closely related conception of Systems Disruption focuses on disruption
changes in socio-technical re-alignment, substitution, across the entire range of dimensions of technology, market and business
systems; reconfiguration, emergence,
models, ownership, actors and regulation. The dimensions of markets,
the development or diffusion, reconfiguration,
introduction of new regime lifecycle, regulation, and policy are meant to correspond to the disruption at the
technologies leading to new discontinuation sociotechnical system level, whereas disruption among actors and net­
socio-technical works correspond to changes within companies or users.
configurations depends on
Regional Innovation System theory intends to merge together in­
pathways involving niches,
regimes, and landscapes
sights from systems theory, regional innovation policy, related variety
analysis, and network science to reveal changing patterns of innovation
Social practice Explores the material Materials, meanings, forms of
(including knowledge, skills, and practices) within a region, an area
theorya arrangements (i.e. materials, competence, circuits of
technologies and tangible practice, entanglements larger than a community but smaller than a nation state. In the context
physical entities), of industrial decarbonization, the approach has been utilized to reveal
knowledge, and routines regions coming to adopt “green innovations” or reorient themselves
connected with
towards more sustainable processes.
decarbonization
Finally, “exnovation” is a concept describing the removal of an
Large technical Large sociotechnical systems System builders, momentum, innovation (or an idea, practice, or material technology) from an orga­
systems require an alignment of reverse salient, load factor,
technical, economic, vertical and horizontal
nization in order to provide space for new, better innovations. When
political, and social factors to coupling, phases of system applied to industrial decarbonization, this would encompass the
function, once they begin to growth, expansion, and replacement of fossil-fueled systems or unsustainable ones with renew­
solidify, they acquire decline able or less materials intensive fuel and feedstock sources.
momentum

Source: Derived by the expert elicitation process and our extensive literature 3.3. Social equity and acceptance
review. For more details including key references, please see Appendix II and the
reference list. For extended discussion of each core theory, see the Supplemen­ Seven theories (7.9 %) sit within the family of perspectives on social
tary Online Material. equity and acceptance, a corpus drawing from disciplines as diverse as
a
Social practice theory is often placed into the family of perspectives on so­
social movements, ethics and moral studies, environmental, climate, and
ciology (or behavioral science), but we place it into sustainability transitions
energy justice, as well as some sociology and environmental psychology.
family given the specific application of the theory within that literature.
This family of perspectives has two core theories (8 %) summarized in
Table 5 (with The Supplementary Online Material offering elaboration).
Just Transitions connects the concept of social justice with industrial
transitions, specifically the equitable distribution of the benefits and
costs of transiting away from high carbon and unsustainable

7
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

Table 4 Table 5
Summary of core theories on industrial decarbonization and change empha­ Summary of core theories on industrial decarbonization and change empha­
sizing innovation and diffusion. sizing social equity and acceptance.
Theory or framework Description Key themes or concepts Theory or Description Key themes or concepts
framework
Technological Describes and examines a Creative destruction,
innovation systems set of networks of actors functions of innovation, Just An array of principles, processes Social justice, climate justice,
(including decline/ and institutions that jointly functions of decline, motors transitions and practices aimed at ensuring energy justice, restorative
creative destruction)a interact in a specific of innovation, de- that no people, workers, places, justice, cosmopolitan justice
technological field and legitimation, repulsion of sectors, countries or regions are
contribute to the direction of search, market left behind in the transition
generation, diffusion and decline, resource from high to low carbon
utilization of variants of a demobilization, motors of economies. It includes respect
new technology and/or a creative destruction and dignity for vulnerable
new product; extended to groups; creation of decent jobs;
include the functions of TIS social protection; employment
in recent work rights; fairness in energy access
and use and social dialogue and
Disruptive innovation Explores how new Disruptive technology, new
democratic consultation with
technologies came to production processes and
relevant stakeholders
surpass seemingly superior products, reduced value of
technologies in a market, existing competencies, new Social Examines the organization, Coalitions, tactics, patterns of
later widened to include value propositions or value mobilization structure, outcomes or movements and opposition,
products and business chains, sustaining consequences of social identification of injustice,
models innovation, incumbent movements and collective outcomes and remediation,
business's improvement action mobilizations including opportunity structures, trans-
trajectory direct action tactics, protests, local solidarities
and anti-fossil fuel campaigns
Systems disruption Investigates systemic Magnitudes of change
understandings of (large, small), pace of Source: Derived by the expert elicitation process and our extensive literature
disruption rather than change (radical, gradual), review. For more details including key references, please see Appendix II and the
discrete disruptive four dimensions of reference list. For extended discussion of each core theory, see the Supplemen­
innovations; disruption is disruption (technology,
tary Online Material.
defined as “radical markets and business
interference in one or more models, ownership and
of the elements of a actors, and regulation) national change, based on common purposes and tactics. One important
stabilized socio-technical perspective is the analysis of opportunity structures, work identifying
system, causing pressure to
characteristics of national political systems that can contrive to more or
alter the system more than
incrementally towards less open opportunities for social movements and that affected the po­
“improved sustainability.”” tential for effective outcomes. Many such movements have been actively
Regional innovation Draws from systems Production subsystem, opposed to new carbon-intensive industrial clusters (e.g., calls for ban­
systemsb theory, regional innovation knowledge subsystem, ning fossil fuels, for divestment) and call for citizen assemblies or open
policy and practice to direct interaction, referendums on net-zero or low-carbon industrial strategy.
identify “network regions” knowledge or capital flows,
and a “related variety” of extra-regional influences,
industry and the location of horizontal and vertical
3.4. Space, place and geography
industrial innovation networking
systems
Nine theories (10.2 %) sit within the family of perspectives on space,
Exnovation The removal of an Pro-innovation bias,
innovation from an Exnovation conundrum, place, and scale, a collection of research involving disciplines such as
organization in order to anti-Exnovation bias, sunk human, physical, and economic geography, regional studies, area
provide space for new cost fallacy studies, as well as political economy, economics, business, and man­
innovations agement. This family of perspectives has four core theories (16 %)
Source: Derived by the expert elicitation process and our extensive literature summarized in Table 6 (with The Supplementary Online Material of­
review. For more details including key references, please see Appendix II and the fering elaboration).
reference list. For extended discussion of each core theory, see the Supplemen­ Industrial Agglomeration focuses on the benefits of combining or
tary Online Material. forming into a mass grouping of different industries so that economies of
a
TIS is often placed in the family of perspectives dealing with sustainability scale and scope generate efficiencies can be achieved concerning the
transitions, but we have placed it in the innovation family given the specific cost of moving goods, people, and ideas. This can lead to physical
connections made to Schumpeter and innovation scholars when applied to the
spillovers (e.g. resources, materials, products) and intellectual spillovers
topic of industrial decarbonization.
b (e.g. innovation, competitiveness, or knowledge).
RIS are sometimes placed in the family of perspectives on geography, but we
put them in the innovation family given the roots of the particular literature Geographies of deep decarbonation is perhaps the newest of the
examined, i.e. systems theory, innovation policy, and network science. theories within this family, and also the broadest. It refers to an overall
approach to better understanding the production and value chains
involved in economic valuation behind fossil fuels, and the required
development trajectories. In doing so, it also identifies vulnerable changes in circulation of resources flows, investment, products and
groups, stipulates the necessity for employment and the right to work forms of consumption and waste that would be involved in a decar­
(decent jobs), social protection, and fairness in dialogue and decision- bonized economy. It notes how some industrial regions or clusters can
making. When applied to industrial decarbonization, it would empha­ become ‘telecoupled’ with others, e.g. soy production in Brazil linked
size the need to protect jobs and minimize vulnerabilities among those with cattle farming in Germany, and how this shapes value and material
dependent on fossil fuels, while simultaneously supporting job growth in flows.
clean energy sectors. Industrial ruins and place attachment focus both on the spatial dy­
Social Mobilization theory recognizes the role of social movements namics of decarbonization or deindustrialization but also community or
and public opposition, sustained efforts at shaping local, regional, or individual identities that change as “post-industrial” clusters emerge.

8
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

Table 6 organizational behavior and management (the second largest of any

Summary of core theories on industrial decarbonization and change empha­ family), a collection of research involving disciplines such as business
sizing space, place, and geography. and management, organizational studies, project management, entre­
Theory or Description Key themes or concepts preneurship, supply chain management, institutional work, and strat­
framework egy. This family of perspectives has two core theories (8 %) summarized
Industrial Investigates the “regional Regional advantage, in Table 7 (with The Supplementary Online Material offering
agglomeration advantage” or positive physical and intellectual elaboration).
“spillovers” to be gained by spillovers, economies of Megaproject management approaches draw on the literatures on
agglomerating industries scale, economies of scope,
industrial organization and project management to explain how per­
together in order to achieve agglomeration externalities,
economies of scale Environmental Total Factor formance is improved (or hindered) through learning and innovation in
concerning the costs of Productivity, Green Total products and processes. Industrial clusters can be considered one type of
moving goods, people, and Factor Productivity megaproject or even multiple overlapping megaprojects (dealing with
ideas manufacturing, energy, transport, communication, etc.), but often with
Geographies of Connects the contemporary Telecoupling, logics of severe management challenges including deception, optimism bias, cost
deep challenge of decarbonization supply and multi-directional overruns, and the fallacy of sunk costs. These risks can be hedged by
decarbonization with previous geographic flows of goods, value capture
better accountability as well as system recombination or replication.
work on industrial and and materiality, inter-firm
regional decline as well as governance, intermediary The theory of Organizational Decline offers a phase-model for how
insights from cultural firms in intermediary places, different institutions, organizations, industrial clusters or even entire
political economy and embeddedness of relational industries fail to adapt to challenges and end up jeopardizing their
transition studies networks, scale scope and survival. This model suggests five stages beginning with the Blinded
rapidity of decarbonization,
carbon leakage, regulatory
stage where decline begins (Stage 1), moving to Inaction (Stage 2) and
gaming Faulty Action (Stage 3) before entering Crisis (Stage 4) and Dissolution
(Stage 5).
Industrial ruins and Combines insights from Post-industrial societies or
place attachment sociology, anthropology, clusters, landscape scars, the
geography, environmental violence of ruination,
psychology, and material sacrifice zones 3.6. Politics and governance
culture studies on notions of
place, community, memory,
and home to explore the
Eight theories (9.1 %) sit within the family of perspectives on politics
material devastation of areas and governance, an area of inquiry yielding insights from political sci­
of industrial decline; also ence, public policy, policy studies, and political economy as well as
conceptualizes “the post- governance and cultural studies. This family of perspectives has one core
industrial” as a way of
theory (4 %) summarized in Table 8 (with The Supplementary Online
thinking about the urban
redevelopment of old Material offering elaboration).
industrial cities Similar to the Geographies of Deep Decarbonization, the Political
Cluster theory Explores how the “clustering” Territoriality, geographic
Economies of Decarbonization is less a clearly formulated theory and
or localization of industries in extension, industrial more a collection of approaches that highlight the multi-scalar and
industrial districts can bring connection, integration into multi-sectoral nature of industrial decarbonization, especially in terms
positive synergies value chains, strategy,
(productivity, prosperity, maturity, the “competitive
efficiency, innovation, diamond” Table 7
entrepreneurship, spillovers) Summary of core theories on industrial decarbonization and change empha­
alongside other risks (lock-in, sizing organizational behavior and management.
pollution, exposure to shocks)
Theory or Description Key themes or concepts
Source: Derived by the expert elicitation process and our extensive literature framework
review. For more details including key references, please see Appendix II and the Megaproject Views industrial Optimism bias, strategic
reference list. For extended discussion of each core theory, see the Supplemen­ management infrastructure as a misrepresentation, sunk cost
tary Online Material. sociotechnical megaproject fallacy, path dependence,
involving the coupling product-product matrix, system
together of different systems recombination, system
These areas must confront massive shifts in their economic base, often to achieve a specified goal. replication
necessitating a transition away from manufacturing to a service and Such megaprojects can be
knowledge economy; as well as confront “landscape scars” including prone to poor risk
former mines, smelters, scrapyards, and brownfields. management, planning
fallacies, multi-actor
Cluster theory focuses on the hopeful wealth creation generated by decision-making
placing industrial clusters together, including common infrastructure disagreements and strong
support, proximity to labor or talent, the promotion of innovation and degrees of path dependence
competitiveness, and more active opportunities for cooperation and Organizational Conceptualizes decline, Adequate organizational
complementation. It notes that clusters can be categorized or exist only decline failure, or bankruptcy as an equilibrium, organizational
spatially (by geographic extension), as well as by differing types of in­ inability for a firm or performance, decline, inaction,
dustrial connections (hub and spoke, satellite, state-sponsored), by industrial sector to faulty action, crisis, dissolution,
anticipate, recognize, avoid, domain initiative,
integration into value chains (vertical and horizontal), by strategy neutralize, or adapt to environmental carrying
(trade-driven or knowledge driven), and by maturity (emergent, estab­ external or internal pressures capacity, organizational slack
lished, mature, in decline). that threaten their long-term
survival

Source: Derived by the expert elicitation process and our extensive literature
3.5. Organizational behavior and management review. For more details including key references, please see Appendix II and the
reference list. For extended discussion of each core theory, see the Supplemen­
Seventeen theories (19.3 %) sit within the family of perspectives on tary Online Material.

9
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

Table 8 form new rule structures. It views industrial decarbonization as both a

Summary of core theories on industrial decarbonization and change empha­ social and material practice and a linguistic and performative one.
sizing politics and governance.
Theory or Description Key themes or concepts 3.8. Industrial ecology and sociology
framework

Political economies Combines insights from Path dependence, temporal Ten theories (11.4 %) sit within our final family of perspectives on
of material politics, cultural dynamics, entrenchment, industrial ecology and sociology, a corpus cogitating from disciplines
decarbonization politics, and cultural political stasis, markets and including industrial ecology, industrial sociology, ecosystem ecology as
economy to explore the economics, politics,
well as systems thinking, resilience, and even social geology. This family
actors, rates of change, and regulatory structure,
narratives around the ownership of perspectives has three core theories (12 %) summarized in Table 10
political economy of (with The Supplementary Online Material offering elaboration).
decarbonization Industrial Lifecycle Theory offers another phase-model meant to
Source: Derived by the expert elicitation process and our extensive literature capture pressures facing industrial change including challenges to
review. For more details including key references, please see Appendix II and the growth, lags in innovation, and the beginning of decline. This includes
reference list. For extended discussion of each core theory, see the Supplemen­ an emergence phase (marked by high growth, little competition, low
tary Online Material. rivalry); growth (marked by fragmentation, increasing competition and
rivalry); maturity (lower growth, higher concentration, stronger buyers,
of the nexus between the economy (markets, investment, finance, forms higher entry barriers) and eventually decline (losses in growth,
of ownership) and politics (political systems, governance, regulatory restricted financing, extreme competition).
structure). It possesses a fundamentally relational pedagogy that builds Sociology of Deindustrialization theory, similar to industrial ruina­
on material politics, the messiness of political action over scales and tion, describes a general approach to comprehending and describing the
time periods, as well as cultural politics and cultural political economy. importance of negative industrial change on social life, including
It has been applied to negative emissions technologies within industrial breakdowns in social contracts and the sober impact that industrial
clusters to caution about “mitigation deterrence,” and also operation­ closure has on individuals, their families and hosting communities. The
alized to investigate the economic, political and cultural structures approach also seeks to capture changes in capitalism and industrial
behind decarbonation ambitions. culture (including the precariousness of industrial employment and
boom and bust cycles) that can lead to an illusion of permanence, as well
as the cultures of work that emerge and become solidified in time and
3.7. Risk, communication and discourse place and the processes by which deindustrialization disrupts this
culture.
Seven theories (7.9 %) sit within the family of perspectives on risk, Population ecology theory seeks to explain why so many kinds of
communication, and discourse, a body of work drawing from risk organizations emerge (including industrial firms) and what population
studies, social psychology, communication studies, discourse studies, level challenges they face. It proposes that organizations must cope with
visions, and narratives. This family of perspectives has one core theory strong pressures of organizational selection and replacement, and that
(4 %) summarized in Table 9 (with The Supplementary Online Material new entrants face a liability of newness in terms of a propensity for
offering elaboration). higher rates of failure or collapse. Conversely, it suggests that the
The Discourse Institutionalist Approach, or Discursive Intuitional­ reproducibility of an industrial organization increases with age as pro­
ism, seeks to combine intuitional theory, the processes or practices of cesses of internal learning, coordination, and socialization become
organizations and management, with discourse theory that examines established.
how material objects, concepts, speech acts (including texts) and prac­
tices can mutually constitute each other to cohere into stable meaning- 4. Critically analyzing and reflecting on theories: typologies and
systems. New industrial technologies must be discursively compatible lacunae
with existing power structures and regimes of truth, and often face
institutional pressures concerning their legitimacy with existing para­ This section critically examines the 25 core theories by their un­
digms, their coherence with existing values, and their compatibility with derlying focus, as well as via typologies of analytic strategy, scale,
existing ideas. It focuses on how the prevailing rules of the game can temporality, and combinatorial connections. Although there is overlap
intersect and shape social practice and discursive practice, which in turn between these aspects, we believe it is valuable to discuss them
can become institutionalized via mechanisms, carriers, and processes to distinctly. Finally, the section discusses elements that may be missing in
the theories, along with future research directions.
Table 9
Summary of core theories on industrial decarbonization and change empha­ 4.1. Underlying focus and interpretation of industrial decarbonization
sizing risk, communication and discourse. and change
Theory or Description Key themes or concepts
framework As Table 11 reveals, although the 25 core theories sit within very
Discourse Connects institutional Institutionalization, texts, sense-
different families of perspectives, they still have common elements in
institutionalist theory with language and making, legitimacy, structure, their underlying focus, with consequent differential interpretations of
approach textual analysis to show coherence, ideas, norms, what industrial decarbonization and change actually “is”. Theories of
how reality is co- relativism sociotechnical transitions emphasize disruption and transformation,
constituted by different
whereas innovation and diffusion theories often focus on new products
practices, linguistic
processes, and social and processes. Theories of social equity and acceptance emphasize social
structures around protection and equity. Space place and geography theories bring into
corporate sustainability focus territorial embeddedness. Theories of organizational behavior and
Source: Derived by the expert elicitation process and our extensive literature management reveal comparative or competitive advantage. Theories of
review. For more details including key references, please see Appendix II and the politics and governance highlight collective action dilemmas. Risk and
reference list. For extended discussion of each core theory, see the Supplemen­ communication theories depict power and values. Theories of industrial
tary Online Material. ecology and sociology capture maturation and fitness.

10
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

Table 10
Summary of core theories on industrial decarbonization and change emphasizing politics and governance.
Theory or framework Description Key themes or concepts

Industry lifecycle Reveals how industries evolve over a product’s lifecycle as markets grow, firms Technological opportunity, emergence, growth, maturity, decline,
theory enter, innovation changes industry outputs, before growth slows, innovation collective definition of fitness, vicarious learning, dominant design,
lags, and some industrial sectors begin to enter a phase of decline shake-out, interindustry effects

Sociology of Interdisciplinary approach addressing industrial change and decline, arguing Community impacts, shutdown and loss, industrial culture, illusion of
deindustrialization that deindustrialization has a “half-life” driven by social, political, economic and permanence, cultures of work
spatial factors

Population ecology Explores organizational mortality among firms and suggests that they must Organizational selection and replacement, organizational mortality,
adapt to changes in the environment at the population level to avoid becoming liability of newness, niche-width theory, reproducibility, resource
replaced (or extinct) partitioning

Source: Derived by the expert elicitation process and our extensive literature review. For more details including key references, please see Appendix II and the reference
list. For extended discussion of each core theory, see the Supplementary Online Material.

Table 11
Underlying and varied focus for the eight families of perspectives on industrial decarbonization and change.
Family of Core theories Common elements How industrial What or who shapes it? To what effect?
perspectives or focus decarbonization is defined

Theories of Triple Embeddedness Framework, Sociotechnical A process of disruption, A coevolutionary To transform or reorient
sociotechnical Deliberate Decline, Regime system, path decline, or phase-out to competition between new sociotechnical systems
transitions Destabilization Framework, dependence, lock-in established unsustainable entrants (or niches) and towards carbon-neutral
Technology Phase Out, Multi-Level sectors or technologies, and incumbents (or regimes) platforms
Perspective on Transitions, Social the emergence of new
Practice Theory, Large Technical alternatives
Systems

Theories of Technological Innovation Systems, Technology, A contest between old Inventors, entrepreneurs, Incorporation of new
innovation and Disruptive Innovation, Systems processes or innovations and new ones, innovators and firms, technology, to develop
diffusion Disruption, Regional Innovation products embedded in innovation policymakers, consumers and sustain more
Systems, Exnovation systems sustainable and lower-
carbon industries

Theories of social Just Transition, Social Mobilization Social protection, A socioeconomic Social attitudes, legitimacy, To ensure a fairer, more
equity and justice phenomenon that threatens to resistance accountable, more
acceptance harm communities hosting equitable low-carbon
industrial clusters or future
infrastructure

Theories of space Geographies of Deep Decarbonization, Territorial A relational and multi-scalar Structural spatial, To promote less uneven
place and Industrial ruins and place attachment, embeddedness, effort to generate new low- economic, and political development within and
geography Cluster Theory, Industrial marginal and carbon regimes across patterns across countries
Agglomeration peripheral spaces different places, spaces, and
scales

Theories of Megaproject Management, Projects, A strategic and tactical Corporate managers, To manage tensions and
organizational Organizational Decline organizations, challenge facing managers employees, innovators, take advantage of
behavior and business models and firms stakeholder networks opportunities
management

Theories of politics Political Economies of Collective action A political act that affects the Transnational elites, state To better account for
and governance Decarbonization dilemmas, leakage market power of incumbents and non-state institutions winners and losers within
decarbonization
pathways

Theories of risk and Discourse Institutionalist Approach Construction of risk, A risk and opportunity facing Institutionalization, Successful challenging of
communication rhetoric, ideas particular communities disruption of power systems dominant climate
formation and ideologies, competing imaginary and the value
discourses system behind it

Theories of Industry Life Cycle Theory, Sociology Communities of An evolutionary struggle for Organizational strategy and To achieve a dominant
industrial of Deindustrialization, Population place, organization fitness among a population of industrial metabolism design or thrive in a low-
ecology and Ecology Theory organizations and various carbon society
sociology selection pressures

Source: Authors, inspired by Bauer et al. [47].

Three implications become apparent while reviewing Table 11. The reveals underlying frames or assumptions that could enhance commu­
first is that no consensus exists within the academy, especially across the nication across disciplines—i.e. those seeking to address a transitions
eight families of perspectives, concerning conceptualizations of indus­ community could learn to speak in terms of niches or regimes, or those
trial decarbonization. Each sees fundamental definitions, drivers or addressing an industrial ecology community in terms of selection pres­
processes of shaping, and resulting consequences (‘effects’) in distinct sures or organizational mortality. Thirdly, no perspective offers a uni­
ways. It should come as little surprise that discussions of any real depth fied theory or approach that captures all variables and dimensions, but
could foment disagreement rather than consensus. Second, however, is rather each theory is a lens that brings some element into focus, but
that the table also reveals what each family of perspectives considers leaves others out. Combining all eight perspectives in this way would
ultimately important when investigating decarbonization—it helpfully likely lead to blurred, kaleidoscopic vision rather than necessarily a

11
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

sharper or more comprehensive picture of the topic. We will return to the core unit of analysis, the discussion of motives, and primary scale. As
this theme in Section 4.5. Fig. 2 indicates, agency-centered theories were the most popular in the
full sample in Appendix II (28 %). According to this classification, three
agency-based theories also fall within our list of core theories: Organi­
4.2. A typology of analytic strategies and theoretical emphasis zational Decline (focusing on firms), Exnovation (focusing on innovators
or policymakers), and Social Mobilization (focusing on people and how
In terms of their emphasis, both the full list of 88 theories, and the 25 they coalesce into social movements).
core theories, can be placed into five categories of where they tend to The second set of theories (25 %) focus on structure, such as the
“center” their unit of analysis: agency, structure, meaning, relations macro-social or political environment, or large technical systems, as
among them, and normative or evaluative goals. According to Sovacool their preferred focus. They may conceptualize structure broadly to
and Hess [9], the term “agency” covers a range of actors (individuals, include analyses of institutional structure (such as positions of firms in
organizations and collective actors such as coalitions) and their strate­ an industry) and relations between technological systems and the nat­
gies; “structure” is used in a broad sense to include macrosocial structure ural environment. Perhaps for these reasons, theories of structure were
(e.g., class, race, gender) and institutional or technological structure (e. the second most popular type of theory in the full sample in Appendix II.
g., markets, policies, the built environment); and “meaning” refers to the These theories assume that agents are often constrained or influenced by
semiotic systems (cognitive and normative) that orient action and are external forces frequently beyond their comprehension and control.
changed by it. We use the term “meaning” rather than “discourse” to Eight structure-centered theories were prominent within our sample of
avoid confusion with the Discourse Institutionalization Approach, which core theories: Population Ecology Theory (spotlighting selection pres­
is one of the 25 core theories, or Discourse Theory, which is one of the 88 sures from the environment), Triple Embeddedness Framework (selec­
theories. tion pressures from industrial regimes), Large Technical Systems (the
Admittedly, the term “center” is meant to capture that a theory may momentum of large-scale infrastructure), Regional Innovation Systems
actually involve elements of multiple types even as it approximates (spatial embedding of innovation patterns at regional scales), Industrial
mostly one ideal type. That is, some theories may involve many different Ruins and Place Attachment (driven by industrial collapse), Sociology of
types and some could even be applied across all five types. Agency based Deindustrialization (driven by industrial relations), Cluster Theory
theories could still reveal normative aspects such as uneven power re­ (shaped by industry structure), and Industrial Agglomeration (shaped by
lations between actors, and structure-based theories can still reveal industry structure).
normative inequalities and power structures at the macro level. And, A third type of theory focuses on the analysis of systems of meaning.
even though we place a given theory in a single category, scholars could Although all theories to some degree include some analysis of meaning,
seek to apply those theories across all categories, making them fluid and theories within this type focus intently on language, symbolism, narra­
dynamic. Thus, our identification of a given theory into an ideal-type is tives, performativity, rhetorical visions, imaginaries, and how technol­
not meant to be absolute, and will likely differ across disciplines and ogies can co-construct and negotiate textual or linguistic meaning for
practices. human subjects. Only 9 % of theories in the long list in Appendix II fall
The first set of theories is “agency-centered”, prioritizing the agency within this category, and only one within the core list, the Discourse
of people, individuals, households, investors, employees, and managers, Institutionalist Approach.
or interpersonal decision-making processes as well as those focusing on The fourth type was harder to classify; it refers to theories that
organizations or stakeholders. According to these theories, agency forms attempt to apply their focus across agency, structure, and meaning.
These theories are hybrid in that they are relational or processual. These
approaches may emphasize social relations and interactions, but they
also highlight the webs of social structure and meaning in which actors
are suspended and which they change through their action. They see
technology and society as co-constructed or coproduced, with no single
dimension dictating change by itself; and they see the transfer of
knowledge and diffusion of technology as facilitated by a processual
circulation of ideas, materials, norms, and meaning among actors and
across geographic scales [48–50]. Furthermore, they address the
analytical tension between the reproduction of current systems and
normal ways of life (“stability”) and the emergence of alternatives that
can form the seeds for transition (“change”). Bauer et al. [47] add that
relational theories can also entail different senses of the term relational;
some can offer a hierarchical or tiered notion of scale, showing how
phenomena reach upward to “higher” levels. Others can refer to a notion
of agency and structure, i.e. showing how actors can disrupt power
structures or challenge dominant narratives embodied in structures and
institutions.
For perhaps these reasons, relational theories accounted for 25 % of
those in Appendix II, and the largest share (almost half, or 12) of those
on the core list. Technology Phase Out emphasizes interactions between
policy, technology, and firms. The Multi-Level Perspective emphasizes
niches, regimes, and landscapes, as does the Regime Destabilization
Framework. Social Practice Theory emphasizes meaning, material arti­
facts, skills, technologies, and behavior. Political Economies of Decar­
bonization emphasizes market and political structures as well as power
Fig. 2. Analytical strategy and emphasis of selected core, semi-core, and pe­
ripheral theories examining industrial decarbonization and change (n = 88) within or among actors. Deliberate Decline emphasizes the relative
Source: See Appendix II for specific categorizations for each of the 88 theories. position within sociotechnical pathways. Technological Innovation
Note that although we have placed each theory into a single ideal type, in Systems emphasizes actors, networks, and technical objects. Systems
practice many theories may cross the boundaries of ideal-types. Disruption emphasizes technology, regulation, actors, behavior and

12
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

practices, and markets. Geographies of Deep Decarbonization empha­ individual, interpersonal, or community and network levels. We see a
sizes the spatial, cultural, and political economy structures and agency. much broader collection of scales within our corpus. Across all of the 88
Megaproject Management emphasizes firms and large-scale technology theories in Appendix II, fifteen distinct scales become apparent, which
but also product-process matrices, policy, and opportunities for rent we cluster into five groupings:
seeking. Disruptive Innovation emphasizes technological competencies,
business value chains, market structures. Lastly, Industry Life Cycle • At the smallest, most discrete, or local scale, theories may seek to
Theory emphasizes organizations, firm managers, and interindustry explain the actions of individuals and households, or employees and
effects. managers, or other relevant stakeholders (such as an individual
Finally, we also classify a theory’s analytical strategy as either investor, inventor or policymaker);
normative or evaluative. Whereas the first four types of theories are • At a slightly less local level, other theories center their analysis on
inherently descriptive – describing people’s agency, broader social or groups of people or neighborhoods, organizations and firms, or their
technical structure, language, or recursive relationships – a normative- resulting supply chains and products;
evaluative theory (13 % of the sample) attempts to answer whether • At a higher spatial level are subnational approaches examining in­
industrial decarbonization is a net positive or negative for society and dustrial clusters or regions, or communities and cities;
individuals. To do so, they often rely on normative criteria set by ethics, • Approaching the proximate national level are theories analyzing
moral studies, social justice or political ecology. Within the list of core national discourse, technological regimes, national governments and
theories, only Just Transitions falls within this category, as it emphasizes their policies, or national innovation systems;
the rightness or wrongness of decarbonization in varying contexts. • Above all of these scales are theories at the broadest macro or global
It is telling that no single analytical strategy dominates the sam­ scale, which examine sociotechnical systems, global governance
ple—the highest share of agency-centered theories still accounts for only dynamics, or global markets.
28 % of the full population. The placement of theories across these five
types is however neither static – theories develop – nor mutually Fig. 4 represents our typology of the 25 core theories discussed
exclusive. Many actually blur the line, falling across different categories. above. Large Technical Systems take the broadest view by focusing on
Fig. 3 attempts to situate the 25 core theories across a typology of theory entire sociotechnical systems, whereas Technological Innovation Sys­
types, showing that many do not fall neatly or entirely inside a category. tems, Regime Destabilization, and Technology Phase-Out operate at
We also include a distinction between primarily normative analytical proximate levels of national policies and government. Geographies of
strategies (located outside the theory triangle) and descriptive- Deep Decarbonization, the Sociology of Deindustrialization, Industrial
analytical strategies (located inside the triangle), with the understand­ Ruins and Place Attachment, Cluster Theory and Industrial Agglomer­
ing that even the normative theories can emphasize structure, agency, ation all center their analysis on industrial clusters, regions, or com­
and meaning to differing degrees. One particular motivation of this munities. Exnovation, Population Ecology, and Organizational Decline
study is to expedite this development and blurring by encouraging focus more at the firm level or interfirm dynamics, while Social Practice
greater interdisciplinarity among the categories shown in Fig. 3. Theory focuses on individuals and households.
The remaining core theories are more multi-scalar, in addition to
incorporating various theories of change. The Multi-Level Perspective,
4.3. A typology of underlying unit of analysis, scale and system-
Systems Disruption, and Political Economies of Decarbonization are the
boundaries
most relational as they operate or explain events across all spatial scales.
This is not to say that any particular theory is superior to others, only
In addition to having an underlying focus or a central emphasis,
that they can offer complementary perspectives from different scales or
individual theories also are attuned to a particular level, or levels, of
spatial “fits”. Indeed, the taxonomy above is intended to provide guid­
scalar analysis, with some looking at individual actors, others firms,
ance on where the specific theories are applicable, and where they may
large sociotechnical or innovation systems or even global political
be out of scope.
economy dynamics. In their review of transportation and mobility
Finally, and perhaps implicitly, each theory has its own
behavior theories, Anable et al. [51] organized theories according to

Fig. 3. A typology of core industrial decarbonization and change theories by agency, structure, meaning, relations and normativity. Acronyms are identified above in
the list of "Abbreviations."

13
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

Fig. 4. A typology of core industrial decarbonization and change theories by unit of analysis and scale, including multi-scalar approaches
Multi-scalar theories are in grey, theories emphasizing a single scale are in white. The position of theories with respect to the scaling is based on the authors' analysis
of the characteristics of these theories and informed by the comments by the experts contacted, and the position represents our assessment of central tendencies in the
theories as more-or-less focused on a particular scale or scales.

interpretation of where the system boundaries for industry lie. Many because some theories may be well attuned to periods of rapid change or
theories already collectively involve actors (e.g. individuals, organiza­ transformation, whereas others may work best in longer timeframes. As
tions, societies, world systems), geography (e.g. local, regional, national, is apparent in the Supplementary Online Material, eight of the core
global), and technologies (e.g. single technology, technology clusters, theories offer distinct notions of temporality or phase-models of change,
socio-technical systems). Some theories, such as the Triple Embedded­ although each of these are unique (see Fig. 5) and also seek to describe
ness Framework, MLP, or systems disruption generally encompass in­ different temporal elements.
dustry as including systems of production and supply as well as The Dialectical Lifecycle Theory within the Triple Embeddedness
consumption and behavior. Practice theory, by contrast, more narrowly Framework for example focuses on problem mobilization within an in­
draws the boundary to the everyday practices or routines of individuals dustry and spillovers to the task environment, building up to pressure
or firms, whereas population ecology or organizational decline limit that can result in litigation or coping, resulting in either industry failure
their foci to supply chains or firms. By contrast, Large Technical Systems or (if they are successful) apathy and indifference. In contrast, Delib­
or Technological Innovation System approaches envision industry at a erate Decline focuses on the relative position or comparative advantage
more macro scale of global markets and entire national economies or between low-carbon innovations and carbon-intensive arrangements
regimes. within an industry or sector. Regime Destabilization describes the
There are fundamental differences in how each theory evaluates punctuated equilibria involved with cycles of growth and decline within
industry from the wide lens of global and regional agglomeration to the an incumbent technology before it fades away or dies. The Multi-Level
smaller lenses of industrial activity in more discrete locations. This has Perspective articulates the phases of emergence, diffusion, and even­
strong implications for policy, for if one extends the scope of ‘industrial tual reconfiguration for industrial sectors or systems.
decarbonization’ to include geographic clusters and factories as well as Large Technical Systems offers a mostly linear model of change until
different actors (such as consumers, citizens, and others in the global confronted with dual crises that can shock systems into reconfiguration,
supply chain) or different practices (mineral extraction, manufacturing, after which point some may reassert themselves but others enter periods
use, waste, etc.), critical questions about policy scope and effectiveness of stagnation or decline. Similar to Deliberate Decline, Disruptive
are raised. Gaps in policy emerge relating to what industry produces, Innovation offers a relative notion of change that depends both on the
why it produces it, where it produces it, and who governs it by policy. A overall pace of technological progress and also the performance that
narrow policy lens might focus only on making existing production and customers can utilize or absorb. Within this competitive environment,
consumption patterns more sustainable, whereas a broader or more some innovations will sustain incumbents, but others will disrupt them
transformative lens could demand a complete reorientation towards and benefit new entrants. Organizational Decline focuses on organiza­
sustainable modes of production and consumption. System boundaries tional behavior relative to some absolute notion of correct or effective
shape policy remedies, and vice versa. performance, with organizations oscillating over time between pres­
sures for decline and eventual dissolution. Promisingly, there are mul­
4.4. Temporality and phase models tiple branching points for correct action along such a downward
pathway. Industrial Lifecycle Theory, similar to Large Technical Systems
Attention is needed to the selection of appropriate temporal scale theory, also describes a phase model relevant to market size, where firms

14
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

Fig. 5. Temporalities and phase models of industrial decarbonization and change within eight core theories
Source: Authors, with more details on phase models offered in the Supplementary Online Material. Acronyms are identified above in the list of "Abbreviations."

can grow and mature but also decline, although it does not depict the Ecology, or Just Transitions and Social Mobilization. These are theories
same branching points. that work well together and have similar variables and processual un­
Although not included in the diagram, Technology Phase Out and derstandings of industrial decarbonation. In other examples, theories
Exnovation also imply temporal change, but not over phases, merely have been used together within the literature: Technological Innovation
from one state (technology exists, or is widely used) to another state Systems and the Multi-Level Perspective have been used jointly in some
(technology has been discontinued); the Sociology of Deindustrializa­ studies, as have Social Practice Theory and the Multi-Level Perspective.
tion also conceives of temporal shifts from industrial to postindustrial Further work could focus on theoretical integration and synthesis among
society, but this is not a phase model. all theories in the diagram coupled with double arrows.
The second insight is that some theories have direct but more uni­
4.5. Combinatorial connections and implications for theory-building lateral linkages to others. Social Practice theory is actively connected in
the literature to Technology Phase-Out to depict how practices and tacit
Although the bulk of this section has so far focused on differences knowledge can be unmade or become obsolete alongside technology.
within theories, including underlying focus (Section 4.1), analytic Systems Disruption discusses various dimensions that can be harnessed
strategy (Section 4.2), unit of analysis and scale (Section 4.3), and to actually accelerate Deliberate Decline. Institutional Discourses (and
treatment of temporality (Section 4.4), theories also share common their rules) feature as an element in both the Political Economies of
epistemological roots, and can theoretically intersect, build on each Decarbonization and the Geographies of Deep Decarbonization, which
other, or complement each other in compelling ways. In the context of acknowledge the role of prevailing visions, narratives, or imaginaries.
our 88 theories, there are multiple insightful influences across the divide Industrial Ruination and Place Attachment is a distinctive aspect of
of core and non-core theories and also within particular core theories understanding of the Sociology of Deindustrialization. Further work
(see Fig. 6). These give rise to four insights. could focus on isolating the variables and causal relationships between
As Fig. 6 indicates, the first insight is that some theories are coupled these elements to better understand crosslinking.
or twinned (indicated with double arrows in the diagram) because they The third insight is that some theories cluster together on the dia­
seek to explain similar phenomena, albeit from different vantage points. gram, even when they cross different families of perspectives (see red
Examples are Cluster Theory and Industrial Agglomeration, Exnovation circles). The Multi-Level Perspective, Triple Embeddedness Framework,
and Technology Phase-Out, Organizational Decline and Population and Regime Destabilization Framework have very similar origins (and

15
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

Fig. 6. Theoretical influences, coupling, and clustering for industrial decarbonization and change
Note: single arrows are indicative of when one theory influences or seeks to shape another within the literature. Double arrows are indicative of mutual shaping. Red
circles depict intellectual clustering of theories. Although all 25 core theories are included in the diagram, not all potential theoretical connections from the 88
theories in Appendix II are included are due to lack of space. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.)

some of the same theorists) as well as fairly common assumptions about 4.6. Lacunae in theoretical selection and future research directions
technological change. Another notable cluster envelops Disruptive
Innovation, Systems Disruption, Exnovation, Technology Phase-Out, Our comparative analysis of the 88 theories lastly brings to light
and Deliberate Decline, crossing the boundaries between theories on what is missing. Academic fields, like all social fields, can be studied not
transitions and change and theories on innovation and diffusion. A final only as fertile ground for theory development and refinement but also as
collection of theories cluster around the spatial aspects facing distinct social fields where some approaches are favored over others. By focusing
geographic industrial communities: Just Transition, Social Mobilization, on a highly visible and well-positioned network of researchers, and
Industrial Ruins and Place Attachment, Sociology of Deindustrialization, prominent published literature, the study provides a description of what
Regional Innovation Systems, Industry Life Cycle Theory, Cluster The­ experts identify as important theoretical frameworks and problem areas,
ory, and Industrial Agglomeration. Further work here could be for po­ as well as what has been reflected in the published academic literature.
tential synthesis for future theory builders for those theories that cluster Some prominent theories in science and technology studies, notably
together. For those that do not, there is still potential for theoretical the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) and actor network theory,
triangulation, seeing which theories in isolation explain which aspects of are missing, perhaps because they have not been consistently applied to
industrial decarbonization in a given context or country. industrial decarbonization, so were not evident in the literature
A fourth insight relates to the messy and complex influences depicted reviewed. Approaches such as transition modeling or material stocks
in Fig. 6. The number of theories, and the ideas that influenced them, are and flows accounting are underrepresented. Some possibly relevant
multitudinous and even potentially overwhelming, exacerbating the approaches from environmental studies, sustainability science and
challenges of bounded rationality [41] that industry and policymakers environmental sociology are missing. Examples include the environ­
already face when dealing with climate change. Students and analysts mental Kuznets curve, the Avoid-Shift-Improve framework, the notion of
may be excused for thinking that the topic represents a conceptual a risk society, rapid decarbonization, ecological modernization, and
minefield. Assumptions matter, and not all theories can be combined or post-growth theories, all of which could be applied in some contexts to
are compatible “like clothing accessories” [9]. Furthermore, a meta- industrial decarbonization. This all underscores how our mapping as
theoretical perspective does not necessarily require that all or many well as the distinction between core and peripheral theories is currently
theories be integrated, but rather that different representations are a function of expert selection.
accounted. No single theory can explain all, insofar that while all of the Other notable gaps also exist. Very few researchers currently invoke
populated theories are useful, none of them has a monopoly on Marx or Marxist, feminist, anti-racist, or perspectives from the Global
explanatory power or utility. South, although we note that there was some discussion of political
ecology and geography. Very few theories, even in the core, deal with a
conceptualization of power, power relations, and power dynamics. Our
compendium of theories lastly remains centered on those from within

16
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

the academic system and not predisposed towards transdisciplinary or of industrial change, decarbonization, and decline.
participatory action research outside of the academy. To be clear, we consider our study a starting point for industrial
Furthermore, our analysis treats the theories as thematically exclu­ decarbonization research, where we attempt to ‘open up’ the discussion
sive, for ease of identification, whereas this is manifestly not the case. and debate about which theories are relevant, where they fit, what may
For example, transitions theory has rapidly increasing subfields devoted be missing, and what needs to be clarified. We intently want to expedite
to geography and justice, whereas DILC and regime destabilization are and encourage future work that blurs boundaries and transcends disci­
also about organizational behavior. Forcing each theory strictly to one plinary silos. Our intent is not to ‘close it down,’ or presume that we offer
thematic cluster does obscure meaningful analytical crossovers, which the definitive or only explanation for theoretical utility, but rather
could or even should be explored in future research, and which we began welcome alternate and even critical explanations that builds on the
to map in Fig. 6. approaches presented in this paper. Although Elinor Ostrom [52] once
Finally, future work could be more rigorous or methodologically wrote that “the power of a theory is exactly proportional to the diversity
novel. In our approach, the authors themselves did the thematic anal­ of situations it can explain,” industrial decarbonization appears to be a
ysis, but other approaches could have the experts themselves do poste­ case where multiple theories are needed to aid in explanation. Our paper
rior expert validation, or follow through with full-length semi-structured thus reveals not only the salience of industrial decarbonization as a
research interviews. Other options could involve broader and more topic, but also the merits of juxtaposing different perspectives, even
intensive forms of expert deliberation, such as repeated workshops or incommensurate ones.
moderated Delphi sessions. We classified theories—their families of Herein however also lies a challenge regarding the degree of
perspectives, their positionality as ‘core’, ‘semi-core’, and ‘peripher­ commensurability between theories, as well as their overlap. Some
al’—based on our own judgments and expertise. Future research could theories, such as the Triple Embeddedness Framework or Multi-level
rely on community judgments or even techniques like a survey, which Perspective on Transitions (to name only two), are well demarcated,
could better reveal gaps in our own analysis and likely add to the list of and often applied in isolation from other approaches. Others, such as
88 theories, as well as differences in interpretation over their utility and Geographies of Deep Decarbonization, Just Transitions, or the Political
classification. Economies of Decarbonization are less coherent, and more reflective of
looser and broader lines of inquiry. In other words, some theories may
5. Conclusion be exclusive and exclusively applied, whereas others may be combined
to obtain a better understanding of the complexities of industrial dy­
In this paper, we set out to identify and analyze theories and con­ namics. Different theories bring into focus different dimensions of in­
ceptual frameworks shaping industrial decarbonization research, with dustrial decarbonization which will lead researchers to invariably
the aim of synthesizing that often disparate academic discourse to better different conclusions, especially given differences in underlying focus
understand how net zero commitments can be achieved. Even though (Section 4.1), analytical strategy (Section 4.2), unit of analysis (Section
the sample of experts approached for this study was relatively small (N 4.3), phase models (Section 4.4) or omissions in coverage (Section 4.6).
= 36), there is a surprising and perhaps even confounding variety in the That said, the 88 theories listed in Appendix II, and the 25 theories
88 theories identified as relevant for understanding the crucial socio­ discussed in greater depth in the Supplementary Online Material, pro­
technical challenge of industrial decarbonization. vide a useful, rich, and hopefully nutritious menu that students and
In addition to germinating from very different disciplinary back­ other analysts can utilize when they wish to assess industrial decar­
grounds that traverse multiple analytical dimensions, these theories bonization from different perspectives. A bounty of theoretical possi­
often differ and at times compete on the question of what industry ‘is’ bilities and permutations exist, and we earnestly hope our study is a first
(where system boundaries lie), what instigates and shapes change, how step towards identifying and capturing connections via theoretical in­
temporality is modelled or considered, and what the effects of decar­ fluence, coupling, and clustering, which can lead to greater degrees of
bonization will be. One core group of theories sees industrial decar­ synthesis, explanatory power, and generalizability.
bonization through the perspective of individuals, managers, employees Finally, the research community in particular needs to investigate
or users, where industrial technology empowers or constrains humans the theories and conceptual frameworks that have the strongest
and their fledging or expanding agency. Another core group envisions explanatory power or fit in the Global South, from which most future
humans embedded in and often constrained by larger structures that industrial related carbon emissions will germinate, especially emerging
determine both the opportunities for and possibilities of action, often economies like Brazil, China, India, and South Africa. We need greater
beyond their power or even comprehension. Yet another core group examination of the epistemological underpinnings of industrial decar­
describes technologies as mutually constitutive with discourse and bonization, and more nuanced ways of comparing, contrasting, and
meaning; decarbonization operates as a compelling idea with its own synthesizing relevant theories across the Global North and Global South,
distinct discursive power represented in competing storylines and nar­ if we are to better comprehend decarbonization’s challenges, as a
ratives. Another core group depicts the relational aspects between the necessary step towards overcoming them.
agency of actors, the constraints of structure, and the determinants
discourse. A final core group sees industrial decarbonization as a posi­ Declaration of competing interest
tive or negative force on society for the jobs it can bring (or destroy), the
impact it can have on communities, and its normative or evaluative The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
connections to justice, accountability, or sustainability. Taken as a interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
whole, these five core groups remind us that industrial decarbonization the work reported in this paper.
transcends any attempt to narrow its occurrence to only agency, sys­
temic structure, discourse, and normative judgment. In addition, the Data availability
breadth of theories identified offers a helpful framing device concerning
how particular disciplines or communities of scholars view the problem No data was used for the research described in the article.

17
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

Appendix I. List of prominent scholars and theorists contacted for the expert guided review

No. Name Institution Country Field expertise Scopus Scopus H- Google Google
citations* index* Scholar Scholar H-
citations* Index*

1 Frank Geels Manchester University United Sustainability transitions 22,047 60 54,100 79

Kingdom
2 David Hess Vanderbilt University United Sociology, science and 12,768 62 13,000 49
States technology studies
3 Andy King Boston University United Environmental performance 5890 33 NA NA
States and innovation, business
strategy
4 Andy Stirling Sussex University United Science and technology policy 8721 43 24,000 64
Kingdom
5 Nick Pidgeon Cardiff University United Environmental psychology and 14,930 63 NA NA
Kingdom risk
6 Patrick Devine Exeter University United Human geography and 9135 46 18,100 57
Wright Kingdom Environmental psychology
7 Lukas Wuppertal Institute Germany Energy, transport and climate 390 13 1200 14
Hermwille policy
8 Gregory Patrick Tohoku University Japan Sustainability science, 1360 18 NA NA
Trencher environmental studies
9 Bruno Turnheim French National Research France Sustainability transitions 1621 15 3400 19
Institute for Agriculture, Food
and Environment
10 Johan Schot Utrecht University Nether- Sustainability transitions, 9593 30 27,900 48
lands history
11 Sheila Jasanoff Harvard University United Science policy, science and 11,420 41 NA NA
States technology studies
12 Thomas Dietz Michigan State University United Environmental sociology, policy 26,515 58 70,000 89
States
13 Paul C. Stern National Academies of Science, United Environmental sociology, 22,680 53 66,200 85
Social & Env. Research Institute States psychology
14 Linda Steg Groningen University Nether- Environmental psychology 21,081 64 47,500 91
lands
15 Harriet Bulkeley Durham University United Geography, environmental 12,746 52 28,100 68
Kingdom governance
16 Tanja Winther University of Oslo Norway Power engineering, social 673 14 1500 20
anthropology
17 Lorraine University of Bath United Environmental psychology 7745 37 17,100 54
Whitmarsh Kingdom
18 Marianne Norwegian University of Science Norway Science and technology studies 876 19 2000 25
Ryghaug and Technology
19 Clair Gough Manchester University United Integrated technical and social 1367 20 3400 31
Kingdom science analysis
20 Gavin Bridge Durham University United Economic geography 4318 30 8900 41
Kingdom
21 Michael Warwick University United Economic geography 2118 20 5100 31
Bradshaw Kingdom
22 Mimi Sheller Worcester Polytechnic Institute United Sociology 8837 30 23,700 49
States
23 Gwen Ottinger Drexel University United Sociology 981 12 1900 16
States
24 Elizabeth Shove Lancaster University United Sociology 10,048 40 31,100 68
Kingdom
25 Sharlissa Moore Michigan State University United Human and Social Dimensions 272 9 NA NA
States of Science and Technology
26 Daniel University of Toronto Canada Sustainability transitions 653 14 1200 16
Rosenbloom
27 Heleen de Radboud University Nether- Innovation studies and 1450 20 9500 33
Coninck lands sustainability
28 Lars J. Nilsson Lund University Sweden Environmental and energy 2297 27 3600 35
systems
29 Carlota Perez University College London United Social and economic impact of 3368 18 NA NA
Kingdom technical change
30 Bent Flyvbjerg Oxford University United Management studies, geography 14,822 38 69,000 69
Kingdom
31 John Kitching Kingston University United Business studies, 7292 46 3900 31
Kingdom entrepreneurship
32 Mercedes Heriot Watt University United Industrial decarbonization 8615 45 12,200 53
Maroto-Valer Kingdom
33 Marcelle Bath University United Energy and environmental 2537 31 4100 35
McManus Kingdom engineering
34 Anna Korre Imperial College United Earth science and engineering 2309 26 2800 29
Kingdom
35 Riccardo Kingston University United Strategy and management 555 11 1400 14
Vecchiato Kingdom
36 Fredric Bauer Centre for Innovation Research Sweden Environmental and energy 460 9 1000 12
systems studies

18
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

Source: Authors. *As of February 2022. Note: NA: No Google Scholar account available at the time of assessment.
Appendix II. Theories, concepts and frameworks for industrial decarbonization, decline, destabilization or reconfiguration

No. Disciplinary Name Key author(s) Description Classifi- Primary scale Type Illustrative
family cation References

01 Sociotechnical Triple Frank Geels, Reveals selection pressures from Core Sociotechnical Structure- Caetano and
transitions and Embeddedness Caetano C.R. the broader social, political, or systems, centered Geels [368,369];
change Framework and the Penna economic environment and industrial Geels and
Dialectical Issue describes how firms respond, clusters and Caetano (2015)
Life Cycle Model including better managing their regions, supply
supply chains to changing chains and
marketing or operations practices products
to lobbying for political support
02 Sociotechnical Deliberate decline Daniel A synthetic theory of intentional Core Sociotechnical Relational Rosenbloom and
transitions and Rosenbloom, decline that seeks to combine systems, Rinscheid [45]
change Adrian Rinscheid concepts of phase-out, divestment industrial
and regime destabilization clusters and
regions
03 Sociotechnical Regime Bruno Turnheim, Analytical perspective integrating Core Technological Relational Turnheim and
transitions and destabilization Frank Geels the technical, economic, political, regime Geels [53,54];
change and cultural processes of van Oers et al.
destabilization and the weakening [55]
of regimes
04 Sociotechnical Technology phase Allan Dahl A governance approach, policy, or Core National policies Relational Andersen &
transitions and out Andersen, Hanna regime pathway that actively or government Gulbrandsen
change Brauers, Pao-Yu seeks the sequential termination [56]; Brauers
Oei, Paula Walk, of a specific technology, et al. [57];
Gregory Trencher substance, or process, at times Trencher et al.
combining literatures on [58,59];
transitions and phase-out, Koretsky [60]
technological innovation systems,
diversification, and industrial
context
05 Sociotechnical Multilevel Frank Geels, A framework that provides an Core Sociotechnical Relational Geels [61]; Geels
transitions and Perspective (MLP) Johan Schot, overall view of the multi- systems, & Schot [62];
change on Transitions Arie Rip, Frans dimensional complexity of technological Geels [63]; Geels
Berkhout, changes in socio-technical regimes [64]; Victor
René Kemp, Wim systems. The development or et al. [65];
A. Smit introduction of new technologies Kanger [66]
leading to new socio-technical
configurations depends on
pathways involving niches,
regimes, and landscapes
06 Sociotechnical Social practice Andreas Explores the material Core Individuals, Relational Labanca et al.
transitions and theory and Reckwitz, arrangements (i.e. materials, employees, [67]; Koretsky &
change entanglement Elizabeth Shove, technologies and tangible physical managers, van Lente [68];
Harriet Bulkeley, entities), knowledge, and routines households Koretsky [69]
Tom Hargreaves, connected with decarbonization
Matthew Watson,
Zahar Kortesky
07 Sociotechnical Large Technical Thomas Hughes, An alignment of technical, Core Sociotechnical Structure- Hughes [70];
transitions and Systems Jane Summerton, economic, political, and social systems centered Hughes [71];
change Olivier Coutard, factors that function to achieve a Hughes [72];
Bernward Joerges shared purpose or goal; once they Sovacool et al.
begin to solidify into systems, they [73]
acquire momentum
08 Sociotechnical Tacit knowledge Donald A framework describing how the Semi-core Individuals Agency- MacKenzie &
transitions and and un-invention MacKenzie, loss of tacit knowledge can result centered Spinardi [74];
change Graham Spinardi, in the “un-invention” or the Shove [75]
Elizabeth Shove “unmaking” of a technology (e.g.,
nuclear weapons) further shaped
by patterns of disarmament or
policy bans
09 Sociotechnical Deep Transitions Johan Schot, Laur A series of connected and Semi-core Sociotechnical Structure- Schot & Kanger
transitions and Kanger sustained fundamental systems, centered [76]; Kanger &
change transformations of a wide range of technological Schot [77]
socio-technical systems in a regimes,
similar direction; the framework innovation
synthesizes the Multi-level systems
Perspective on socio-technical
transitions, and Techno-economic
Paradigms
(continued on next page)

19
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

(continued )
No. Disciplinary Name Key author(s) Description Classifi- Primary scale Type Illustrative
family cation References

10 Sociotechnical Late Industrialism Kim Fortun Calls for ethnography of Peripheral Industrial Agency- Fortun [78];
transitions and industrialism, a historical period clusters/regions centered Fortun [79];
change characterized by degraded Ahmann &
infrastructure, exhausted Kenner [80]
paradigms, and superficial media
cycles
11 Sociotechnical Socio-technical Frank Geels, Peter A scenario method based on a Peripheral Sociotechnical Relational Geels et al. [81];
transitions and scenarios S. Hofman, Boelie theory of transitions that helps systems, Elzen et al. [82];
change E. Elzen identify possible (plausible) future technological Hofman et al.
transition paths; it addresses the regimes [83]
coevolution of multiple techno-
economic and socio-political
dimensions
12 Innovation & Technological JA Schumpeter, Describes and examines a set of Core Innovation Relational Schumpteter
diffusion Innovation Jochen Markard, networks of actors and institutions systems [84]; Markard &
Systems (inc. Bernard Truffer, that jointly interact in a specific Truffer [85];
decline/creative Anna Bergek, technological field and contribute Bergek et al.
destruction) Staffan to the generation, diffusion and [86]; Hekkert
Jacobsson, Marko utilization of variants of a new et al. [87]; Bento
Hekkert, Paula technology and/or a new product et al. [88];
Kivimaa, Florian Kivimaa & Kern
Kern [89]; Musiolic
et al. [90];
Markard [91];
Markard et al.
[91]
13 Innovation & Disruptive William J. Explores how new technologies Core Socio-technical Relational Abernathy and
diffusion innovation Abernathy, Kim came to surpass seemingly systems, Clack [92];
B. Clark, Clayton superior technologies in a market, technological Christensen
Christensen later widened the application of regimes, [93];
the term to include products and organizations Christensen &
business models and firms, supply Raynor [94];
chains and Markides [95];
products Wilson & Tyfield
[96]
14 Innovation & Systems disruption Philip Johnstone, Investigates systemic Core Socio-technical Relational Johnstone &
diffusion Paula Kivimaa, understandings of disruption systems, Kivimaa [97];
Karoline Rogge rather than discrete disruptive technological Johnstone et al.
innovations; Johnstone et al. regimes, national [98]; Kivimaa
define disruption as “radical policies and et al. [99]
interference in one or more of the government,
elements of a stabilized socio- national
technical system, causing pressure discourse,
to alter the system more than organizations
incrementally towards improved and firms,
sustainability,” and derive four employees and
dimensions of disruption: managers
technology, markets and business
models, ownership and actors, and
regulation
15 Innovation & Regional Bjørn T. Asheim, Draws from systems theory, Core National Structure- Autio [100];
diffusion innovation systems Meric S. Gertler, regional innovation policy and policies, centered Asheim and
Philip Cooke practice to identify “network industrial Gertler [101];
regions” and a “related variety” of clusters/regions Christopherson
industry and the location of and Clarke
industrial innovation systems [102]; Cooke
[103,104]; Stuck
et al. [105]; Hess
& Sudibjo [106]
16 Innovation & Exnovation John Kimberly Conceptualized as the last stage of Core Organizations Agency- Kimberly [107];
diffusion the “life cycle” of innovation and firms centered Holbek &
meaning the removal of an Knudsen [108];
innovation from an organization Martin [109]
in order to provide space for new
innovations
17 Innovation & TCOS Jeremy K. Hall, An evaluation framework based Semi-core Innovation Structure- Hall and Martin
diffusion Michael J. C. on generalized areas of innovative systems, centered [110]; Hall et al.
Martin, Stelvia uncertainty facing the new technological [111]
Matos technology (technological, regimes
organizational, commercial and
social uncertainties)
(continued on next page)

20
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

(continued )
No. Disciplinary Name Key author(s) Description Classifi- Primary scale Type Illustrative
family cation References

18 Innovation & Radical and William J. Innovation that disrupts and Semi-core Innovation Structure- Abernathy and
diffusion revolutionary Abernathy, Kim renders established technical and systems centered Clark [92]
innovation B. Clark production competence obsolete,
yet is applied to existing markets
and customers
19 Innovation & Strategic niche Johan Schot, Studies the creation, development Semi-core Innovations Structure- Schot, Hoogma
diffusion management Remco Hoogma, and controlled phase-out of systems, centered & Elzen [112];
Boelie Elzen, protected spaces for the technological Kemp, Schot &
René Kemp development and use of promising regimes Hoogma [113];
new technologies Schot & Geels
[114];
Greenacre, Gross
& Speirs [115]
20 Innovation & Diffusion of Everett M Rogers Explains over time how an idea or Semi-core Individuals and Agency- Rogers [116]
diffusion innovation product gains momentum and households, centered
diffuses (or spreads) through a organizations
specific population or social and firms, supply
system; diffusion is defined as “the chains and
process by which an innovation is products
communicated through certain
channels over time among the
members of a social system”
21 Innovation & UTAUT - the Viswanath Hypothesizes that four key Semi-core Employees and Agency- Sovacool [117];
diffusion Unified Theory of Venkatesh, Fred elements — performance managers, centered Venkatesh et al.
Acceptance and D. Davis, Susan A. expectancy, effort expectancy, organizations [118]
Use of Technology Brown social influence, and facilitating and firms
conditions — determine whether a
user would adopt a new
technology at the workplace
22 Innovation & Technological Giovanni Dosi Defines a technological paradigm Semi-core Innovation Agency- Dosi [119]; Dosi
diffusion paradigms and as a set of procedures or a systems, centered [120]; Teece
technological definition of relevant problems organizations [121]; von
trajectories and the specific knowledge related and firms Tunzelmann,
to their solution, implying the use Malerba,
of established problem-solving Nightingale &
routines and indicating where to Metcalfe [122]
focus resources; a technological
trajectory is the pattern of normal
problem solving activity (i.e. of
progress) on the ground of a
technological paradigm
23 Innovation & Transformative Johan Schot, Ed Policy framing linking innovation Semi-core Sociotechnical Normative- Schot &
diffusion innovation Steinmueller to contemporary social and systems evaluative Steinmueller
environmental challenges such as [123]; Diercks,
the SDGs and calling for Larsen, &
transformative socio-technical Steward [124]
system change.
24 Innovation & Technology Life Richard Nelson, Describes the evolution of Semi-core Innovation Relational Nelson [125];
diffusion Cycle and William technologies as a sequence of systems, Abernathy
Dominant Design Abernathy, James stages characterized by decreasing technological [126];
Utterback, uncertainty and variation of regime Abernathy &
Michael Tushman technology designs and Utterback [127];
performance; through these Tushman &
processes a dominant design may Rosenkopf
emerge [128]; Murmann
& Frenken [129]
25 Innovation & Responsible Rene Von Aims to offer a transparent, Peripheral Sociotechnical Normative- Von Schomberg
diffusion Research and Schomberg, interactive process by which systems, evaluative [130,131];
Innovation Richard Owen, societal actors and innovators innovation Grunwald [132];
Jack Stilgoe, become mutually responsive to systems, supply Owen,
Armin Grunwald, each other with a view on the chains and Macnaghten &
Phil Macnaghten (ethical) acceptability, products Stilgoe [133];
sustainability and societal [134]; Stilgoe,
desirability of the innovation Owen &
process and its marketable Macnaghten
products [135]; Genus &
Iskandarova
[136]
(continued on next page)

21
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

(continued )
No. Disciplinary Name Key author(s) Description Classifi- Primary scale Type Illustrative
family cation References

26 Innovation & Techno-economic Carlota Perez Seeks to describe changes in Peripheral Sociotechnical Structure- Perez [137];
diffusion paradigms technology systems that are systems, centered Perez [138];
sufficiently far-reaching in their innovation Freeman and
effects that they have a major systems Perez [139];
influence on the entire economy; a Freeman [140]
change of this kind carries many
clusters of radical and incremental
innovations, and may eventually
embody a number of new
technology systems
27 Innovation & National Chris Freeman Examines innovation systems in Peripheral Innovation Relational Freeman & Perez
diffusion Innovation different countries, across a range systems [139]; Lundvall
Systems of technologies, including [141]; Nelson
differences in their institutional [142]
architecture, key drivers, and the
resulting network of institutions in
the public and private sectors
whose activities and interactions
initiate, import, modify and
diffuse new technologies
28 Innovation & Technological Sanjaya Lall Describes the generation of new Peripheral Innovation Agency- Lall [143];
diffusion capabilities knowledge and learning needed systems, centered Reichert &
for generating and managing organizations Zawislak [144]
technical change across firms as and firms,
well as national policies and national policies
capabilities and government
29 Innovation & Eco-innovation Klaus Rennings, Addresses technological, Peripheral Innovation Normative- Rennings [145],
diffusion Rene Kemp organizational, social and systems, evaluative Kemp & Foxon
institutional innovation processes organizations [146]; Arundel
towards sustainable development. and firms & Kemp [147]
Results in e.g. a reduction of
environmental risk, pollution and
the negative impacts of resources
use
30 Innovation & Sectoral systems of Franco Malerba Draws from evolutionary theory Peripheral Employees and Relational Malerba
diffusion innovation concepts and of the innovation managers, [148,149]
system approach, seeks to offer a innovation
multidimensional, integrated and systems,
dynamic view of sectors to analyze organizations
innovation; its main building and firms,
blocks are knowledge and national policies
technologies, actors and networks, and government
and institutions
31 Social equity & Just Transitions Peter Newell, An array of principles, processes Core Individuals and Normative- Newell &
acceptance Dustin Mulvaney, and practices aimed at ensuring households, evaluative Mulvaney [150];
Georgia Piggot that no people, workers, places, employees and Heffron &
Michael Boyland sectors, countries or regions are managers, McCauley [151];
Adrian Down left behind in the transition from a organizations Jasanoff [152];
Andreea Raluca high-carbon to a low-carbon and firms, Piggot et al.
Torre, various economy. It includes respect and industrial [153]
institutional dignity for vulnerable groups; clusters and
actors creation of decent jobs; social regions,
protection; employment rights; communities and
fairness in energy access and use cities, national
and social dialogue and policies and
democratic consultation with government
relevant stakeholders
32 Social equity & Social mobilization Sydney Tarrow, Examines the organization, Core Individuals and Agency- Diani [154];
acceptance Douglas structure, outcomes or households, centered Tarrow [155];
McAdam, Gerald consequences of social movements employees and McAdam &
F. Davis, Mario and collective action managers, Boudet [156];
Diani, Hilary mobilizations, including direct organizations Green [157];
Boudet action tactics, protests, and anti- and firms, Martiskainen
fossil fuel campaigns neighborhoods et al. [158]
33 Social equity & Social License to Robert G. A concept capturing the Semi-core Organizations Agency- Prno &
acceptance Operate Boutilier, Ian acceptance of a company or and firms, centered Slocombe [159];
Thomson, industry's standard business industrial Boutlier [160];
Business for practices and operating clusters and Smith &
Social procedures by its employees, regions Richards [161];
Responsibility, stakeholders, and the general Demuijnck &
Social License public; is related closely to the Fasterling [162];
Task Group triple bottom line concept (profit, Kenton [163]
people, and the planet)
(continued on next page)

22
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

(continued )
No. Disciplinary Name Key author(s) Description Classifi- Primary scale Type Illustrative
family cation References

34 Social equity & Identity Process Glynis Breakwell Proposes a “comprehensive” Semi-core Individuals and Agency- Breakwell [164];
acceptance Theory theory of identity based on the households centered Jaspal &
assumption that people build and Breakwell [165];
sustain an identity which operates [166])
as a dynamic structure of
interaction between cognitive
capacities and social contexts,
especially along the dimensions of
content and value
35 Social equity & Not-in-my- William R. Conceives of public responses to Semi-core Individuals and Agency- Freudenburg
acceptance backyard (NIMBY) Freudenburg, technological risk, social households, centered and Pastor
Susan K. Pastor, mobilization, and local opposition neighborhoods, [167]; Wolsink
Susan Batel, to energy projects (or other communities and [168]; Devine-
Patrick Devine- infrastructure) based on “not-in- cities Wright [169];
Wright, Maarten my-backward” sentiments which Burningham
Wolsink, Kate can relate to place attachment, et al. [170];
Burningham perceptions of fairness, risk, Batel [171]
distribution of benefits, or other
consequences
36 Social equity & Ethics and moral Geoff Evans, Liam Evaluates post-carbon energy Semi-core Sociotechnical Normative- McLaren [172];
acceptance hazard Phelan, Duncan transitions, carbon dioxide systems, evaluative Boucher &
McLaren, Fabien removal, or negative emissions technological Gough [173];
Medvecky, technologies according to ethical regimes, Gough &
Justine Laceym and moral criteria emphasizing innovation Boucher [174];
Peta Ashworth, unfair distribution of burdens, the systems McLaren et al.
Clair Gough, compromising of environmental [175];
Philip Boucher goals, and/or negative impacts on Medvecky et al.
future generations [176]; Evans &
Phelan [177]
37 Social equity & Energy and climate Kirsten Jenkins, Concerned with the impacts of a Peripheral Communities Normative- Sovacool &
acceptance justice Benjamin K. given sociotechnical innovation or and cities, evaluative Dworkin [178];
Sovacool, energy transitions on issues of industrial Jenkins et al.
Michael Dworkin, fairness, equity, recognition, and regions/clusters, [179,180];
Roman Sidortsov, due process sociotechnical Sovacool et al.
Raphael Heffron, systems, [181]; Heffron &
Darren McCauley technological McCauley [182];
regimes Jenkins [183];
McCauley et al.
[184]
38 Space, place and Geographies of Ray Hudson, Connects the contemporary Core Industrial Relational Crang et al.
geography deep Harriet Bulkeley, challenge of decarbonization with regions and [185]; Bataille
decarbonization Johannes previous geographic work on clusters et al. [186,187];
Stripple, Matthew industrial and regional decline as Bulkeley &
Paterson, Chris well as insights from cultural Stripple [188]
Bataille, Mike political economy and transition
Crang studies
39 Space, place and Industrial ruins Alice Mah Combines insights from sociology, Core Communities Structure- Mah [189–191].
geography and place anthropology, geography, and cities, centered
attachment environmental psychology, and industrial
material culture studies on notions regions and
of place, community, memory, clusters
and home to explore the material
devastation of areas of industrial
decline; also conceptualizes “the
post-industrial” as a way of
thinking about the urban
redevelopment of old industrial
cities
40 Space, place and Cluster Theory Michael Porter, Explores how the “clustering” or Core Industrial Structure- Porter
geography Ron Martin, Peter localization of industries in regions and centered [192–195];
Sunley, Michael J. industrial districts can bring clusters Gordon &
Enright, Ian R. positive synergies (productivity, McCann [196];
Gordon, Philip prosperity, efficiency, innovation, Martin & Sunley
McCann entrepreneurship, spillovers) [197]; Enright
alongside other risks (lock-in, [198];
pollution, exposure to shocks) Benneworth
et al. [199];
Asheim et al.
[200]; Porter &
Ketels [201];
Zika [202]
(continued on next page)

23
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

(continued )
No. Disciplinary Name Key author(s) Description Classifi- Primary scale Type Illustrative
family cation References

41 Space, place and Industrial Alfred Marshall, Investigates the “regional Core Industrial Structure- Marshall [203];
geography Agglomeration Benjamin Chinitz, advantage” or positive “spillovers” regions and centered Chinitz [204];
Glenn Ellison, to be gained by agglomerating clusters Ellison & Glaeser
Edward Glaesar, industries together in order to [205,206];
Paul Krugman achieve economies of scale O'Donoghue &
concerning the costs of moving Gleave [207];
goods, people, and ideas Ellison et al.
[208]
42 Space, place and Path creation and WB Arthur, A. The ordering of spatial, Semi-core Sociotechnical Structure- David [209];
geography path dependence Abbott, Paul A. institutional, policy or systems, centered Arthur
David, Ron technological choices, events or technological [210,211];
Martin, Greg processes that create a lock-in or regimes, Liebowitz &
Unruh, Karen momentum that reduces innovation Margolis [212];
Seto, Dianne opposition and significantly systems Unruh [213];
Ürge-Vorsatz influences support and non-linear Martin [214];
feedback cycles in favor of Seto et al. [370]
supporting a particular technology
or industrial pathway
43 Space, place and Regional Michael Storper, Seeks to challenge economically Semi-core Industrial Relational Walker &
geography interdependencies Richard Walker deterministic views of industrial regions and Storper [215];
and industrial growth by introducing a clusters Storper [216];
geography perspective emphasizing spatial Storper [217];
aspects such as regional Storper [218];
dependency and social concepts of Farole et al.
community, society, and place, as [219]
well as the human institutions that
underly industrial growth
44 Space, place and Peripheralization Andrew Blowers, Describes how marginal groups or Semi-core Industrial Normative- Bowers & Leroy
geography Peter Leroy, places (e.g. regions) often have regions and evaluative [371]; Naumann
Manfred Kühn limited political power, clusters, & Fischer-Tahir
marginalized control over communities and [220]; Kühn
employment or community cities [221]; Park &
revenue; feelings of cultural Sovacool [222];
powerlessness, high levels of O'Sullivan et al.
environmental degradation and [223]
are forced to occupy remote or
peripheral spaces in society
45 Space, place and Localism and Michael H. Offers a sociotechnical focus on Peripheral Communities Relational Shuman [224];
geography maker spaces Shuman, Adrian decentralization, localism, and and cities, Seyfang & Smith
Smith and Gil import substitution as a neighborhoods, [225]; Smith
Seyfang mechanism to reduce nonlocal industrial [226]; Smith
energy services or other clusters/regions et al. [227]
commodities with locally
produced goods and services;
suggests investing in small-scale,
local entrepreneurs
46 Space, place and Global production Gavin Bridge, Emphasizes how sociotechnical Peripheral Sociotechnical Structure- Henderson et al.
geography networks Neil M. Coe, Peter activities and globally expansive systems, global centered [228]; Coe et al.
Dicken, Martin networks can transform labor, markets [229]; Bridge
Hess nature, and capital into [230]; Coe et al.
commodities and services [231]
47 Organizational Megaproject Bent Flyvbjerg, Views industrial infrastructure as Core Sociotechnical Relational Flyvbjerg et al.
behavior and management Andrew Davies a sociotechnical megaproject systems, [232]; [233];
management involving the coupling together of technological Flyvbjerg [234];
different systems to achieve a regimes, national Sanderson
specified goal; such megaprojects policies and [235]; Sovacool
can be prone to poor risk government, and Cooper
management, planning fallacies, organizations [236]; Sovacool
multi-actor decision-making and firms and Geels [237]
disagreements and strong degrees
of path dependence
48 Organizational Organizational William Weitzel, Conceptualizes decline, failure, or Core Organizations Agency Weitzel &
behavior and Decline Ellen Jonsson, bankruptcy as an inability for a and firms centered Jonsson [238];
management Peter Lorange, firm or industrial sector to Lorange &
Robert T. Nelson, anticipate, recognize, avoid, Nelson [239];
Donald C. neutralize, or adapt to external or Hambrick &
Hambrick, internal pressures that threaten D’Aveni [240];
Richard A. their long-term survival Latham et al.
D'Aveni, William [241]; Trahms
McKinley, Scott et al. [242];
Latham, Michael McKinley et al.
Braun [243]
(continued on next page)

24
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

(continued )
No. Disciplinary Name Key author(s) Description Classifi- Primary scale Type Illustrative
family cation References

49 Organizational Organizational Victoria K. Wells, Draws from organizational Semi-core Individuals Agency- Wells et al.
behavior and green behavior Diana Gregory- psychology, human resource (employees) and centered [244];
management Smith, Danae management and social marketing firms Robertson &
Manika, Jennifer to examine the behavior of Barling [245];
L. Robertson, organizations and pro- Huffman & Klein
Julian Barling environmental initiatives from [246]
employees that can positively
affect sustainability outcomes and
corporate performance
50 Organizational New intuitionalism Paul Pierson, Utilizes notions of institutional Semi-core Organizations Meaning- Pierson [247];
behavior and Kathleen Thelen, change and agents of change and firms, centered Thelen [248];
management James Mahoney (especially discursive and national policy Mahoney &
sociological institutionalism) to and government, Thelen [249];
interpret and explain patterns of national Mahoney [250];
industrial change and decline discourse Pfoser [251]
51 Organizational Stakeholder theory R.K. Mitchell, B. Identifies relevant stakeholders Semi-core Relevant Agency- Mitchell et al.
behavior and R. Agle, and D.J. for a specified project or policy, stakeholders centered [252]; Agle et al.
management Wood maps out their relative power, [253]
influence, and interests, and
assesses the broader context in
which they interact. New
industrial technologies are likely
to succeed when they can garner
the support of broad constellations
of stakeholders
52 Organizational Diversification and Boyan Jovanovic, Seeks to identify strategic Semi-core Organizations Agency- Jovanovic &
behavior and capture Richard J. windows of opportunity for and firms centered Gilbert [254];
management Gilbert, Markus industry or firms to diversify into Gilbert &
Steen, Tyson new, more future-oriented Newbery [255];
Reaver businesses that can assist with Steen & Weaver
industrial transformation [256]
associated with sustainability
transitions
53 Organizational Eco-branding Michael Porter, Explores the creation of Semi-core Organizations Meaning- Porter [257];
behavior and Renato J. Orsato, comparative advantage and green and firms, global centered Vogel [258];
management David Vogel, Jill markets through the development markets, Ginsberg &
M Ginsberg, Paul of private eco-branding, national Bloom [259];
Bloom, Forest marketing, and advertising, which discourse, supply Orsato [260];
Reinhardt can generate new forms of identity chains and Reinhardt [261];
and practice among industrial products Chkanikova &
firms and corporate retailers Lehner [262];
(especially in the food and Mylan et al.
beverages sector) [263]
54 Organizational Environmental and Stefan Seuring, Applies the integration of Semi-core Organizations Agency- Seuring &
behavior and sustainable supply Martin Müller, environmental, social, and and firms, supply centered Müller [264];
management chains Craig R. Carter, economic criteria that allow an chains and Carter & Rogers
Dale S. Rogers organization to achieve long-term products [265]; Seuring
economic viability to the logistics [266]
sector, and in doing so seeks to
understand sustainable supply
chain management as supplier
management for risks and
performance and supply chain
management for sustainable
products
55 Organizational Innovation value Allan Afuah Conceives of innovation as Peripheral Organizations Agency- Afuah & Bahram
behavior and chain extending beyond radical, and firms, supply centered [267]; Afuah
management incremental, architectural, chains and [268]
modular or niche attributes and products
instead focuses on the entire
“value chain” or “hypercube” of
innovation involving
entrepreneurs and manufacturers
but also customers, suppliers of
components, and suppliers of
equipment
56 Organizational Selection Richard R. Offers an evolutionary conception Peripheral Organizations Relational Nelson and
behavior and environments Nelson, Sidney G. of innovation as a process by and firms Winter
management Winter which firms disrupt their routines [269–271];
through “mutations” that respond Nelson [272]
to external pressures in the form of
selection environments that
(continued on next page)

25
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

(continued )
No. Disciplinary Name Key author(s) Description Classifi- Primary scale Type Illustrative
family cation References

determine the survival of the

fittest product or firm
57 Organizational Complexity and Herbert Seeks to explain the bounded Peripheral Individuals and Agency- Simon
behavior and bounded Alexander Simon rationality of actors (and firms) households, centered [273–275]
management rationality who due to asymmetries in employees and
information or knowledge make managers,
decisions based on satisficing relevant
criteria rather than fully optimal stakeholders,
information and criteria organizations
and firms
58 Organizational Value chains and Gary Gereffi, Draws from transaction costs Peripheral Organizations Agency- Gereffi et al.
behavior and management John Humphrey economics, production networks, and firms centered [276]; Bulkeley
management & Timothy and technological capability and & Stripple [188]
Sturgeon firm-level learning to explore how
global value chains are governed
and change; the theory generates
five types of global value chain
governance — hierarchy, captive,
relational, modular, and market –
which can shape the material
qualities of resources available for
industrial decarbonization or
shape the extent to which circular
economy operations are viable
59 Organizational Institutional work Thomas B. Synthesizes research on the Peripheral Individuals and Agency- Lawrence &
behavior and Lawrence and purposive action of individuals households, centered Suddaby [277];
management Roy Suddaby, and organizations aimed at employees and Lawrence et al.
Bernard Leca creating, maintaining and managers, [278]
disrupting institutions; they argue organizations
that “institutional work” can bring and firms
the individual back into
institutional theory, reexamine
the relationship between agency
and institutions, and provide a
bridge between critical and
institutional views of organization
60 Organizational Entrepreneurial Ben Spigel and Analyzes how entrepreneurship Peripheral Organizations Relational Stam & Spigel
behavior and ecosystems Erik Stam occurs and is shaped by policy, and firms, [279]
management markets, human capital, finance, innovation
culture, and support preferences systems
61 Organizational Effectuation Saras D. An approach to understanding the Peripheral Organizations Agency- Sarasvathy
behavior and Sarasvathy process of new firm venture and firms centered [280]; Kitching
management creation under conditions of and Rouse [281]
uncertainty using the concept of
decision-making logic involving
effectual and causal bases for
action
62 Organizational Strategic choice John Child Draws from social action within Peripheral Organizations Agency- Child [282,283];
behavior and theory sociology and strategic and firms, centered Child, Chung &
management management theory to reverse the employees and Davies [284]
emphasis by focusing on the role managers
played by managers in shaping
conditions and processes both
outside and within the firm,
advancing the view that
managerial action can impact
upon performance. Environmental
strategy involves choosing the
product/market domains in which
the organization will participate.
Organizational strategy then
involves selecting the structures
and resource allocations.
(continued on next page)

26
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

(continued )
No. Disciplinary Name Key author(s) Description Classifi- Primary scale Type Illustrative
family cation References

63 Organizational Organizational Arie Lewin Seeks to explain the “fit” between Peripheral Organizations Structure- Lewin, Long &
behavior and contingency theory environmental conditions and the and firms, centered Carroll [285];
management structures and strategies that firms employees and Lewin &
put in place, viewing managers Volberda [286];
environmental conditions as Lewin & Koza
determinant of the nature of [287]
organizational design responses
required for superior
performance; although
contingency theory implies that
managers are essentially reactive,
it is also plausible that they can
take the initiative to leverage
capabilities in such a way that
their firms are able to co-evolve
alongside their environments
64 Politics and Political Fredric Bauer, Combines insights from material Core Global markets, Relational Biber et al.
Governance Economies of Harriet Bulkeley, politics, cultural politics, and global [288];
Decarbonization Karin Ericsson, cultural political economy to governance, Markusson et al.
Jacob explore the actors, rates of change, sociotechnical [289]; Bauer
Hasselbalch, and narratives around the political systems, national et al. [47];
Diana Eriksson economy of decarbonization policies and Stephenson et al.
Lagerqvist, Lars J. government, [375]
Nilsson, national
Alexandra discourse,
Nikoleris, Paul organizations
Graham Raven, and firms,
Ciaran Raymer, individuals and
Anna Romeling, households
Ludwig
Bengtsson
Sonesson,
Johannes
Stripple, Nils
Markusson, Eric
Biber, Nina
Kelsey, Jonas
Meckling, Janet
Stephenson
65 Politics and Multi-level Andrew Jordan, Explores how different formalized Semi-core Global Structure- Bulkeley
Governance Governance Kristine Kern, and hierarchical governance governance, centered [290,291];
Harriet Bulkeley, structures result in different national policies Bulkeley et al.
Philip Späth, innovation or decarbonization and government [292]; Bulkeley
Harald Rohracher patterns across multiple scales (e. et al. [293]; Kern
g., local, city, national, and [294]; Späth &
transnational) and intersecting Rohracher
jurisdictions [295]; Jordan
et al. [296]
66 Politics and Policy Windows John Kingdon Hypothesizes that government Semi-core National policies Structure- Kingdon [297];
Governance and Multiple agendas are created via multiple and government centered Knaggard [298]
Streams streams involving the recognition
Framework of problems, the recognition of
solutions, and the politically
correct time of decision-making;
termed a “policy window” when a
policy window is recognized and
open, there is a potential for
industrial policymaking to occur
and such policies have a better
chance of survival if they have
support from broad stakeholders
across sectors and scales
67 Politics and Green state theory Robyn Eckersley, Offers a framework for revealing Semi-core Global Structure- Eckersley [299];
Governance Karin Bäckstrand, how state institutions and governance, centered Bäckstrand, &
Annica Kronsell, policymaking processes shape national policies Kronsell [300];
Roger industrial responses to climate and and government Hildingsson
Hildingsson, environmental change; views the et al. [301]
Jamil Khan state as one of the most important
actors in advancing greener
agendas because of its legitimacy,
capacity, and power resources to
affect green innovation,
technology development and
industrial renewal
(continued on next page)

27
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

(continued )
No. Disciplinary Name Key author(s) Description Classifi- Primary scale Type Illustrative
family cation References

68 Politics and Triple Helix Model Henry Etzkowitz Proposes that a Triple Helix of Semi-core Industrial Agency Etzkowitz [302]
Governance university–industry–government clusters/regions centered
interactions best models
innovation and patterns of
knowledge exchange; when
applied to industrial clusters, it
suggests that the creation,
dissemination, and utilization of
knowledge moves from the
periphery to the center of
industrial production and
governance, transforming
industrial products and processes
69 Politics and Global Political Immanuel Investigates how capital seeks to Semi-core Global markets, Structure- Frank
Governance Economy Wallerstein, Celso lift restraints on its global global centered [303,304];
Furtado, Andre mobility, which results in governance Wallerstein
Gunder Frank, industrial shifts, often from the [305]; Loureiro
Peter A. Hall core (Europe or the Global North) et al. [306]
to the periphery and semi-
periphery
70 Politics and Regional Political Barry Bluestone, Explores spatial and regional Peripheral Global markets, Structure- Cumings [307];
Governance Economy Frederic C. Deyo, variation across political and industrial centered Bluestone [308];
Allen J. Scott, market structures and how these clusters and Scott & Storper
Michael Storper shape the processes and dynamics regions [309]; Hall
Bruce Cumings, of industrialization as well as [310]
Peter A. Hall deindustrialization
71 Politics and Voluntary Michael P. Investigates how non-state actors Peripheral Organizations Agency- Bäckstrand
Governance governance for Vandenberg, can promote decarbonization and firms, centered [311];
climate mitigation Jonathan within industry through various relevant Vandenbergh
Gilligan, Angel leverage points including stakeholders [312]; Bulkeley
Hsu, Harriet voluntary standards, certification and Stripple
Bulkeley, Karin schemes, partnerships and [188]; van der
Bäckstrand roundtables Ven et al. [313];
Gilligan and
Vandenberg
[314]; Hsu et al.
[372]
72 Risk, Discourse Nelson Phillips, Connects institutional theory with Core Organizations Meaning- Philipps et al.
communication institutionalist Thomas B. language and textual analysis to and firms, centered [315]; Schmidt
and discourse approach Lawrence, show how reality is co-constituted national [316,317];
Cynthia Hardy, by different practices, linguistic discourse Genus [318]
Vivien Schmidt, processes, and social structures
Audley Genus around corporate sustainability
73 Risk, Imaginaries Sheila Jasanoff, Collectively held, institutionally Semi-core National Meaning- Jasanoff and
communication Sang-Hyun Kim stabilized, and publicly performed discourse centered Kim [319,320]
and discourse visions of desirable futures,
animated by shared
understandings of forms of social
life and social order attainable
through, and supportive of,
advances in science and
technology
74 Risk, Risk perception Nick Pidgeon Social amplification of risk Semi-core Communities Meaning- Pidgeon [321]
communication and perception and communication and cities, centered
and discourse communication illustrates how industrial projects industrial
get cancelled or delayed, and it cluster/region
reveals how local conceptions of
risk are interpreted and governed
differently
75 Risk, Rhetoric of Albert O. Opponents of change or Semi-core National Meaning- Hirschman
communication reaction Hirschman transformation will respond with discourse centered [322]
and discourse reactionary rhetoric involving the
perversity thesis (suggesting
action will worsen the problem),
the futility thesis (it will fail to
work), or the jeopardy thesis (it
will pose greater danger)
76 Risk, Discourse theory Michel Foucault, Historically emergent collection of Semi-core National Meaning- Wetherell et al.
communication Leo Spitzer, objects, concepts, speech acts and discourse centered [323]; Chilton
and discourse Arturo Escobar, practices that mutually constitute [324];
Maarten Hajer, each other to cohere into stable Habermas
Jürgen Habermas meaning-systems. New [325]; Hajer
technologies must be discursively [326]
compatible with existing power
structures and regimes of truth.
(continued on next page)

28
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

(continued )
No. Disciplinary Name Key author(s) Description Classifi- Primary scale Type Illustrative
family cation References

77 Risk, Risk, uncertainty Frank Knight Classifies risk, uncertainty, and Peripheral Employees and Normative- Knight [327]
communication and ambiguity ambiguity according to their managers; evaluative
and discourse probability and magnitude; true relevant
risk is where both parameters and stakeholders;
probabilities are known, organizations
uncertainty is where the and firms
parameters are known but not
probabilities, and ambiguity is
where neither the parameters nor
probabilities are known
78 Risk, Sociotechnical Frans Berkout, A description of what could occur Peripheral National Meaning- Berkout [328];
communication visions and Nik Brown, Brian in the near-term, mid-term, or discourse centered Miller et al.
and discourse narratives Rappert, Andrew long-term future. While shaped by [329]; Brown
Webster, Clark ideological constraints, visions et al. [330];
Miller, Benjamin reveal alternative narratives or Sovacool et al.
Sovacool futures for the near-term, mid- [331]
term, or long-term, thus inviting
contestation between themselves,
and alternative perspectives
79 Industrial Industry Lifecycle Steven Klepper, Reveals how industries evolve Core Organizations Relational Klepper, [332];
ecology, Theory Elizabeth Graddy over a product’s lifecycle as and firms, Klepper &
sociology & markets grow or firms enter, or industrial Graddy [333]
geology product innovation changes cluster/region,
industry outputs, before growth supply chains
slows, innovation lags, and some and products
industrial sectors begin to enter a
phase of decline; also proposes
four phases of industrial growth
and decline: expansion, peak,
contraction, and trough
80 Industrial Sociology of Tim Strangleman, Interdisciplinary approach to the Core Industrial Structure- Strangleman
ecology, deindustrialization David Byrne, issue of industrial change and cluster/region centered [334,335];
sociology & Barry Bluestone, decline arguing that Strangleman &
geology Bennett Harrison deindustrialization has a “half- Rhodes [336]
life” and is driven by social,
political, economic and spatial
factors
81 Industrial Population ecology Michael T. Explores organizational mortality Core Organizations Structure- Hannan and
ecology, Hannan, John among firms and suggests that and firms centered Freeman
sociology & Freeman, MS they must adapt to changes in the [337–342];
geology Salimath, R Jones environment at the population Salimath and
level to avoid becoming replaced Jones [373]
(or extinct)
82 Industrial Exergy and circular Jan Szargut, A method or heuristic for Semi-core Organizations Normative- Szargut et al.
ecology, economy David R. Morris, quantifying the energy losses and firms, evaluative [343]; Szargut
sociology & Frank R. Steward, within thermal and chemical innovation [344]; Dincer &
geology Ibrahim Dincer, systems across general balances, system, Rosen [345];
Marc A. Rosen steady and non-steady states, and sociotechnical Saavedra et al.
both movable and immovable system [346]
systems as well as the “thermo-
ecological cost” of industrial
processes, can result in a
transformation of linear materials
and energy flows into circular
flows to obtain sustainability
benefits
83 Industrial Industrial ecology Jouni Korhonen Proposes that the physical flows of Semi-core Industrial Structure- Korhonen
ecology, theory matter and energy create a cluster/region centered [347,348]
sociology & physical ecosystem can produce
geology sustainable or unsustainable
industrial measures, practices, and
strategies
84 Industrial Industrial Abel Wolman, An approach drawing from Semi-core Industrial Structure- Ayres & Kneese
ecology, metabolism Robert U. Ayres, ecology, biology, and agronomy to cluster/region centered [349]; Ayres
sociology & Allen V. Kneese understanding the “the materials [350]; Fischer-
geology cycle” of firms or industries and Kowalski [351]
how they consume resources or
“nutrients” across well-defined
geographical borders or system
boundaries
(continued on next page)

29
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

(continued )
No. Disciplinary Name Key author(s) Description Classifi- Primary scale Type Illustrative
family cation References

85 Industrial Industrial change EP Thompson Developed to reveal the Semi-core Global markets, Relational Thompson
ecology, experiences of communities national policies [352–356];
sociology & emerging into an industrial age and governance, Strangleman
geology including new standards of the national [334]
working class and new values of discourse,
industrial capitalism, which organizations
ultimately shape the processes by and firms
which modern capitalism is
rendered intelligible, accepted,
normalized and in turn acted upon
86 Industrial Industrial lifecycle International A tool utilized to evaluate the Semi-core Supply chains Normative- Gaines &
ecology, assessment Organization for social or environmental impacts and products evaluative Stodolsky [357];
sociology & Standardization, from an industrial process, United States
geology United States production, and/or use of a Environmental
Environmental product; most lifecycle Protection
Protection assessments involve the four Agency [358];
Agency, Tellus stages of goal definition and Kaebemick et al.
Institute scoping, creating a lifecycle [359]
inventory, impact analysis, and
improvement analysis
87 Industrial Evolutionary or Ron Martin, Peter Envisions industrial communities Semi-core Industrial Relational Martin and
ecology, Industrial Sunley as a coupled social-ecological cluster/region Sunley
sociology & Resilience Theory system, wherein acute or chronic [360,361];
geology disturbances to the equilibrium of Martin
the system can result in different [214,362],
pathways of change and mutation, Martin et al.
resurgence or rejuvenation, or [363]; Reams &
lock-in and stability; resilient Irving [364]
industrial communities are those
that have the three properties of
self-organization to address
change, to hold scientifically
sound understandings of the risks,
and to learn from past experiences
and take action
88 Industrial Social geology Ian S. Stewart, A novel framework arguing for the Peripheral Sociotechnical Normative- Stewart & Gill
ecology, Joel C. Gill, broadening of geosciences work so systems, evaluative [365]; Stewart &
sociology & Deirdre Lewis that it can better take into technological Lewis [366]
geology consideration elements of regimes, national
interdisciplinarity and policy and
sustainability, becoming more government
relevant to energy and climate
policy and important social
“matters of concern”

Appendix III. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.102954.

References [7] Jonas Meckling, et al., Policy sequencing toward decarbonization, Nat. Energy 2
(2017) 918–922.
[8] Jonas Meckling, Making industrial policy work for decarbonization, Glob.
[1] IPCC, in: P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen,
Environ. Polit. 21 (4) (2021) 134–147.
D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija,
[9] B.K. Sovacool, D.J. Hess, Ordering theories: typologies and conceptual
G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley (Eds.), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate
frameworks for sociotechnical change, Soc. Stud. Sci. 47 (5) (2017) 703–750.
Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the
[10] Robert Farrell, Cliff Hooker, Design, science and wicked problems, Des. Stud. 34
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press,
(6) (2013) 681–705.
Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 2022, 2013.
[11] A. de Waal, M. Weaver, T. Day, B. van der Heijden, Silo-busting: overcoming the
[2] B.K. Sovacool, F.W. Geels, M. Iskandarova, Industrial clusters for deep
greatest threat to organizational performance, Sustainability 11 (2019) 6860.
decarbonization: net-zero megaprojects in the UK offer promise and lessons,
[12] Hershey H. Friedman, How the creation of too many academic departments stifles
Science 378 (6620) (2022) 601–604 (November 10, 2022).
creativity, encourages a silo mentality, and increases administrative bloat,
[3] International Energy Agency, Industry: materials are the building blocks of
Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3095370, 2018. or http://dx.doi.
society, available at, OECD, Paris, 2021, https://www.iea.org/topics/industry.
org/10.2139/ssrn.3095370.
[4] Frank W. Geels, Guillermo Ivan Pereira, Jonatan Pinkse, Moving beyond
[13] Cheri Friedrich, Hilary Teaford, Ally Taubenheim, Patrick Boland, Brian Sick,
opportunity narratives in COVID-19 green recoveries: a comparative analysis of
Escaping the professional silo: an escape room implemented in an
public investment plans in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, Energy
interprofessional education curriculum, J. Interprof. Care 33 (5) (2019) 573–575.
Res. Soc. Sci. 84 (2022), 102368.
DOI.
[5] Daisuke Hayashi, Harnessing innovation policy for industrial decarbonization:
[14] Indra Overland, Benjamin K. Sovacool, The misallocation of climate research
capabilities and manufacturing in the wind and solar power sectors of China and
funding, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 62 (2020), 101349.
India, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 70 (2020), 101644.
[15] A. Cherp, V. Vinichenko, J. Jewell, E. Brutschin, B.K. Sovacool, Integrating
[6] Jeffrey Rissman, Chris Bataille, Eric Masanet, Nate Aden, William R. Morrow, et
techno-economic, socio-technical and political perspectives on national energy
al., Technologies and policies to decarbonize global industry: review and
transitions: a meta-theoretical framework, Eur. Polit. Sci. Rev. 37 (2018)
assessment of mitigation drivers through 2070, Appl. Energy 266 (2020),
175–190. March.
114848.

30
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

[16] Charles Kivunja, Distinguishing between theory, theoretical framework, and [49] F.W. Geels, A. McMeekin, J. Mylan, D. Southerton, A critical appraisal of
conceptual framework: a systematic review of lessons from the field, sustainable consumption and production research: the reformist, revolutionary
international, J. High. Educ. 7 (6) (2018) 44–53. and reconfiguration positions, Glob. Environ. Chang. 34 (2015) 1–12.
[17] Elinor Ostrom, A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social- [50] J. Rutherford, O. Coutard, Urban energy transitions: places, processes and politics
ecological systems, Science 325 (2009) 419–422. of socio-technical change, Urban Stud. 51 (7) (2014) 1353–1377.
[18] Peter Stegmaier, Stefan Kuhlmann, Vincent R. Visser, The discontinuation of [51] J. Anable, B. Lane, T. Kelay, An Evidence Base Review of Public Attitudes to
socio-technical systems as a governance problem, in: Chapter 6 in The Climate Change and Transport Behavior, UK Department for Transport, London,
Governance of Socio-Technical Systems, Edward Elgar publishing, London, 2014, 2006.
pp. 111–131. [52] Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for
[19] Charles Agyemang, Bert-Jan van den Born, Non-communicable diseases in Collective Action, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015.
migrants: an expert review, J. Travel Med. 26 (2) (2019), https://doi.org/ [53] B. Turnheim, F.W. Geels, Regime destabilisation as the flipside of energy
10.1093/jtm/tay107. transitions: lessons from the history of the British coal industry (1913–1997),
[20] L. Allen, C. Jones, K. Dolby, D. Lynn, M. Walport, Looking for landmarks: the role Energy Policy 50 (2012) (2012) 35–49.
of expert review and bibliometric analysis in evaluating scientific publication [54] B. Turnheim, F.W. Geels, 2013) The destabilisation of existing regimes:
outputs, PLoS ONE 4 (6) (2009). confronting a multi-dimensional framework with a case study of the British coal
[21] F. Rancé, A. Deschildre, F. Villard-Truc, S.A. Gomez, E. Paty, C. Santos, industry (1913–1967, Res. Policy 42 (10) (2013) 1749–1767.
L. Couderc, J.L. Fauquert, J. De Blic, E. Bidat, C. Dupont, P. Eigenmann, G. Lack, [55] L. Van Oers, G. Feola, E. Moors, H. Runhaar, The politics of deliberate
P. Scheinmann, SFAIC, SP2A Workgroup on OFC in Children, Oral food challenge destabilisation for sustainability transitions, Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 40
in children: an expert review, Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol 41 (2) (2009) 35–49. (2021) (2021) 159–171.
Apr. [56] A.D. Andersen, M. Gulbrandsen, The innovation and industry dynamics of
[22] B.K. Sovacool, Who are the victims of low-carbon transitions? Towards a political technology phase-out in sustainability transitions: insights from diversifying
ecology of climate change mitigation, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 73 (2021), 101916. petroleum technology suppliers in Norway, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 64 (2020),
[23] Bruce G. Buchanan, Reid G. Smith, Fundamentals of expert systems, Ann. Rev. 101447.
Comput. Sci. 3 (1) (1988) 23–58. [57] H. Brauers, P.-Y. Oei, P. Walk, Comparing coal phaseout pathways: the United
[24] Shu-Hsien Liao, Expert system methodologies and applications—a decade review Kingdom’s and Germany’s diverging transitions, Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 37
from 1995 to 2004, Expert Syst. Appl. 28 (1) (2005) 93–103. (2020) 238–253.
[25] K.Anders Ericsson, Michael J. Prietula, Edward T. Cokely, The making of an [58] G. Trencher, A Literature Review on the Phase-out of Environmentally
expert, available at, Harv. Bus. Rev. 85 (7/8) (2007) 114. Unsustainable Technologies, Substances and Processes, 2021.
[26] Matthias Honegger, Axel Michaelowa, Joyashree Roy, Potential implications of [59] Gregory Trencher, The rise of phase-out as a critical decarbonisation approach: a
carbon dioxide removal for the sustainable development goals, Clim. Pol. 21 (5) systematic review, Environ. Res. Lett. (2022), https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-
(2021) 678–698. 9326/ac9fe3 in press.
[27] Z. Dai, E.T. Burns, P.J. Irvine, et al., Elicitation of US and Chinese expert [60] Z. Koretsky, Phasing out an embedded technology: insights from banning the
judgments show consistent views on solar geoengineering, Humanit. Soc. Sci. incandescent light bulb in Europe, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 82 (2021) (2021),
Commun. 8 (2021) 18, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00694-6. 102310 (in press, 2022).
[28] Naomi E. Vaughan, Clair Gough, Expert assessment concludes negative emissions [61] F.W. Geels, Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a
scenarios may not deliver, Environ. Res. Lett. 11 (2016), 095003. multi-level perspective and a case-study, Res. Policy 31 (8–9) (2002) 1257–1274.
[29] M.J. Grant, A. Booth, A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and [62] F.W. Geels, J. Schot, Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways, Res. Policy
associated methodologies, Health Inf. Libr. J. 26 (2) (2009) 91–108. Jun. 36 (3) (2007) 399–417.
[30] Bruno Turnheim, Benjamin K. Sovacool, Exploring the role of failure in socio- [63] F.W. Geels, From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems:
technical transitions research, Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 37 (2020) (2020) insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory, Res.
267–289. Policy 33 (6–7) (2004) 897–920.
[31] A. Stornelli, S. Ozcan, C. Simms, Advanced manufacturing technology adoption [64] F.W. Geels, The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: responses to
and innovation: a systematic literature review on barriers, enablers, and seven criticisms, Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 1 (1) (2011) 24–40.
innovation types, Res. Policy 50 (6) (2021), 104229. [65] D.G. Victor, F.W. Geels, S. Sharpe, Accelerating the Low Carbon Transition: The
[32] Pia Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Jialei Yang, Distinguishing between appropriability Case for Stronger, More Targeted and Coordinated International Action,
and appropriation: a systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing, Res. Brookings Institute, Washington, DC, 2019. December 9.
Policy 51 (1) (2022), 104417. [66] L. Kanger, Rethinking the Multi-level Perspective for energy transitions: from
[33] M.I. Alhojailan, Thematic analysis: a critical review of its process and evaluation, regime life-cycle to explanatory typology of transition pathways, Energy Res. Soc.
West East J. Soc. Sci. 1 (1) (2012) 39–47. Sci. 71 (2021), 101829.
[34] J. Fereday, E. Muir-Cochrane, Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a [67] N. Labanca, Â.G. Pereira, M. Watson, K. Krieger, D. Padovan, L. Watts, M. Moezzi,
hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development, Int J G. Wallenborn, R. Wright, E. Laes, B.D. Fath, F. Ruzzenenti, T. De Moor,
Qual Methods 5 (1) (2006) 80–92. T. Bauwens, L. Mehta, Transforming innovation for decarbonisation? Insights
[35] M. Javadi, K. Zarea, Understanding thematic analysis and its pitfall, Demo 1 (1) from combining complex systems and social practice perspectives, Energy Res.
(2016) 33–39. Soc. Sci. 65 (2020), 101452.
[36] Jason E. McDermott, Jing Wang, Hugh Mitchell, Bobbie-Jo Webb-Robertson, [68] Z. Koretsky, H. van Lente, Technology phase-out as unravelling of socio-technical
Ryan Hafen, John Ramey, Karin D. Rodland, Challenges in biomarker discovery: configurations: cloud seeding case, Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 37 (2020) (2020)
combining expert insights with statistical analysis of complex omics data, Expert 302–317.
Opin. Med. Diagn. 7 (1) (2013) 37–51. [69] Z. Koretsky, Socio-technical unravelling as the dynamics of technology decline,
[37] Sharon Koppman, Erin Leahey, Who moves to the methodological edge? Factors in: 2021 IST Conference Paper, 2021.
that encourage scientists to use unconventional methods, Res. Policy 48 (9) [70] T.P. Hughes, Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880-1930,
(2019), 103807. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983.
[38] Frank W. Geels, Causality and explanation in socio-technical transitions research: [71] T.P. Hughes, The seamless web: technology, science, etcetera, etcetera, Soc. Stud.
mobilising epistemological insights from the wider social sciences, Res. Policy 51 Sci. 16 (2) (1986) 281–292.
(2022) (2022), 104537. [72] T.P. Hughes, The evolution of large technological systems, in: Wiebe Bijker,
[39] Laurens K. Hessels, Harro van Lente, Re-thinking new knowledge production: a Thomas P. Hughes, Trevor Pinch (Eds.), The Social Construction of Technological
literature review and a research agenda, Res. Policy 37 (4) (2008) 740–760. Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, MIT Press,
[40] R.B. Norgaard, Ecosystem services: from eye-opening metaphor to complexity London, UK, 1987, pp. 51–82.
blinder, Ecol. Econ. 69 (6) (2010) 1219–1227. [73] B.K. Sovacool, K. Lovell, M.B. Ting, Reconfiguration, contestation, and decline:
[41] Herbert A. Simon, The Sciences of the Artificial, Massachusetts Institute of conceptualizing mature large technical systems, Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 43 (6)
Technology, 1969, 2013. (2018) 1066–1097.
[42] P.C. Stern, Energy: we need all hands on deck, Nature 513 (2014) 33. September [74] D. MacKenzie, G. Spinardi, Tacit knowledge, weapons design, and the
4. uninvention of nuclear weapons, Am. J. Sociol. 101 (1) (1995) 44–99.
[43] J. Hall, Ben R. Martin, Towards a taxonomy of research misconduct: the case of [75] E. Shove, The shadowy side of innovation: unmaking and sustainability, Tech.
business school research, Res. Policy 48 (2) (2019) 414–427. Anal. Strat. Manag. 24 (4) (2012) 363–375.
[44] P. Robbins, Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction, Blackwell, Oxford, 2004. [76] J. Schot, L. Kanger, (2018) Deep transitions: emergence, acceleration,
[45] D. Rosenbloom, A. Rinscheid, (2020) Deliberate decline: an emerging frontier for stabilization and directionality, Res. Policy 47 (6) (2018) 1045–1059.
the study and practice of decarbonization, WIREs Clim. Change 11 (2020), e669. [77] L. Kanger, J. Schot, Deep transitions: theorizing the long-term patterns of socio-
[46] J. Meckling, B.B. Allan, The evolution of ideas in global climate policy, Nat. Clim. technical change, Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 32 (2019) (2019) 7–21.
Chang. 10 (2020) 434–438, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0739-7. [78] K. Fortun, Ethnography in late industrialism, Cult. Anthropol. 27 (3) (2012)
[47] F. Bauer, H. Bulkeley, K. Ericsson, J. Hasselbalch, D. Eriksson Lagerqvist, L. 446–464.
J. Nilsson, A. Nikoleris, P.G. Raven, C. Raymer, A. Romeling, L. Bengtsson [79] K. Fortun, From latour to late industrialism, HAU: J. Ethnographic Theory 4 (1)
Sonesson, J. Stripple, B. van Veelen, Scaling Theories of Change in REINVENT (2014) 309–329.
Case Studies. [Project Report] 2020-07-02, 2020. [80] C. Ahmann, A. Kenner, Breathing late industrialism, Engag. Sci. Technol. Soc. 6
[48] F.W. Geels, Foundational ontologies and multi-paradigm analysis, applied to the (2020) 416–438.
socio-technical transition from mixed farming to intensive pig husbandry [81] F. Geels, A. McMeekin, B. Pfluger, Socio-technical scenarios as a methodological
(1930–1980), Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag. 21 (7) (2009) 805–832. tool to explore social and political feasibility in low-carbon transitions: bridging

31
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

computer models and the multi-level perspective in UK electricity generation Strat. Manag. 10 (2) (1998) 175–198, https://doi.org/10.1080/
(2010–2050), Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 151 (2020), 119258. 09537329808524310.
[82] B. Elzen, F.W. Geels, P.S. Hofman, K. Green, Socio-technical scenarios as a tool for [114] J. Schot, F.W. Geels, Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation
transition policy: an example from the traffic and transport domain, in: System journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy, Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag.
Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy, 20 (5) (2008) 537–554, https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320802292651.
2004, pp. 251–281. [115] P. Greenacre, R. Gross, J. Speirs, Innovation theory: a review of the literature
[83] P.S. Hofman, B.E. Elzen, F.W. Geels, Sociotechnical scenarios as a new policy tool ICEPT working paper May 2012 ref: ICEPT/WP/2012/011. https://www.
to explore system innovations: co-evolution of technology and society in The imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/research-centres-and-groups
Netherland’s electricity domain, Innovation 6 (2) (2004) 344–360, https://doi. /icept/Innovation-review—ICEPT-working-paper-version-(16.05.12).pdf, 2012.
org/10.5172/impp.2004.6.2.344. [116] E.M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed., Simon & Schuster, New York, N.Y.,
[84] J.A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Harper & Brothers, New 2003.
York, 1942. [117] B.K. Sovacool, Experts, theories, and electric mobility transitions: toward an
[85] J. Markard, B. Truffer, (2008) Technological innovation systems and the multi- integrated conceptual framework for the adoption of electric vehicles, Energy
level perspective: towards an integrated framework, Res. Policy 37 (4) (2008) Res. Soc. Sci. 27 (2017) (2017) 78–95. ISSN 2214-6296.
596–615. [118] V. Venkatesh, M.G. Morris, G.B. Davis, F.D. Davis, User acceptance of information
[86] A. Bergek, S. Jacobsson, B. Carlsson, S. Lindmark, A. Rickne, Analyzing the technology: toward a unified view, MIS Q. 27 (3) (2003) 425–478.
functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: a scheme of analysis, [119] G. Dosi, Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested
Res. Policy 37 (3) (2008) 407–429. interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change, Res. Policy
[87] M.P. Hekkert, R.A.A. Suurs, S.O. Negro, S. Kuhlmann, R.E.H.M. Smits, Functions 11 (3) (1982) 147–162.
of innovation systems: a new approach for analysing technological change, [120] G. Dosi, Technological paradigms and technological trajectories, Res. Policy 11
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 74 (4) (2017) 413–432. (3) (1984).
[88] N. Bento, A. Nuñez-Jimenez, N. Kittner, Decline processes in technological [121] D.J. Teece, (2008) Dosi's technological paradigms and trajectories: insights for
innovation systems: lessons from energy technologies, in: IST Conference 2021 economics and management, Ind. Corp. Chang. 17 (3) (2008) 507–512.
Paper, 2021. [122] N. Von Tunzelmann, F. Malerba, P. Nightingale, S. Metcalfe, Technological
[89] P. Kivimaa, F. Kern, Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation paradigms: past, present and future, Ind. Corp. Chang. 17 (3) (2008) 467–484,
policy mixes for sustainability transitions, Res. Policy 45 (1) (2016) 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtn012.
[90] J. Musiolik, J. Markard, M. Hekkert, (2012) Networks and network resources in [123] J. Schot, E.W. Steinmueller, (2018) Three frames for innovation policy: R&D,
technological innovation systems: towards a conceptual framework for system systems of innovation and transformative change, Res. Policy 47 (9) (2018)
building, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 79 (6) (2012) 1032–1048. 1554–1567.
[91] J. Markard, N. Bento, N. Kittner, A. Nuñez-Jimenez, Destined for decline? [124] G. Diercks, H. Larsen, F. Steward, Transformative innovation policy: addressing
Examining nuclear energy from a technological innovation systems perspective, variety in an emerging policy paradigm, Res. Policy 48 (4) (2019) 880–894.
Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 67 (2020), 101512. [125] R. Nelson, The co-evolution of technology, industrial structure, and supporting
[92] W.J. Abernathy, K.B. Clark, Innovation: mapping the winds of creative institutions, Ind. Corp. Chang. 3 (1) (1994) 47–63.
destruction, Res. Policy 14 (1) (1985) 3–22. [126] W.J. Abernathy, The Productivity Dilemma: Roadblock to Innovation in the
[93] C.M. Christensen, The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Automobile Industry, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1978 (in press, 2022).
Great Firms to Fail, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1997. [127] W.J. Abernathy, J. Utterback, Patterns of industrial innovation, Technol. Rev. 50
[94] C.M. Christensen, M.E. Raynor, The Innovator's Solution: Creating and Sustaining (1978) 41–47.
Successful Growth, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 2003. [128] M.L. Tushman, L. Rosenkopf, On the organizational determinants of technological
[95] C. Markides, Disruptive innovation. In need of better theory, J. Prod. Innov. change: towards a sociology of technological evolution, Res. Organ. Behav. 14
Manag. 23 (2006) 19–25. (1992) 311–347.
[96] C. Wilson, D. Tyfield, Critical perspectives on disruptive innovation and energy [129] J.P. Murmann, K. Frenken, Toward a systematic framework for research on
transformation, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 37 (2018) (2018) 211–215. dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change, Res. Policy
[97] P. Johnstone, P. Kivimaa, Multiple dimensions of disruption, energy transitions 35 (2006) 925–952.
and industrial policy, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 37 (2018) (2018) 260–265. [130] R. Von Schomberg, Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of
[98] P. Johnstone, K.S. Rogge, P. Kivimaa, C.F. Fratini, E. Primmer, A. Stirling, Waves responsible research and innovation, in: M. Dusseldorp, R. Beecroft (Eds.),
of disruption in clean energy transitions: sociotechnical dimensions of system Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren: Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer
disruption in Germany and the United Kingdom, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 59 (2020) Methoden [Assessing Technological Impacts: Educational Potentials of
(2020), 101287. ISSN 2214-6296. Transdisciplinary Methods], Vs Verlag, Wiesbaden, 2012, pp. 39–61.
[99] P. Kivimaa, S. Laakso, A. Lonkila, M. Kaljonenet, Moving beyond disruptive [131] R. Von Schomberg, The quest for the 'right' impacts of science and technology: a
innovation: a review of disruption in sustainability transitions, Environ. Innov. framework for responsible innovation, in: J. van den Hoven, N. Doorn,
Soc. Trans. 38 (2021) (2021) 110–126. T. Swierstra, B.-J. Koops, H. Romijn (Eds.), Responsible Innovation 1: Innovative
[100] E. Autio, Evaluation of RTD in regional systems of innovation, Eur. Plan. Stud. 6 Solutions for Global Issues, Springer, Heidelberg, 2014, pp. 33–50.
(1998) 131–140. [132] A. Grunwald, Responsible innovation: bringing together technology assessment,
[101] B.T. Asheim, M. Gertler, Regional innovation systems and the geographical applied ethics, and STS research, Enterp. Work Innov. Stud. 7 (2011) 9–31.
foundations of innovation, in: J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, R. Nelson (Eds.), The [133] R. Owen, P. Macnaghten, J. Stilgoe, Responsible research and innovation: from
Oxford Handbook of Innovation, 2005, pp. 291–317. science in society to science for society, with society, Sci. Public Policy 39 (2012)
[102] S. Christopherson, J. Clark, Power in firm networks: what it means for regional 751–760.
innovation systems, Reg. Stud. 41 (2007) 1223–1236. [134] R. Owen, J. Stilgoe, P. Macnaghten, M. Gorman, E. Fisher, D. Guston,
[103] P. Cooke, Regional innovation systems, clean technology, and jacobian cluster- A framework for responsible innovation, in: R. Owen, J. Bessant, M. Heintz (Eds.),
platform policies, Reg. Sci. Policy Pract. 1 (1) (2008) 23–45, https://doi.org/ Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and
10.1111/j.1757-7802.2008.00002.x. Innovation in Society, Wiley, Chichester, 2013, pp. 27–50.
[104] P. Cooke, Regional innovation systems: development opportunities from the [135] J. Stilgoe, R. Owen, P. Macnaghten, Developing a framework for responsible
‘green turn’, Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag. 22 (2010) 831–844. innovation, Res. Policy 42 (9) (2013) 1568–1580, 2013.
[105] J. Stuck, T. Broekel, J.R. Diez, Network structures in regional innovation systems, [136] A. Genus, M. Iskandarova, Responsible innovation: its institutionalisation and a
Eur. Plan. Stud. 24 (3) (2015) 1–20. critique, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 128 (2018) 1–9.
[106] D.J. Hess, M.N. Sudibjo, Supporting regional cleantech sectors in North America, [137] C. Perez, Microelectronics, long waves and world structural change: new
in: Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 14, 2018, pp. 22–30, https://doi. perspectives for developing countries, World Dev. 13 (3) (1985) 441–463.
org/10.1080/15487733.2018.1536308. [138] C. Perez, Technological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms, Camb. J.
[107] J.R. Kimberly, Managerial innovation, in: P.C. Nystorm, W.H. Starbuck (Eds.), Econ. 34 (1) (2010) 85–202.
Handbook of Organizational Design, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1981, pp. 84–104. [139] C. Freeman, C. Perez, Structural crises of adjustment, in: G. Dosi, et al. (Eds.),
[108] J. Holbek, H. Knudsen, On the Concept of Exnovation – A Call for a Rebirth of the Technical Change and Economic Theory, Frances Printer, London, 1988,
Concept, and for Exnovation Theory and Practice, 2020, 2013. pp. 36–88.
[109] D. Martin, Moving beyond the heuristic of creative destruction: targeting [140] C. Freeman, Innovation, changes of techno-economic paradigm and biological
exnovation with policy mixes for energy transitions, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 33 analogies in economics, Rev. Économique 42 (2) (1991) 211–231.
(2017) 138–146. [141] B.A. Lundvall, National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation
[110] J.K. Hall, M.J.C. Martin, Disruptive technologies stakeholders and the innovation and Interactive Learning, Pinter Publishers, London, 1992.
value chain: a framework for evaluating radical technology development, R&D [142] R. Nelson, National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford
Manage. 35 (3) (2005) 273–284. University Press, New York, 1993.
[111] J. Hall, S. Matos, B. Silvestre, M. Martin, (2011) Managing technological and [143] S. Lall, Technological capabilities and industrialization, World Dev. 20 (2) (1992)
social uncertainties of innovation: the evolution of Brazilian energy and 165–186. ISSN 0305-750X.
agriculture, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 78 (7) (2011) 1147–1157. [144] F.M. Reichert, P.A. Zawislak, Technological capability and firm performance,
[112] J. Schot, R. Hoogma, B. Elzen, Strategies for shifting technological systems. The J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 9 (4) (2014) 20–35.
case of the automobile system, Futures 26 (10) (1994) 1060–1076. [145] K. Rennings, (2000) Redefining innovation — eco-innovation research and the
[113] R. Kemp, J. Schot, R. Hoogma, Regime shifts to sustainability through processes contribution from ecological economics, Ecol. Econ. 32 (2) (2000) 319–332.
of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management, Tech. Anal. [146] R. Kemp, T. Foxon, Typology of eco-innovation, Proj. Pap. Meas. Eco-Innov. 5 (1)
(2007) 10–23.

32
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

[147] A. Arundel, R. Kemp, Measuring eco-innovation, in: (Report) UNU-MERIT, UNU- [183] K. Jenkins, Setting energy justice apart from the crowd: lessons from
MERIT Working Paper Series, 2009. environmental and climate justice, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 39 (2018) 117–121.
[148] F. Malerba, Sectoral systems of innovation and production, Res. Policy 31 (2002) [184] D. McCauley, V. Ramasar, R.J. Heffron, B.K. Sovacool, D. Mebratu, L. Mundaca,
247–264. Energy justice in the transition to low carbon energy systems: exploring key
[149] F. Malerba, Sectoral Systems of Innovation: Concepts, Issues and Analyses of Six themes in interdisciplinary research, Appl. Energy 233–234 (2019) 916–921.
Major Sectors in Europe, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004, https:// [185] M. Crang, A. Hughes, N. Gregson, L. Norris, F. Ahamed, Rethinking governance
doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511493270. and value in commodity chains through global recycling networks, Trans. Inst. Br.
[150] P. Newell, D. Mulvaney, The political economy of the ‘just transition’, Geogr. J. Geogr. 38 (1) (2013) 12–24.
179 (2) (2013) 132–140, https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12008. [186] C. Bataille, H. Waisman, M. Colombier, L. Segafredo, J. Williams, F. Jotzo, The
[151] R.J. Heffron, D. McCauley, What is the ‘Just Transition’? Geoforum 88 (2018) need for national deep decarbonization pathways for effective climate policy,
74–77. Clim. Pol. 16 (sup1) (2016) S7–S26.
[152] S. Jasanoff, Just transitions: a humble approach to global energy futures, Energy [187] Chris Bataille, Max Åhman, Karsten Neuhoff, Lars J. Nilsson, Manfred Fischedick,
Res. Soc. Sci. 35 (2018) 11–14. et al., A review of technology and policy deep decarbonization pathway options
[153] G. Piggot, M. Boyland, A. Down, A.R. Torre, Realizing a Just and Equitable for making energy-intensive industry production consistent with the Paris
Transition Away From Fossil Fuels. Discussion Brief, Stockholm Environment agreement, J. Clean. Prod. 187 (2018) 960–973.
Institute, 2019. [188] H. Bulkeley, J. Stripple, State of the Art Review: Analysing Decarbonisation in the
[154] M. Diani, The concept of social movement, Sociol. Rev. 1 (1992) 1–25. Energy Intensive Sectors. REINVENT Project. 2017-05-31, 2017.
[155] S. Tarrow, Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. [189] A. Mah, Devastation but also home: place attachment in areas of industrial
Revised and Updated, Third Edition, Cambridge University Press, New York, decline, Home Cult. 6 (3) (2009) 287–310, https://doi.org/10.2752/
2011. 174063109X12462745321462.
[156] D. McAdam, H. Boudet, Putting Social Movements in Their Place: Explaining [190] A. Mah, Industrial Ruination, Community, and Place: Landscapes and Legacies of
Opposition to Energy Projects in the United States, 2000–2005, Cambridge Urban Decline 2012, University of Toronto Press, 2012.
University Press, 2012. [191] A. Mah, in: S. Hall, R. Burdett (Eds.), Ruination and Post-Industrial Urban
[157] F. Green, The logic of fossil fuel bans, Nat. Clim. Chang. 8 (2018) 444–453. Decline, Sage Handbook of the 21st Century City, Sage, London, 2017.
[158] M. Martiskainen, S. Axon, B.K. Sovacool, Siddharth Sareen, Dylan Furszyfer Del [192] M. Porter, The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Macmillan, London, 1990.
Rio, Kayleigh Axon, Contextualizing climate justice activism: knowledge, [193] M. Porter, Competitive advantage, agglomeration economies, and regional policy,
emotions, motivations, and actions among climate strikers in six cities, Glob. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 19 (1) (1996) 85–94.
Environ. Chang. 65 (2020), 102180. [194] M.E. Porter, Clusters and the new economics of competition, Harv. Bus. Rev. 76
[159] J. Prno, D.S. Slocombe, Exploring the origins of ‘social license to operate’ in the (6) (1998) 77–90.
mining sector: perspectives from governance and sustainability theories, Resour. [195] M.E. Porter, Location, competition, and economic development: local clusters in a
Policy 37 (3) (2012) 346–357. global economy, Econ. Dev. Q. 14 (1) (2000) 15–34, https://doi.org/10/fw7s76.
[160] R.G. Boutilier, Frequently asked questions about the social licence to operate [196] I.R. Gordon, P. McCann, Industrial clusters: complexes, agglomeration and/or
impact assess, Project Apprais. 32 (4) (2014) 263–272. social networks? Urban Stud. 37 (3) (2000) 513–532.
[161] D.C. Smith, J.M. Richards, Social license to operate: hydraulic fracturing-related [197] R. Martin, P. Sunley, Deconstructing clusters: chaotic concept or policy panacea?
challenges facing the oil & gas industry, ONE J. 1 (2) (2015) 81–164. J. Econ. Geogr. 3 (1) (2003) 5–35.
[162] G. Demuijnck, B. Fasterling, The social license to operate, J. Bus. Ethics 136 [198] M.J. Enright, Regional clusters: what we know and what we should know, in:
(2016) 675–685. J. Bröcker, D. Dohse, R. Soltwedel (Eds.), Innovation Clusters and Interregional
[163] W. Kenton, Social License to Operate (SLO), in: Charles Potters (Ed.), Competition, Springer, Berlin, 2003, pp. 99–129.
Encyclopedia of Sustainability, Kluwer Academic Press, London, 2021. [199] P. Benneworth, M. Danson, P. Raines, G. Whittam, Confusing clusters? Making
[164] G. Breakwell, The Psychology of Risk, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, sense of the cluster approach in theory and practice, Eur. Plan. Stud. 11 (5) (2003)
2007. 511–520.
[165] R. Jaspal, G.M. Breakwell, Identity Process Theory: Identity, Social Action and [200] B. Asheim, P. Cooke, R. Martin, Clusters and regional development: critical
Social Change, Cambridge University Press, 2014. reflections and explorations, Econ. Geogr. 84 (1) (2009) 109–112.
[166] K. Henwood, N. Pidgeon, Future Identities: Changing Identities in the UK the Next [201] M.E. Porter, C. Ketels, Clusters and industrial districts: common roots, different
10 Years, Cardiff University, 2013. perspectives, in: G. Becattini, M. Bellandi, L. De Propis (Eds.), A Handbook of
[167] W.R. Freudenburg, S.K. Pastor, NIMBYs and LULUs: stalking the syndromes, Industrial Districts, Edward Elgar Publishing, New York, 2009, pp. 172–186.
J. Soc. Issues 48 (4) (1992) 39–61. [202] M. Zizka, N. Pelloneova, M. Skala, Theory of clusters, in: M. Zizka, P. Rydvalova
[168] M. Wolsink, Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the (Eds.), Innovation and Performance Drivers of Business Clusters. Science,
limited significance of public support, Renew. Energy 21 (1) (2000) 49–64. Technology and Innovation Studies, Springer, Cham, 2021.
[169] P. Devine-Wright, Rethinking NIMBYism: the role of place attachment and place [203] Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics, MacMillan and Co, London, UK, 1920.
identity in explaining place-protective action, J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. [204] Benjamin Chinitz, Contrasts in agglomeration: new york and pittsburgh, Am.
19 (6) (2009) 426–441. Econ. Rev. 51 (2) (1961) 279–289.
[170] K. Burningham, J. Barnett, G. Walker, An array of deficits: unpacking NIMBY [205] G. Ellison, E.L. Glaeser, Geographic concentration in US manufacturing
discourses in wind energy developers' conceptualizations of their local opponents, industries: a dartboard approach, J. Polit. Econ. 105 (5) (1997) 889–927.
Soc. Nat. Resour. 28 (3) (2015) 246–260. [206] G. Ellison, E. Glaeser, The geographic concentration of industry: does natural
[171] S. Batel, A critical discussion of research on the social acceptance of renewable advantage explain agglomeration? Am. Econ. Rev. Pap. Proc. 89 (1999) 311–316.
energy generation and associated infrastructures and an agenda for the future, [207] Dan O’Donoghue, Bill Gleave, A note on methods for measuring industrial
J. Environ. Policy Plan. 20 (3) (2018) 356–369. agglomeration, Reg. Stud. 38 (4) (2004) 419–427.
[172] D. McLaren, Procedural justice in carbon capture and storage: a review, Energy [208] G. Ellison, E. Glaeser, W. Kerr, What Causes Industry Agglomeration? Evidence
Environ. 23 (2 & 3) (2012) 345–365. from Coagglomeration Patterns. NBER Working Paper 13068 2007, 2007. July 9.
[173] P. Boucher, C. Gough, Mapping the ethical landscape of carbon capture and [209] Paul A. David, Clio and the Economics of QWERTY, Am. Econ. Rev. 75 (2) (1985)
storage technology, Poiesis Prax. 9 (3–4) (2012) 249–270. 332–333.
[174] C. Gough, P. Boucher, Ethical attitudes to underground CO2 storage: points of [210] W.B. Arthur, Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical
convergence and potential faultlines, Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 13 (2013) events, Econ. J. 99 (394) (1989) 116–131.
156–167. [211] W.B. Arthur, Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy, University
[175] D. McLaren, K. Kriegler, K. Bickerstaff, Justice in energy system transitions: the of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1994.
case of carbon capture and storage, in: Karen Bickerstaff, Gordon Walker, [212] S.J. Liebowitz, Stephen E. Margolis, Path dependence, lock-in, and history, J. Law
Harriet Bulkeley (Eds.), Energy Justice in a Changing Climate, Zed Books, Econ. Org. 11 (1) (1995) 205–226.
London, 2013, pp. 158–181. [213] Gregory C. Unruh, Understanding carbon lock-in, Energy Policy 28 (12) (2000)
[176] F. Medvecky, J. Lacey, P. Ashworth, Examining the role of carbon capture and 817–830.
storage through an ethical lens, Sci. Eng. Ethics 20 (4) (2014) 1111–1128, [214] R. Martin, Roepke lecture in economic geography—rethinking regional path
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9474-z. dependence: beyond lock-in to evolution, Econ. Geogr. 86 (1) (2010) 1–27,
[177] G. Evans, L. Phelan, Transition to a post-carbon society: linking environmental https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2009.01056.x.
justice and just transition discourses, Energy Policy 99 (2016) 329–339. [215] R. Walker, M. Storper, Capital and industrial location, Prog. Hum. Geogr. 5 (4)
[178] B.K. Sovacool, M.H. Dworkin, Energy justice: conceptual insights and practical (1981), 473-50.
applications, Appl. Energy 142 (2015) 435–444. [216] M. Storper, Progress report: the new industrial geography, 1985–1986, Urban
[179] K. Jenkins, D.A. McCauley, R. Heffron, H. Stephan, R. Rehner, Energy justice: a Geogr. 8 (6) (1987) 585–598.
conceptual review, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 11 (2016) 174–182. [217] M. Storper, in: The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global
[180] K. Jenkins, B.K. Sovacool, N. Mouter, N. Hacking, D. McCauley, The Economy, Guilford press, London, 1997, p. 1997.
methodologies, geographies, and technologies of energy justice: a systematic and [218] M. Storper, The resurgence of regional economics: ten years later, in: Trevor
comprehensive review, April, Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (4) (2021) 1–25, 043009. J. Barnes, Meric S. Gertler (Eds.), The New Industrial Geography Regions,
[181] B.K. Sovacool, R.J. Heffron, D. McCauley, A. Goldthau, Energy decisions reframed Regulation and Institutions, Routledge, London, 1999, pp. 23–53.
as justice and ethical concerns, Nat. Energy 1 (5) (2016) 1–6. [219] T. Farole, A. Rodríguez-Pose, M. Storper, Human geography and the institutions
[182] R.J. Heffron, D. McCauley, The concept of energy justice across the disciplines, that underlie economic growth, Prog. Hum. Geogr. 35 (1) (2011) 58–80.
Energy Policy 105 (2017) 658–666. [220] M. Naumann, A. Fischer-Tahir, Peripheralization: The Making of Spatial
Dependencies and Social Injustice, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.

33
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

[221] Manfred Kühn, Peripheralization: theoretical concepts explaining socio-spatial [259] J.M. Ginsberg, P.N. Bloom, Choosing the right green marketing strategy, MIT
inequalities, Eur. Plan. Stud. 23 (2) (2015), 367-37. Sloan Manag. Rev. 46 (1) (2004) 79–84.
[222] J. Park, B.K. Sovacool, The contested politics of the Asian atom: peripheralisation [260] R.J. Orsato, Eco-branding, in: Sustainability Strategies, INSEAD Business Press
and nuclear power in South Korea and Japan, Environ. Pollut. 27 (2018) Series, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2009.
686–711. [261] F. Reinhardt, Environmental product differentiation: implications for corporate
[223] Kate O'Sullivan, Oleg Golubchikov, Abid Mehmood, Uneven energy transitions: strategy, Calif. Manag. Rev. 40 (4) (1998) 43–73.
understanding continued energy peripheralization in rural communities, Energy [262] O. Chkanikova, M. Lehner, Private eco---brands and green market development:
Policy 138 (2020) (2020), 111288. towards new forms of sustainability governance in the food retailing, J. Clean.
[224] Michael H. Shuman, Going Local: Creating Self-Reliant Communities in a Global Prod. 107 (2015) 74–84.
Age, Free Press, 1998. [263] J. Mylan, F.W. Geels, A. McMeekin, S. Gee, C. Foster, Eco---innovation and
[225] Gill Seyfang, Adrian Smith, Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: retailers in UK milk, beef and bread chains: enriching environmental supply chain
towards a new research and policy agenda, Environ. Polit. 16 (4) (2007) 584–603. management with insights from innovation studies, J. Clean. Prod. 107 (2015)
[226] Adrian Smith, Translating sustainabilities between green niches and socio- 20–30.
technical regimes, Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag. 19 (4) (2007) 427–450. [264] S. Seuring, M. Müller, From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
[227] A. Smith, T. Hargreaves, S. Hielscher, M. Martiskainen, G. Seyfang, Making the sustainable supply chain management, J. Clean. Prod. 16 (15) (2008).
most of community energies: three perspectives on grassroots innovation, [265] C.R. Carter, D.S. Rogers, A framework of sustainable supply chain management:
Environ. Plann. A: Econ. Space 48 (2) (2016) 407–443, 2016. moving toward new theory, Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 38 (5) (2008)
[228] J. Henderson, P. Dicken, M. Hess, N. Coe, H.W.C. Yeung, Global production 360–387.
networks and the analysis of economic development, Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. 9 (3) [266] S. Seuring, A review of modeling approaches for sustainable supply chain
(2002) 436–464. management, Decis. Support. Syst. 54 (4) (2013) 1513–1520.
[229] N.M. Coe, P. Dicken, M. Hess, Global production networks: realizing the potential, [267] A. Afuah, N. Bahram, The hypercube of innovation, Res. Policy 24 (1) (1995)
J. Econ. Geogr. 8 (3) (2008) 271–295. 51–76.
[230] G. Bridge, Global production networks and the extractive sector: governing [268] A. Afuah, Innovation Management Strategies, Implementation and Profits, Oxford
resource-based development, J. Econ. Geogr. 8 (3) (2008) 389–419. University Press, Oxford, 1998.
[231] N.M. Coe, Geographies of production II: a global production network A-Z, Prog. [269] R.R. Nelson, S.G. Winter, Toward an evolutionary theory of economic
Hum. Geogr. 36 (3) (2012), 389-40. capabilities, Am. Econ. Rev. 63 (2) (1973) 440–444.
[232] B. Flyvbjerg, N. Bruzelius, W. Rothengatter, Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy [270] R.R. Nelson, S.G. Winter, In search of useful theory of innovation, Res. Policy 6
of Ambition, Cambridge University Press, 2003. (1) (1977) 36–76.
[233] Andrew Davies, David Michael Gann, Tony Douglas, Innovation in megaprojects: [271] R.R. Nelson, S.G. Winter, Evolutionary theorizing in economics, J. Econ. Perspect.
systems integration at London Heathrow terminal 5, December, Calif. Manag. 16 (2) (2002) 23–46, 2002.
Rev. 51 (2) (2009) 101–125. [272] R. Nelson, Recent evolutionary theorizing about economic change, J. Econ. Lit.
[234] B. Flyvbjerg, What you should know about megaprojects and why: an overview, XXXIII (1995) 48–91.
Proj. Manag. J. 45 (2) (2014) 6–19. [273] H.A. Simon, A behavioral model of rational choice, Q. J. Econ. 69 (1) (1955)
[235] J. Sanderson, Risk, uncertainty and governance in megaprojects: a critical 99–118.
discussion of alternative explanations, Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30 (4) (2012) 432–443. [274] H. Simon, Theories of bounded rationality, in: C.B. McGuire, R. Radner (Eds.),
[236] B.K. Sovacool, C. Cooper, The Governance of Energy Megaprojects: Politics, Decision and Organization, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1972, pp. 161–176.
Hubris, and Energy Security, Edward Elgar, London, 2013. [275] H.A. Simon, Models of Bounded Rationality: Empirically Grounded Economic
[237] B.K. Sovacool, Frank W. Geels, Megaprojects: examining their governance and Reason, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997.
sociotechnical transitions dynamics, Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 41 (2021) (2021) [276] G. Gereffi, J. Humphrey, T. Sturgeon, The governance of global value chains, Rev.
89–92. Int. Polit. Econ. 12 (1) (2005) 78–104.
[238] W. Weitzel, E. Jonsson, Decline in organizations: a literature integration and [277] T.B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, Institutions and institutional work, in: The Sage
extension, Adm. Sci. Q. 34 (1989) 91–109. Handbook of Organization Studies, 2006, pp. 215–254.
[239] P. Lorange, R. Nelson, How to recognize – and avoid – organizational decline, [278] T.B. Lawrence, R. Suddaby, B. Leca, Institutional work: refocusing institutional
Sloan Manag. Rev. 28 (3) (1987) 41–48. studies of organization, J. Manag. Inq. 20 (1) (2010) 52–58, 2010.
[240] D. Hambrick, R. D’Aveni, Large corporate failures as downward spirals, Adm. Sci. [279] E. Stam, B. Spigel, Entrepreneurial ecosystems, in: R. Blackburn, D. De Clercq,
Q. 33 (1998) 1–23. J. Heinonen, Z. Wang (Eds.), Handbook for Entrepreneurship and Small Business,
[241] S.F. Latham, M. Braun, Managerial risk, innovation, and organizational decline, Sage, London, 2017.
J. Manag. 35 (2) (2009) 258–281. [280] S.D. Sarasvathy, Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from
[242] C.A. Trahms, H.A. Ndofor, D.G. Sirmon, Organizational decline and turnaround: a economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency, Acad. Manag. Rev. 26 (2)
review and agenda for future research, J. Manag. 39 (5) (2013) 1277–1307. (2001) 243–263.
[243] William McKinley, Scott Latham, Michael Braun, Organizational decline and [281] J. Kitching, J. Rouse, Contesting effectuation theory: why it does not explain new
innovation: turnarounds and downward spirals, AMR 39 (2014) 88–110, https:// venture creation, Int. Small Bus. J. 38 (6) (2020) 515–535.
doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0356. [282] J. Child, Organizational structure, environment and performance: the role of
[244] V.K. Wells, D. Gregory-Smith, D. Manika (Eds.), Research Handbook on Employee strategic choice, Sociology 6 (1) (1972) 1–22.
pro-Environmental Behaviour, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2018. [283] J. Child, Strategic choice in the analysis of action, structure, organizations and
[245] J.L. Robertson, J. Barling (Eds.), The Psychology of Green Organizations, Oxford environment: retrospect and prospect, Organ. Stud. 18 (1) (1997) 43–76.
University Press, New York, NY, 2015. [284] J. Child, L. Chung, H. Davies, The performance of cross-border units in China: a
[246] A.H. Huffman, S.R. Klein (Eds.), Green Organizations: Driving Change With IO test of natural selection, strategic choice and contingency theories, J. Int. Bus.
Psychology, Routledge, New York, NY, 2013. Stud. 34 (2003) 242–254.
[247] Paul Pierson, Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics, Am. [285] A.Y. Lewin, C.P. Long, T.N. Carroll, The coevolution of new organizational forms,
Polit. Sci. Rev. 94 (2) (2000) 251–256. Organ. Sci. 10 (5) (1999) 535–550.
[248] K. Thelen, Historical institutionalism in comparative politics, Annu. Rev. Polit. [286] A.Y. Lewin, H.W. Volberda, Prolegomena on coevolution: a framework for
Sci. 2 (1) (1999) 369–404. research on strategy and new organizational forms, Organ. Sci. 10 (5) (1999)
[249] J. Mahoney, K. Thelen, Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and 519–534.
Power, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009. [287] A.Y. Lewin, M.P. Koza, Empirical research in co-evolutionary processes of
[250] J. Mahoney, Path dependence in historical sociology, Theory Soc. 29 (4) (2000) strategic adaptation and change: the promise and the challenge, Organ. Stud. 22
507–548. (6) (2001) V–XII.
[251] A. Pfoser, Narratives of peripheralisation: place, agency and generational cohorts [288] Eric Biber, Nina Kelsey, Jonas Meckling, The political economy of
in post-industrial Estonia, Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 25 (4) (2018) 391–404. decarbonization: a research agenda, Brookings Law Rev. 82 (2017) 605–667.
[252] R.K. Mitchell, B.R. Agle, D.J. Wood, Toward a theory of stakeholder identification [289] N. Markusson, D. McLaren, D. Tyfield, Towards a cultural political economy of
and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts, Acad. Manag. mitigation deterrence by negative emissions technologies (NETs), Glob. Sustain. 1
Rev. 22 (4) (1997) 853–886. (e10) (2018) 1–9.
[253] B.R. Agle, R.K. Mitchell, J.A. Sonnenfeld, Who matters to CEOs? An investigation [290] H. Bulkeley, Governance and the geography of authority: modalities of
of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values, authorisation and the transnational governing of climate change, Environ Plan A
Acad. Manag. J. 42 (5) (1999) 507–525. 44 (10) (2012) 2428–2444.
[254] B. Jovanovic, R.J. Gilbert, The diversification of production. Brookings papers on [291] H. Bulkeley, Accomplishing Climate Governance, Cambridge University Press,
economic activity, Microeconomics 1993 (1) (1993) 197–247. 2015.
[255] R.J. Gilbert, D.M.J. Newbery, Preemptive patenting and the persistence of [292] H. Bulkeley, H. Schroeder, Beyond state/non---state divides: global cities and the
monopoly, Am. Econ. Rev. 72 (3) (1982) 514–526. governing of climate change, Eur. J. Int. Rel. 18 (4) (2012) 743–766.
[256] M. Steen, T. Weaver, Incumbents' diversification and cross-sectorial energy [293] H. Bulkeley, L.B. Andonova, M.M. Betsill, D. Compagnon, T. Hale, M.J. Hoffmann,
industry dynamics, Res. Policy 46 (5) (2017) 1039–1054. P. Newell, M. Paterson, C. Roger, S.D. VanDeveer, Transnational Climate Change
[257] M. Porter, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Governance, Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Performance, Free Press, London, 1985. [294] K. Kern, Cities as leaders in EU multilevel climate governance: embedded
[258] D. Vogel, The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social upscaling of local experiments in Europe, Environ. Polit. 28 (1) (2019) 125–145.
Responsibility, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C, 2006.

34
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

[295] P. Späth, H. Rohracher, Local demonstrations for global transitions—dynamics [332] S. Klepper, Industry life cycles, Ind. Corp. Chang. 6 (1) (1997) 145–182.
across governance levels fostering socio-technical regime change towards [333] S. Klepper, E. Graddy, The evolution of new industries and the determinants of
sustainability, Eur. Plan. Stud. 20 (3) (2012) 461–479. market structure, RAND J. Econ. 21 (1990) 27–44.
[296] A. Jordan, D. Huitema, M. Hildén, et al., Emergence of polycentric climate [334] T. Strangleman, Deindustrialisation and the historical sociological imagination:
governance and its future prospects, Nat. Clim. Chang. 5 (11) (2015) 977–982. making sense of work and industrial change, Sociology 51 (2) (2017) 466–482.
[297] John Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd ed., Pearson, New [335] T. Strangleman, J. Rhodes, S. Linkon, Introduction to crumbling cultures:
York, NY, 2003. deindustrialization, class, and memory, Int. Labor Working-Class Hist. 84 (2013)
[298] Å. Knaggard, The multiple streams framework and the problem broker, Eur J Polit 7–22.
Res 54 (3) (2015) 450–465. [336] T. Strangleman, J. Rhodes, The ‘new’sociology of deindustrialisation?
[299] R. Eckersley, The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty, MIT Press, Understanding industrial change, Sociol. Compass 8 (4) (2014) 411–421.
Cambridge, MA, 2004. [337] M.T. Hannan, J. Freeman, The population ecology of organizations, Am. J. Sociol.
[300] K. Bäckstrand, A. Kronsell, Rethinking the Green State: Environmental 82 (1977) 929–964.
Governance Towards Climate and Sustainability Transitions, Routledge, London, [338] M.T. Hannan, J. Freeman, Structural inertia and organizational change, Am.
2015. Sociol. Rev. 49 (1984) 149–164.
[301] R. Hildingsson, A. Kronsell, J. Khan, The green state and industrial [339] M.T. Hannan, J. Freeman, The ecology of organizational founding: American
decarbonisation, Environ. Polit. 28 (5) (2019) 909–928. labor unions, 1836–1985, Am. J. Sociol. 92 (1987) 910–943.
[302] H. Etzkowitz, The Triple Helix University–Industry–Government Innovation in [340] M. Hannan, J. Freeman, The ecology of organizational mortality: American labor
Action, Routledge, London, 2008. unions, 1836–1985, Am. J. Sociol. 94 (1988) 25–52.
[303] A.G. Frank, The Development of Underdevelopment, Monthly Review Press, New [341] M. Hannan, J. Freeman, Density dependence in the growth of organizational
York, 1966. populations, in: G. Carroll (Ed.), Ecological Models of Organizations, Ballinger,
[304] A.G. Frank, Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America, Monthly Review Cambridge, MA, 1988.
Press, New York, 1967. [342] M.T. Hannan, J. Freeman, Organizational Ecology, Harvard University Press,
[305] I. Wallerstein, The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins Cambridge, MA, 1989.
of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century, Academic Press, New [343] J. Szargut, D.R. Morris, F.R. Steward, Exergy Analysis of Thermal, Chemical, and
York, 1974. Metallurgical Processes, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 1987.
[306] P. Loureiro, F. Rugitsky, A. Saad-Filho, Celso furtado and the myth of economic [344] J. Szargut, Exergy Method: Technical and Ecological Applications, WIT Press,
development: rethinking development from exile, Rev. Polit. Econ. 33 (1) (2021) Southampton, 2005.
28–43. [345] I. Dincer, M. Rosen, Exergy: Energy, Environment, and Sustainable Development
[307] B. Cumings, The origins and development of the northeast Asian political vol. 1, Elsevier, China, 2007.
economy: industrial sectors, product cycles, and political consequences, Int. [346] Y.M. Saavedra, D.R. Iritani, A.L. Pavan, A.R. Ometto, Theoretical contribution of
Organ. 38 (1) (1984) 1–40. industrial ecology to circular economy, J. Clean. Prod. 170 (2018) 1514–1522.
[308] B. Bluestone, Deindustrialization and unemployment in America, Rev. Black Polit. [347] J. Korhonen, Theory of industrial ecology, Prog. Ind. Ecol. 1 (1/2/3) (2004)
Econ. 17 (2) (1988) 29–44. 61–88, 2004.
[309] A.J. Scott, M. Storper, Pathways to Industrialization and Regional Development, [348] J. Korhonen, Theory of industrial ecology: the case of the concept of diversity,
Routledge, London, 1992. Prog. Ind. Ecol. 2 (1) (2005) 35–72.
[310] P.A. Hall, The role of interests, institutions and ideas in the comparative political [349] R.U. Ayres, A.V. Kneese, Production, consumption, and externalities, Am. Econ.
economy of the industrialized nations, in: Lichbach, Zuckerman (Eds.), Rev. 59 (3) (1969) 282–297.
Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture and Structure 1997, 1997, [350] R.U. Ayres, Industrial metabolism: theory and policy, in: The Greening of
pp. 174–207. Industrial Ecosystems. 1994, National Academy Press, Washington. DC, 1994,
[311] K. Bäckstrand, Accountability of networked climate governance: the rise of pp. 23–37.
transnational climate partnerships, Glob. Environ. Polit. 8 (3) (2008) 74–102. [351] M. Fischer-Kowalski, Exploring the history of industrial metabolism, in: Robert
[312] M.P. Vandenbergh, Private environmental governance, Cornell Law Rev. 99 U. Ayres, Leslie W. Ayres (Eds.), A Handbook of Industrial Ecology, Edward Elgar
(2013) 129. Press, London, 2002.
[313] H. Van der Ven, S. Bernstein, M. Hoffmann, Valuing the contributions of nonstate [352] E.P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class, Penguin, London,
and subnational actors to climate governance, Glob. Environ. Polit. 17 (1) (2017) 1963.
1–20. [353] E.P. Thompson, Peculiarities of the English, in: R. Miliband, J. Saville (Eds.), The
[314] J.M. Gilligan, M.P. Vandenbergh, A framework for assessing the impact of private Socialist Register, Merlin, London, 1965, pp. 311–362.
climate governance, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 60 (2020), 101400. [354] E.P. Thompson, Time, work-discipline, and industrial capitalism, Past Present 38
[315] N. Phillips, T.B. Lawrence, C. Hardy, Discourse and institutions, Acad. Manag. (December) (1967) 56–97.
Rev. 29 (4) (2004) 635–652. [355] E.P. Thompson, Customs in Common, Merlin, London, 1991.
[316] V. Schmidt, Taking ideas and discourse seriously: explaining change through [356] E.P. Thompson, Witness Against the Beast: William Blake and the Moral Law,
discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’, Eur. Polit. Sci. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993.
Rev. 2 (1) (2010) 1–2. [357] L. Gaines, F. Stodolsky, Lifecycle Analysis: Uses and Pitfalls (No. ANL/ES/CP-
[317] V. Schmidt, Discursive institutionalism: the explanatory power of ideas and 92346; CONF-970655-1), Argonne National Lab, IL (United States), 1997.
discourse, Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 11 (2008) 303–326. [358] United States Environmental Protection Agency, Pathway to Product
[318] A. Genus, Governing sustainability: a discourse-institutional approach, Stewardship: Life-Cycle Design as a Business Decision Support-Tool. Washington,
Sustainability 6 (2014) 283–305, https://doi.org/10.3390/su6010283. DC: EPA742-R-97-008, 1997.
[319] S. Jasanoff, S.H. Kim, Containing the atom: sociotechnical imaginaries and [359] H. Kaebemick, M. Sun, S. Kara, Simplified lifecycle assessment for the early
nuclear Power in the United States and South Korea, Minerva 47 (2) (2009) design stages of industrial products, CIRP Ann. 52 (1) (2003) 25–28.
119–146. [360] R. Martin, P. Sunley, Complexity thinking and evolutionary economic geography,
[320] S. Jasanoff, S.H. Kim, Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and J. Econ. Geogr. 7 (5) (2007) 573–601, https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbm019.
the Fabrication of Power, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2015. [361] R. Martin, P. Sunley, Conceptualizing cluster evolution: beyond the life cycle
[321] N. Pidgeon, Public understanding of, and attitudes to, climate change: UK and model? Reg. Stud. 45 (10) (2011) 1299–1318, https://doi.org/10.1080/
international perspectives and policy, Clim. Pol. 12 (sup01) (2012) S85–S106. 00343404.2011.622263.
[322] A.O. Hirschman, The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy, Belknap [362] R. Martin, Regional economic resilience, hysteresis and recessionary shocks,
Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1991. J. Econ. Geogr. 12 (1) (2012) 1–32, https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbr019.
[323] M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, S. Yates, Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader, Sage, [363] R. Martin, P. Sunley, B. Gardiner, P. Tyler, How regions react to recessions:
London, 2001. resilience and the role of economic structure, Reg. Stud. 50 (4) (2016) 561–585,
[324] P. Chilton, Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice, 1st ed., Routledge, https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2015.1136410.
2003. [364] M.A. Reams, J.K. Irving, Applying community resilience theory to engagement
[325] J. Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of with residents facing cumulative environmental exposure risks: lessons from
Law and Democracy, Polity Press, London, 1996. Louisiana’s industrial corridor, Rev. Environ. Health 34 (3) (2019) 235–244.
[326] M. Hajer, The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and [365] I.S. Stewart, J.C. Gill, Social geology - integrating sustainability concepts into
the Policy Process, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995. Earth sciences, Proc. Geol. Assoc. 128 (2) (2017) 165–172, https://doi.org/
[327] F.H. Knight, Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Beard Group, 1921. 10.1016/j.pgeola.2017.01.002.
[328] F. Berkout, Normative expectations in systems innovation, Tech. Anal. Strat. [366] I.S. Stewart, D. Lewis, Communicating contested geoscience to the public: moving
Manag. 18 (3/4) (2006) 299–311. from "matters of fact" to "matters of concern", Earth Sci. Rev. 174 (Supplement C)
[329] C.A. Miller, J. O’Leary, E. Graffy, E.B. Stechel, G. Dirks, Narrative futures and the (2017) 122–133, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.09.003.
governance of energy transitions, Futures 70 (2015) 65–74. [367] Paula Kivimaa, Wouter Boon, Sampsa Hyysalo, Laurens Klerkx, Towards a
[330] N. Brown, B. Rappert, A. Webster, Introducing Contested Futures: From Looking typology of intermediaries in sustainability transitions: a systematic review and a
Into the Future to Looking at the Future. Contested Futures: A Sociology of research agenda, Res. Policy 48 (4) (2019) 1062–1075. ISSN 0048-7333, https
Prospective Techno-science, 2000. ://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.006.
[331] B.K. Sovacool, N. Bergman, D. Hopkins, K.E. Jenkins, S. Hielscher, A. Goldthau, [368] Caetano C.R. Penna, Frank W. Geels, Multi-dimensional struggles in the greening
B. Brossmann, Imagining sustainable energy and mobility transitions: valence, of industry: a dialectic issue lifecycle model and case study, Technol. Forecast.
temporality, and radicalism in 38 visions of a low-carbon future, Soc. Stud. Sci. 50 Soc. Chang. 79 (6) (2012) 999–1020.
(4) (2020) 642–679.

35
B.K. Sovacool et al. Energy Research & Social Science 97 (2023) 102954

[369] Caetano C.R. Penna, Frank W. Geels, Climate change and the slow reorientation of [373] M.S. Salimath, R. Jones, Population ecology theory: implications for
the American car industry (1979–2012): an application and extension of the sustainability, Manag. Decis. 49 (6) (2011) 874–910.
Dialectic Issue LifeCycle (DILC) model, Res. Policy 44 (5) (2015) 1029–1048. [374] Roland Hunziker, Yi Sun, Decarbonizing the 40% - how the finance sector can
[370] K.C. Seto, S.J. Davis, R.B. Mitchell, E.C. Stokes, G. Unruh, D. Ürge-Vorsatz, drive the transformation to a net-zero built environment, WBCSD (2021). July 9.
Carbon lock-in: types, causes, and policy implications, Annu. Rev. Environ. Available at, https://www.wbcsd.org/Overview/News-Insights/WBCSD-insights/
Resour. 41 (2016) 425–452. Decarbonizing-the-40-How-the-finance-sector-can-drive-the-transformation-to-a-
[371] A. Blowers, P. Leroy, Power, politics and environmental inequality: a theoretical net-zero-built-environment.
and empirical analysis of the process of ‘peripheralisation’, Environ. Politics 3 (2) [375] J.R. Stephenson, B.K. Sovacool, T.H.J. Inderberg, Energy cultures and national
(1994) 197–228. decarbonisation pathways, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 137 (2021), 110592.
[372] A. Hsu, N. Höhne, T. Kuramochi, V. Vilariño, B.K. Sovacool, Beyond states:
harnessing sub-national actors for the deep decarbonisation of cities, regions, and
businesses, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 70 (December, 2020) 1–7, 101738.

36