ICS Working Paper Nº1/2018

ICS W O R K I N G P A P E R S 2018 8 definitions are yet to stabilize in the literature, and are largely used interchangeably. In our view, it is however relevant to allow a differentiation based on community self-mobilized agency to tackle key issues directly affecting them. CBIs as Socio Ecological Transition Agents In this line, academic attention has increasingly shifted its focus from technological dynamics to the role of societal aspects, such as actors, values, or governance solutions, in promoting societal change (cf. Seyfang and Haxeltine, 2012). ‘Grassroots innovations’, such as CBIs, have taken center stage in the analysis of the role of civil-society in governing such societal change. In line with Seyfang and Smith (2007), we define CBIs as community-based initiatives towards a socio-ecological transition to sustainability. CBIs that experiment with social innovation, sustainable technologies and methods (e.g. in the areas of transportation, waste, recycling, agriculture, consumption, energy, education (TESS, n.d.)) include the transition (town) movement, sharing circles, local exchange trading schemes (e.g. alternative currencies) or eco-villages (Hargreaves et al., 2013) and can either operate for profit, or not (TESS, n.d.). Despite the existence of other types of CBIs (cf. Mansuri and Rao, 2004: 4-5), we refer to them strictly as community- based initiatives focused on socio-ecological transitions towards sustainability. In our quest as to whether CBIs embody a catalyst mobilizing role in societal change towards socio- ecological sustainability, we first break down the fundamental dynamics underpinning CBIs’ mobilization: guiding principles, key actors, motivations, and ultimately their willingness to engage with wider societal change processes. This endeavour is motivated by the acknowledged lack of precision in transition studies when it comes to distinguishing between different types and levels of actors (Avelino and Wittmayer, 2016: 628). To follow through, we build on Retolaza’s (2011) theory of change to create a framework on the core notion of value change underlying to societal transition towards sustainability (Figure 1). Value change, which often emerges in unplanned contexts and has unexpected rhythms and mechanisms of diffusion, is a multidimensional process (Mourato et al., 2018). We can identify four key dimensions here. There is a subjective dimension of individual change in terms of mindset, self-awareness and identity (e.g. when human experience alters concerns about animal welfare), subsequently underlying a wider objective transformation of relational interactions, habits and practices, materializing in, say, the adoption of vegetarian dietary habits. There is an intersubjective dimension concerning value change within CBIs, and how it influences the definition of a collective identity and subsequent patterns of collective action (e.g. vegetarians team up with like-minded others to creates a association promoting vegetarian values).