ICS Working Paper Nº1/2018

ICS W O R K I N G P A P E R S 2018 18 (cf. Santos et al., 2016; Rocha et al., 2016). Yet there is no CBI community per se in Portugal. We witness a non-networked set of initiatives largely in their embryonic development stage that mirror a plurality of agendas with a highly diversified thematic emphasis. All in all, these CBIs reflect a wide range of heterogeneous patterns of resilience and connection to local communities, strong dependence of leader- figures and scarce funding and scale-up solutions. 3. Wider change actors or isolated niche phenomena? This section engages in a critical examination of the agency of CBIs in Portugal in order to conclude on their current and potential role in the promotion of a wider socio-ecological transition. In our view, this is of paramount importance since the majority of existing reviews, case studies and data analyses are driven by normative claims and idealism, that – although legitimate –, frequently downplay CBI’s internal and external limits or contradictions. Against the backdrop of Göpel’s (2016: 48) actors’ motivation rationale and the evidence explored in section 2, we conclude that there exists a structural difference amidst Portuguese CBIs with respect to their degree of proactive seeking to exit the ‘protected niche space’ (cf. Seyfang and Haxeltine, 2012). This builds directly on the discovery of Holsten et al. (n.d.: 14) that opinions of European CBIs towards “collaboration with public institutions are mixed: some members feel that they fill an institutional gap and hence complement public institutions; others fully abstain from such interactions. Third groups try to do a bit of both”. In this light, despite a shared value framework and themes of intervention, we forward a bi-dimensional interpretation of CBIs in terms of their agency in Portugal: inward-looking and outward-looking. This innovative differentiation follows our interpretation of how CBIs engage mainstream systems in order to try to influence their evolution. In other words, we pursue a conceptual framework that allows the identification of the CBIs that can aspire to a direct role in the redefinition of existent sustainability actor- networks and policy design. This distinction is a fundamental step if we are to advocate for the proper policy environments where transformative CBIs can be empowered to make a difference. 3.1 Inward-looking niche We identified a mismatch between some of CBIs’ discursive manifestos and their on the ground practices. Despite calls for wider societal transformation as a fundamental part of their leitmotif , multiple CBIs actively choose not to interact with the outer world because they believe that total autonomy and self- determination from the incumbent capitalistic system is a fundamental condition in order to exist, survive and thrive. These CBIs evolve with a closed member structure and with restricted interaction with local residents or institutions, based on allegedly cultural or institutional factors (e.g. resistance to change;