Institutionalising degrowth regime : a review and analysis of degrowth transition proposals

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Institutionalising degrowth regime : a review and analysis of degrowth transition proposals © The Author(s) 2024 Published version Käyrä, Minna; Kuhmonen, Irene Käyrä, M., & Kuhmonen, I. (2024). Institutionalising degrowth regime : a review and analysis of degrowth transition proposals. Sustainability Science, Early online. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01566-7 2024 Vol.:(0123456789) Sustainability Science https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01566-7 REVIEW ARTICLE Institutionalising degrowth regime: areview andanalysis ofdegrowth transition proposals MinnaKäyrä1 · IreneKuhmonen1 Received: 23 October 2023 / Accepted: 18 August 2024 © The Author(s) 2024 Abstract The degrowth project proposes a fundamental reorganisation of contemporary society. The existing literature focuses on explaining why degrowth is needed to tackle the multiple socioecological crises of our time and what needs to change in contemporary society. Recently, there have been explicit calls to moving on to thinking about the question of how a degrowth transition could be achieved. In this task, we identify the ‘end’ of the vision, that is, the cornerstones of a degrowth society, and focus on the suggested changes leading there. Therefore, we conceptualise a degrowth society as a regime that can be studied with the help of institutional theory and the change leading to a degrowth regime as a degrowth transition. To understand the constituents of such a regime, we conducted a systematic mapping of the degrowth literature by focusing on specific change proposals from 2000 to 2020. We analysed these change proposals in the framework of institutional theory and identified three overarching themes forming the backbone of a degrowth society: reduction, reorganisation and localisation. These themes represent the cultural–cognitive dimension of institutionalisation processes and entail varying degrees of normative and regulative dimensions. According to the degrowth change proposals in the literature, reduction is to be achieved mainly through top-down regulation, while reorganisation and localisation require a bottom-up approach to mobilising collective agency and changes in the normative orientation of society. Our analysis regarding the founding pillars of the institutional order of a degrowth society unveils essential signposts that could be considered when formulating policies and narratives compatible with a degrowth transition. Keywords Degrowth· Post-growth· Proposals· Sustainability transition· Regime· Institutional theory Introduction Degrowth can be seen as an assemblage of diverse ideas concerning society that does not aim at growth (Parrique 2019). The degrowth approach challenges the traditional narrative embraced by various governmental and institutional actors based on decoupling environmental impacts from economic growth through efficiency improvements, clean technology and sustainable substitutes (Hickel and Kallis 2020; Buch-Hansen and Carstensen 2021). Instead, it calls for a democratically led shrinking of production and consumption with the aim of achieving social justice and ecological sustainability (D’Alisa etal. 2015). The main argument of the degrowth approach is built on the necessity of achieving declining output to tackle the grand sustainability challenges, such as climate change and biodiversity loss, which have not been decoupled from economic growth, contrary to claims by advocates of the green growth paradigm (Ward etal. 2016; Parrique etal. 2019; Feola 2020; Hickel and Kallis 2020; Vadén etal. 2020). As a whole, however, the degrowth project goes beyond the idea of declining output and pursues change in the underlying rules, structures and culture of society. Despite still being a movement at the margins, there has been growing interest in degrowth because of recurring economic crises and the global COVID-19 pandemic. These crises have shed light on the drawbacks of today’s highly connected and globalised societies. In addition, the inclusion of degrowth as an alternative sustainability concept in the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2022) means that it has been introduced to wider audiences. Handled by Federico Demaria, University of Barcelona, Spain. * Minna Käyrä minna.k.ka[email protected] 1 School ofBusiness andEconomics, University ofJyväskylä, PL 35, Mattilanniemi 2, 40014Jyvaskyla, Finland Sustainability Science The degrowth literature has traditionally focused on why degrowth is needed to tackle the multiple socioecological crises of our time (see, e.g., D’Alisa etal. 2015; Kallis 2011; Hickel and Kallis 2020). Furthermore, there has been considerable attention on what needs to change in contemporary society (see, e.g. Cosme etal. 2017; Parrique 2019; Hickel etal. 2022). However, many authors have been calling for greater emphasis on the question of how a degrowth transition could be achieved (Joutsenvirta 2016; Vandeventer etal. 2019; Kallis etal. 2020; Khmara and Kronenberg 2020; Fitzpatrick etal. 2022; Guerrero Lara etal. 2023). A promising approach to addressing the ‘how’ question of degrowth lies in the intersection of sustainability transition research and the degrowth literature, which have until recently remained largely isolated from each other (Loorbach etal. 2017; Khmara and Kronenberg 2020; Guerrero Lara etal. 2023). A sustainability transition is defined as ‘a radical, structural change of a societal (sub) system that is the result of a co-evolution of economic, cultural, technological, ecological and institutional developments at different scale-levels’ (Rotmans and Loorbach 2009, p. 2). Research on sustainability transitions has generally aimed to uncover how these radical changes take place within a social system (Köhler etal. 2019). Sustainability transition research has been characterised as a ‘meso-level approach’ that does not always sufficiently address large-scale societal developments (Genus and Coles 2008; Svensson and Nikoleris 2018; Feola 2020). Indeed, even though transition research, by definition, advocates a radical societal transformation, the research stream is largely silent on the nature of the sustainable society being pursued (Meadowcroft 2011; Patterson etal. 2017; Muiderman 2022)—the ‘sustainability of sustainability transitions’ (Feola 2020, p. 242). The degrowth project offers a promising frame or vision of the kind of development that could be sought in the course of sustainability transitions. However, the integration of degrowth and transition theory needs to be accompanied by further signposts in order to formulate pathways towards a post-growth society (Schmid 2019). In this task, the concept of regime can prove helpful. A regime can be seen as an institutionalised structure built around a semicoherent rule set that coordinates the activities taking place within societies; they are conceptualised as socio-technical systems in transition theory (Geels and Schot 2010; Fuenfschilling and Binz 2018). Sustainability transitions can then be seen as regime shifts in which the dominant institutional logics of the system undergo profound change (Fuenfschilling and Truffer 2014; Kuhmonen and Kuhmonen 2023). Degrowth represents an alternative regime to the contemporary growth-oriented regime. In this vein, we argue that to explicitly answer the question of how degrowth is to change regimes as the dominant patterns of social organisation, it is useful to understand the (proposed) institutional foundations. Institutional theory, which has its roots in the study of organisations, stresses the importance of social context in understanding economic processes (Scott 2008). It seeks to understand how the institutional context drives similarities between organisational forms and practices (Lewin and Volberda 2003) through coercive, mimetic and normative mechanisms (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). Scott (2008) expanded the framework to account for three main pillars accounting for institutional isomorphism—the process in which organisations develop increasing similarity—namely, regulative, cultural–cognitive and normative. In the context of degrowth, institutional approaches have been employed, among others, to understand the institutional dimensions of enforcing limits on economies (Klitgaard and Krall 2012), the influence of capitalist diversity on institutional change towards degrowth (Buch-Hansen 2014), the divergence of the institutional features of degrowth societies from current institutional settings (Joutsenvirta 2016) and the meaningmaking related to institutional change (Krueger etal. 2018). However, accounts describing the three pillars of the institutionalisation process in the context of degrowth remain wanting. Such accounts could provide a stronger narrative for a prospective degrowth transition, the lack of which has been identified as a major shortcoming in attempts at formulating alternatives to the current growth-focused economic model (Berg and Hukkinen 2011; Vandeventer and Lloveras 2021). In this study, we ask what a society built on degrowth would look like in light of proposals addressing the question of how a degrowth society could function. We conceptualise such a society as a regime, a temporally stable organisation mode of a socio(-technical) system.1 Specifically, we address the institutional foundations of a regime built on ideas around degrowth—as a counterpart to the current regime built around growth and capital accumulation. To do this, we ask, what could a degrowth regime look like? What are the constituents of such a model of social organising? While such an endeavour is necessarily hypothetical in nature, as there are currently no regimes built around degrowth, we argue that this line of inquiry can provide important 1 The ‘system’, which is institutionalised as a temporally stable regime, has been variously conceptualised depending on the field of study: as a socio-technical system in the field of socio-technical sustainability transition studies; as a social-ecological system in resilience theory, which explores transformations in social-ecological systems, or as a society or specific institution, as in the field of political economy. We use the term ‘society’ as referring to the social order that is currently organised around a growth-oriented capitalist regime and understand the ‘degrowth transition’ as a profound transformation process that will result in a reformed social order, organised around the principles of degrowth. Sustainability Science signposts for navigating society beyond capitalism. To do this, we perform a literature review of degrowth proposals, specifically those addressing the question of how a degrowth society could function. Previously conducted reviews on degrowth proposals have contributed to developing a more coherent degrowth agenda. Cosme etal. (2017) reviewed degrowth policy proposals in relation to the policy objectives of ecological economics, type of approach and geographical focus. Parrique (2019) conducted a wider recompilation of degrowth policies and took a few policy examples to the next level by considering their practical implications. Fitzpatrick etal. (2022) identified 13 themes within degrowth policy proposals and analysed their fit with those of the design of public policies and transition strategies. Chiengkul (2018) broadened the scope by reviewing policy proposals to existing grassroots initiatives within the current capitalist system. Similarly, Kousis and Paschou (2017) reviewed alternative forms of economic and non-economic activities and ways of living, such as citizen initiatives and grassroots groups. Khmara and Kronenberg (2020) reviewed the key literature on degrowth and sustainability transitions to identify common ground between the fields and applied the findings in an analysis of transition experiment cases. Gibbs and O’Neill (2017) reviewed degrowth as a transition discourse, while Vandeventer etal. (2019) conceptualised degrowth as a radical niche innovation that challenges the capitalist growth regime. While the above studies have been crucial to advancing the degrowth agenda, we complement the existing body of literature by conceptualising the ‘how’ of degrowth as reflecting the essence of a potential new regime as a new kind of institutional order. We recognise the plurality of degrowth approaches and, therefore, are mindful that degrowth regimes can manifest in diverse forms in different locations. Therefore, we analyse the constituents of a prospective degrowth society in terms of the three institutional pillars: cultural–cognitive, normative and regulative (Scott 2008; Fuenfschilling and Truffer 2014; Kanger and Sillak 2020). Analyses of the founding pillars of the institutional order of a degrowth society can unveil essential signposts that need to be considered when formulating policies and narratives deemed compatible with a degrowth transition. These signposts can also reveal possible contradictions within the degrowth proposals. Theoretical background The convergence between the degrowth and sustainability transition literature is compatible with the recent turn in degrowth research addressing the question of how a degrowth transformation could be fostered (Joutsenvirta 2016; Schmid 2019; Vandeventer etal. 2019; Kallis etal. 2020; Khmara and Kronenberg 2020; Koch 2020; Mocca 2020; Smith etal. 2021; Savini etal. 2022; Barlow etal. 2022; Fitzpatrick etal. 2022; Guerrero Lara etal. 2023). The value of this convergence, we argue, can be captured via the concept of regime. The concept of regime is part of the central vocabulary in research concerning sociotechnical systems and their (sustainability) transitions as well as socioecological transformations and political ecology. Regimes are temporally stable, path-dependent and semicoherent forms of social organisation. They can encompass both certain subsystems, such as the food system or energy system, or they can operate on a larger scale, encompassing various systems and their interlinkages (Geels and Schot 2007; Geels 2011; Kanger and Sillak 2020). A regime can be conceptualised as the dominant institutional logic of a specific system that coordinates the activities of social groups inhabiting the regime, delineating the “rules of the game” for actors operating within the system (Geels 2011; Fuenfschilling and Truffer 2014). Institutional theory offers a prominent framework for understanding the logics and rules of regimes (Geels 2004; Fuenfschilling and Truffer 2014). Institutional theory approaches institutions as socially constructed patterns or social orders that instigate routine-like behaviour, relying on specific rule systems and norms (Jepersson etal. 1991; Pacheco etal. 2010). In this framework, institutions can be seen to comprise three elements: regulative, normative and cultural–cognitive (Scott 2008). These elements, ‘together with associated activities and resources, provide stability and meaning to social life’ (Scott 2008, p. 48). Regimes also feature specific material conditions, infrastructures, technologies and artefacts as well as the power relations that keep the social arrangements effective (Buch-Hansen 2014; Svensson and Nikoleris 2018). Thus, understanding the institutionalisation of regimes requires keen attention on the social processes building on these three dimensions. The cultural–cognitive dimension forms the “bedrock” upon which the other two dimensions build. It concerns the often unconscious, “taken-for-granted” assumptions and understandings about social reality as well as the frames through which this reality is interpreted (DiMaggio and Powell 1983; Scott 2008). An example of such takenfor-granted assumptions about social reality is the need for continuous growth, which guarantees the functioning of society. Once such ideas become “common sense”, overcoming them is difficult (Buch-Hansen 2014). Constitutive rules are important for the cultural–cognitive dimension. As Scott (2008, p. 65) puts it, the ‘constitutive rules construct the game of “football” as consisting of things such as “goal posts” and the “gridiron” and events such as “first downs” and off-sides.’ In a similar vein, the pursuit of economic growth labels much of the policies of Sustainability Science contemporary societies—if the overarching goal delineating the social organisation was something other than growth, the constitutive rules and assumptions about social life and its meanings would need to change profoundly (Barlow etal. 2022). An example of this could be the changing of key organizing principles of our lives from markets and commercial exchanges (Schneider etal. 2010) to care and well-being of humans while living within planetary boundaries. It can be assumed that if the key principles of social organization were changed, our societies would look very different. The normative dimension emphasises the prescriptive, evaluative and obligatory dimensions of societies, which are based on values and norms—what is the preferred order of affairs and what are the ‘legitimate means to pursue valued ends’ (Scott 2008, p. 55). When actors internalise certain normative frameworks, they are considered “institutionalised” (Zucker 1977). The normative dimension of institutions becomes real in roles and identities and the social expectations related to the positions individuals face when occupying them (Jepperson etal. 1991; Scott 2008). It is also manifested in the attempts of organisations to legitimise their existence by aligning with the institutionalised normative framework (Scott etal. 1991). As such, the institutional structure both empowers and limits the individuals operating within it (Jepperson etal. 1991). In contemporary societies it is acceptable for an individual and/or organisation to pursue economic gains while causing environmental and social suffering often, in the Global South. This economic activity reflects the values and norms of our times. The regulative dimension builds on the capacity of regulatory processes ‘to establish rules, inspect others’ conformity to them, and, as necessary, manipulate sanctions—rewards or punishments—in an attempt to influence future behavior’ (Scott 2008, p. 52). While the constitutive rules construct the game to be played, the regulative rules prescribe the specific ways in which this game is to be played: how exactly the players are allowed to take the ball to the goal and what kinds of penalties are associated with breaking the rules (Scott 2008). The vehicles for the regulative dimension involve rules, laws, governance systems, protocols, and standards (Scott 2008). Joutsenvirta (2016) illustrated how the regulative framework impedes the development of alternative community currencies in the case of applying tax laws to timebanking to its detriment. An increasing number of scholars are applying institutional theory to their research projects; however, the approach has not been without criticism. There have been concerns about the vagueness of the theory that has led to a situation where everything can be considered as an institution (Alvesson and Spicer 2019). In addition, Kostova etal. (2008) highlight the narrow subset of institutional ideas primarily coming from neoinstitutionalism, therefore, raising questions about the applicability of this theory to a study object of pluralism and change. At the same time, degrowth scholars have been explicitly voicing out concerns about degrowth proposals targeting narrowly defined areas solely within the domain of the civil society or within the domain of state, arguing that such strategies are “bound to fail” due to the deep and various interconnections between the distinct facets of the society (Koch 2022, p. 178). Despite the criticism, we argue that institutional theory enables an analysis of the various, intertwined facets of the society. While the theory has been originally applied to understand stability, the counterpart for stability is change. In this case, the source of isomorphism lies ahead of us—in the future— but at the same time, the seeds that could give rise to an alternative future are already taking shape. Change from a growth-oriented regime towards a degrowth regime can be captured as a transition. The vocabulary concerning large-scale societal transitions varies depending on the research tradition; researchers in the socio-technical field refer to transitions, whereas researchers engaged in understanding change from a social–ecological perspective tend to refer to transformations (Hölscher etal. 2018). In this study, we rely on the term transition. This is because our research is theoretically positioned along the contributions developed within the socio-technical transition field in relation to institutionalisation of sociotechnical regimes (Fuenfschilling and Truffer 2014; Kanger etal. 2022; Wesseling etal. 2022)—even though, we argue, these ideas are applicable also beyond sociotechnical systems. The dimensions of institutionalisation process offer a promising framework for understanding the “how” of degrowth and, at the same time, for delineating the cornerstones of the kind of social processes that could make up a degrowth regime. Our paper seeks to offer an integrative perspective on degrowth change proposals to help understand how a degrowth society could function. Such an understanding can prove to be critical for fostering a degrowth transition. In sum, this research strategy facilitates the positioning of divergent change proposals as founding pillars of a prospective degrowth regime. In the rest of this paper, we will analyse how these dimensions are visible in the change proposals for degrowth. Methods Data collection The overarching aim of this study is to identify the constituents of degrowth society within the framework of institutional theory by analysing degrowth change proposals. Therefore, we draw our attention to proposals specifically Sustainability Science addressing the question of how could a degrowth society function. To gain insights into degrowth change proposals, we conducted a systematic literature review with strict inclusion criteria. A systematic approach that follows explicit procedures (Bell etal. 2022) was found to be essential when collecting data in a highly multidisciplinary research field (see Kallis etal. 2018 for research disciplines), generating different types of change proposals, varying from policies to changes in value systems. The chosen systematic review method enabled the production of a manageable number of academic papers that we could analyse in detail (Bell etal. 2022) and, ultimately, define the boundaries of the subject. From this point forward, the research questions and the chosen theory guided the work further. Searches were conducted in ProQuest Central, Scopus and Web of Science databases. Databases were searched for papers using the term “degrowth” combined with “transition”, “path” or “policy”. We chose transition keyword over transformation because we observed that the former as a search term resulted in more concrete change proposals than the term transformation, which was mostly used to depict large-scale, systemic changes. This search strategy facilitated understanding the nature of the practical changes that degrowth scholars promote. While there has been some debate concerning whether transition or transformation as concepts can reveal something about how radical the pursued change is. We argue that the choice of terms may not inherently say much about how radical the intended societal change is in relation to existing system structures. Rather, we suggest that it can be interpreted from the nature of the change proposals. This database search covered the title, abstract and keywords of the papers. Overall, the search resulted in 649 hits. This initial sample was narrowed down based on several exclusion criteria. The review was limited to include peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2020 and written in English—both original papers and literature reviews, but not conference papers or book chapters. The scope was extended beyond the original articles because of the broad range of disciplines that generated proposals for the transition in degrowth. Many of the review articles were also fundamental pieces of the development of the research field.2 From this list, papers that met the three further inclusion criteria were selected. First, as the aim of the study was to understand the kinds of changes needed for transitioning to degrowth society, the selected publications had to include a concrete proposal for prompting the change, such as presenting a novel proposal, advancing an already existing one or developing a specific criterion, such as choosing suitable technology in line with degrowth ideas. The guiding question to decide on the inclusion of the paper was “does this study provide specific information on how the change to degrowth society could occur?” This phase resulted in the greatest reduction of the sample, as the majority of papers in the initial sample of 649 papers—also some of the most influential pieces in the field—addressed more the “what” or “why” of degrowth rather than “how” (e.g., Hickel and Kallis 2020; Lange etal. 2018; Bovari etal. 2018; Schindler 2016; Gezon 2017; Pichler etal. 2020; Eugenio-Gozalbo etal. 2020; Eckersley 2018; Panzer-Krause 2019). Second, and in a similar vein, papers that interpreted degrowth literally, solely as a reduction activity, were excluded from the selection because degrowth goes far beyond reduction. These proposals also enabled comprehension of what needs to be transformed within the current society. Third, the aim was to discover whether this kind of transition had already occurred elsewhere. For this reason, research from specific sectors and/or locations was included. These criteria produced a list of 49 articles. All the reviewed articles and journals are listed in the References section. More than half of these articles (64%) were published between 2017 and 2020 (see Fig.1 for the distribution of publication years). Meanwhile, the years 2018 and 2019 accounted for the largest number of papers published. Twenty-two articles were published during these 2years, representing 44% of the total. While the topic has attracted growing attention generally, the emphasis of the sample towards the end of the period also reflects the growing recognition of the “how” of degrowth in the recent years. Data analysis The analysis proceeded through three main stages. First, each of the 49 articles included in the review was individually analysed to identify its understanding of degrowth and its perspectives on transitioning to a degrowth society (i.e., it identified the specific change proposal). Often, individual papers included several change proposals, and they were categorised accordingly. Intensive reading of the articles resulted with the identification of 170 change proposals. The proposals were coded into a customized table created for this exercise. Second, the proposals were analysed in terms of conventional content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon 2005). In conventional content analysis, categories are allowed to ‘flow from the data’ (Hsieh and Shannon 2005, p. 1279). This phase resulted with the identification of three main categories of reduction, reorganisation and localisation, which could be used to label each of the degrowth proposals. In addition, several subcategories were identified for each parent category. Third, to understand how the identified proposals could contribute to a formation of ‘degrowth regime’, we analysed 2 While discussing the change proposals, the reference is made to the review paper not to the original paper where the proposal originates. This applies to the review papers of the sample. Sustainability Science the proposals within the framework of institutional theory by means of directed content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon 2005). In directed content analysis, the interpretation of the data is guided by the theoretical framework, in this case, the dimensions of the institutional theory. Directed content analysis was built on the three dimensions of institutionalisation: cultural–cognitive, normative and regulative. This research strategy facilitated the exploration of how could a degrowth society organise by analysing divergent change proposals. The three overarching themes identified in the first step of the analysis, the conventional content analysis (reduction, reorganisation and localisation) was interpreted as being the main frames that reflect the underpinning logic for the emerging degrowth regime. Thus, we placed them under the cultural–cognitive dimension of the institutionalisation process. Each of the proposals within these parent categories were then coded as representing either the regulative or normative pillar of institutionalisation. The codes were discussed, reviewed, and re-reviewed several times during the coding process. To validate the coding process, detailed instructions for categorisations were written down. The categorisation strategy and the distribution of change proposals within the categories is presented in Table1. Results In this section, the main findings of the analysis of degrowth proposals in the light of institutional pillars are presented, followed by a discussion of the implications of these findings for a degrowth transition. The cultural–cognitive pillar represents the underlying currents of the society—the basic ideas upon which the society is built. In the degrowth project, these currents can be characterised in terms of reorganisation, reduction and localisation. Thus, the project not only aims to decrease the throughput within the society (reduction) but especially to change the way this throughput is managed (reorganisation) towards more localised forms (localisation). Measures targeting reorganisation represented 44% of the proposals, whereas reduction and localisation represented 37% and 19%, respectively. The measures were further divided in the normative and regulatory pillars, depending on their nature. In the rest of this section, we will discuss these themes of reorganisation, reduction, and localisation as the founding institutional pillars of the degrowth movement in more detail (Table2). Reorganisation Reorganisation was the largest category in the analysis (44%). The frame of reorganisation encompassed ideas of doing things differently in comparison with the current capitalist system. Based on the institutional pillars identified Fig. 1 Distribution of the study sample Table 1 Categorisation strategy and distribution of degrowth change proposals in the reviewed literature Category Number of change proposals % Reorganisation 75 44 Normative 41 24 Regulative 34 20 Reduction 63 37 Normative 10 6 Regulative 53 31 Localisation 32 19 Normative 20 12 Regulative 12 7 Total 170 100 Sustainability Science from the literature, societal reorganisation is to be achieved both through changing norm orientations and regulatory changes; the normative elements were prevalent in 55% of the proposals, and regulative elements in 45%, respectively. Proposals aiming at reorganisation included a wide variety of topics, such as alternative organising practices and organisation models, changing value orientations, new or reformed welfare institutions that lead to redistribution of power and resources, redirected government spending and changes in how sustainability is measured. The proposals aiming at reorganisation covered all main sectors of the society (e.g., finance and banking, food, water, housing, and energy). Within the normative domain, reorganisation implies adopting alternative forms of organising and organisations as well as changing stakeholder values. Alternative forms of organisations can take various forms, including nonprofit organisations, community-based organisations or social enterprises. Examples of such alternative forms of organising include food cooperatives, alternative forms of water supply, new forms of housing and co-habitation schemes, as well ascollective ownership of the energy system. These initiatives aim at directly changing the rules and principles of economic exchange, and thus providing alternatives to the profit-driven organisational models and management styles. For example, three papers recognised ethical banks as a step in the right direction (D’Alisa and Kallis 2020; Chiengkul 2018; Kousis and Paschou 2017). One example comes from Italy (Chiengkul 2018), where Banco Popolare Etica finances solely third-sector organisations, such as volunteer groups, community organisations, self-help groups, cooperatives, associations, and social institutions (Banca 2018). The alternative forms of organisation are linked to the social and solidarity economy (SSE), which “refers to the production of goods and services by a broad range of organisations and enterprises that have explicit social and often environmental objectives. SSE organisations are guided by principles of cooperation, solidarity, ethics, and democratic self-management” (UNTFSSE 2014, p. 4). However, there is no clear consensus on the definition of alternative organisations, and scholars tend to debate the criteria of what is recognised as an alternative organisation (Barin Cruz etal. 2017).Depending on the paper, these alternative forms of organisations were labelled as cooperatives in the fields of energy, food, recycling, and reuse. Degrowth authors recognised the importance of stakeholder values in transitioning towards a degrowth society. There are many theories and approaches within stakeholder scholarship, the following being one accepted definition: “A stakeholder in an organization is (by definition) any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” (Freeman 1984, p. 46). We found several degrowth proposals bringing forth and enforcing various stakeholder views, e.g. when choosing suitable technology. Milano etal. (2019) suggested fostering a debate between different critics, actors, and stakeholders within the tourism sector. This approach of adding stakeholder cooperation was seen as promoting the degrowth of the local tourism sector. Speth (2012) supported a new design for twenty-first century corporations—one that embraces reuse, new ownership patterns and prioritisation of stakeholders rather than shareholders. As a whole, proposals that aim at increasing citizen involvement (D’Alisa and Kallis 2020) and establishing public platforms targeted at citizens affected by tourism(Milano etal. 2019) can also be seen as means to increase stakeholder participation. Reorganisation through regulation entailed proposals that aim at redistributing power and resources, redirecting government spending and making better use of various sustainability indicators. Schemes aiming at redistributing power and resources were frequently mentioned, and they would take place through reforms of the welfare institutions or creation of new ones, citizens’ basic income, job guarantee systems and taxation. These initiatives directly target institutions that are committed to the growth imperative (Kallis 2011), addressing topics, such as moneyissuing and financing systems. Regulative aspects are important in proposals that confront poverty and increase the well-being within societies and distribute it more equally, such as citizen’s basic income, job guarantees, redistribution of wealth and redistributive taxation schemes. Many of these proposals share the same idea of guaranteeing a dignified standard of economic security for permanent residents (Alexander 2012). Reorganisation through government spending implies on the one hand shifting investments away from projects that are considered detrimental to the environment and human health (e.g., extraction activities, mega transportation projects and investments in dirty sectors) while strengthening investment in clean sectors and public spending. Cosme etal. (2017) suggested that an increase in this kind of public spending guarantees equal access for citizens to goods and services and thereby protects people from poverty and exclusion. At the same time, sustainability indicators can be integrated more clearly in the regulative frameworks to redirect for example investments in more sustainable society. Reduction Reduction is a key to achieving the degrowth vision, and 37% of the degrowth proposals represented the theme of reduction. Turning the current paradigm of valuing economic growth as an end itself requires a paradigmatic shift extending beyond the normative orientation to the very Sustainability Science Table 2 Institutional pillars of degrowth change proposals Reorganisation 75 proposals 44% Normative Alternative forms of organising and organisations Timebanks (Chiengkul 2018; Dittmer 2013) Collective ownership of energy systems (Chiengkul 2018; Gunderson etal. 2018; Kunze and Becker 2015) Alternative models of water supply (Domènech etal. 2013; Douthwaite 2012) Health and school systems based on cooperative forms (Chiengkul 2018; Kousis and Paschou 2017) Decentralised energy cooperatives (Demaria etal. 2013) Post-growth organisational models (Schmid 2018) Citizen self-organisation and grassroots innovation (Sanna 2018) Ecovillages (Demaria etal. 2013; Lockyer 2017) Urban gardening projects(Lloveras etal. 2017; Kousis and Paschou 2017) Agroecology, ecoand agritourism (Chassagnea and Everinghamb 2019; Chiengkul 2018) Alternative community activities and/or cooperatives (food production, recycling and reuse initiatives)(Nyblom etal. 2019; Demaria etal. 2013) Community library (Lloveras etal. 2017) Solidarity bartering (Kousis and Paschou 2017) Degrowth incorporated into education (Videira etal. 2014) Stakeholder values Increased citizen involvement and citizen forums (Büchs and Koch 2019; D’Alisa and Kallis 2020; Milano etal. 2019) Stakeholder cooperation in tourism (Milano etal. 2019) Prioritising stakeholder value over shareholder value (Speth 2012) Criteria for choosing suitable technology based on conviviality, appropriateness, feasibility and viability (Kerschner etal. 2018) Maintain and advance critical and reflective dialogue between perspectives on digitalisation and advancements of technology (Pansera etal. 2019) Regulative Redistribution of power and resources Create new welfare institutions and/or reform of the existing ones (Cosme etal. 2017; Chiengkul 2018; Speth 2012; Kallis 2011, 2013; Douthwaite 2012) Citizen’s basic income (Videira etal. 2014; Đula etal. 2019; Cosme etal. 2017; Alexander 2012; Kallis 2011; Demaria etal. 2013) Redistribution of wealth (within society or to improve the welfare of developing countries) (Videira etal. 2014; Cosme etal. 2017; Nieto etal. 2020; Kallis etal. 2018) Job guarantee (Đula etal. 2019; Cosme etal. 2017; Buch-Hansen and Koch 2019) Redistributive taxation schemes (Cosme etal. 2017) Withdrawal of tax relief to the tourism industry’s private sector (Milano etal. 2019) Tourist tax to address the negative impacts of tourism (Milano etal. 2019) Government spending Remove harmful subsidies for resource extraction (Videira etal. 2014; Cosme etal. 2017; Milano etal. 2019) Redirect investments away from infrastructure in fast and car-based models of transport to slow-mode ones, moratoria on large infrastructures (Videira etal. 2014; Cosme etal. 2017; Sekulova etal. 2013) Invest in clean sectors while divesting away from dirty sectors (Cosme etal. 2017; Kallis etal. 2018) Invest in public goods (to guarantee equal access to goods and services) (Cosme etal. 2017; Speth 2012) Sustainability indicators Integration of ecological and social impact indicators and agreements (Videira etal. 2014) Use of OECD Better Life Initiative and Index of Sustainable Economics Welfare—ISEW (Krueger etal. 2018) Reduction 63 proposals 37% Normative Changes in consumption Critical consumption/voluntary cuts in consumption (Kousis and Paschou 2017a; Kallis 2013) Sufficiency-oriented lifestyles (Krueger etal. 2018) Active resistance campaigns (anti-advertising, cyclist and pedestrian rights campaigns, boycotts, demonstrations against expansions of highways and airports)(Chiengkul 2018; Demaria etal. 2013) Changes in production Using less energy via a transition to renewable and more efficient energy systems (Alexander 2012) Leaving natural resources untouched; resource sanctuaries (Videira etal. 2014; Sekulova etal. 2013) Extending product lifecycles through establishing sharing and leasing schemes and integrated product service systems (Krueger etal. 2018) Growth-averse enterprises (Gabriel etal. 2019) Sustainability Science Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2022) Climate change 2022: mitigation of climate change. Working Group III contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental panel on climate change Jepperson RL (1991) Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In: Powell WW, DiMaggio PJ (eds) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 143–163 Joutsenvirta M (2016) A practice approach to the institutionalization of economic degrowth. Ecol Econ 128:23–32. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecole con. 2016. 04. 006 Jørgensen U (2012) Mapping and navigating transitions—the multilevel perspective compared with arenas of development. Res Policy 41:996–1010 Kallis G (2011) In defence of degrowth. Ecol Econ 70:873–880 Kallis G, Kostakis V, Lange S, Muraca B, Paulson S, Schmelzer M (2018) Research on degrowth. Annu Rev Environ Resour 43:291– 316. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur evenvir on102017025941 Kallis G, Paulson S, D’Alisa G, Demaria F (2020) The case for degrowth. Polity Press, Cambridge Kanger L, Sillak S (2020) Emergence, consolidation and dominance of meta-regimes: exploring the historical evolution of mass production (1765–1972) from the deep transitions perspective. Technol Soc 63(1020):101393 Kanger L, Tinits P, Pahker A-K, Orru K, Tiwari AK, Sillak S, Šeļa A, Vaik K (2022) Deep transitions: towards a comprehensive framework for mapping major continuities and ruptures in industrial modernity. Glob Environ Change 72:102447. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. gloen vcha. 2021. 102447 Kern F, Rogge KS (2018) Harnessing theories of the policy process for analysing the politics of sustainability transitions: a critical survey. Environ Innov Soc Transit 27:102–117 Khmara Y, Kronenberg J (2018) Degrowth in business: an oxymoron or a viable business model for sustainability? J Clean Prod 177:721–731. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2017. 12. 182 Khmara Y, Kronenberg J (2020) Degrowth in the context of sustainability transitions: in search of a common ground. J Clean Prod 267:122072 Klitgaard KA, Krall L (2012) Ecological economics, degrowth, and institutional change. Ecol Econ 84:247–253. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecole con. 2011. 11. 008 Koch M (2020) Structure, action and change: a Bourdieusian perspective on the preconditions for a degrowth transition. Sustain Sci Pract Policy 16(1):4–14 Koch M (2022) Social policy without growth: moving towards sustainable welfare states. Soc Policy Soc 21(3):447–459. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S1474 74642 10003 61 Kostova T, Roth K, Dacin MD (2008) Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: a critique and new directions. Acad Manag Rev 33(4):994–1006. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amr. 2008. 34422 026 Kothari A, Demaria F, Acosta A (2014) Buen Vivir, degrowth and ecological swaraj: alternatives to sustainable development and the green economy. Development 57:362–375. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ dev. 2015. 24 Kousis M, Paschou M (2017) Alternative forms of resilience: a typology of approaches for the study of citizen collective responses in hard economic times. Open J Sociopolitical Stud 10(1):136–168. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1285/ i2035 6609v 10i1p 135 Krähmer K (2022) Degrowth and the city: multiscalar strategies for the socio-ecological transformation of space and place. City 26(2– 3):316–345. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13604 813. 2022. 20359 69 Kuhmonen I, Kuhmonen T (2023) Transitions through the dynamics of adaptive cycles: evolution of the Finnish agrifood system. Agric Syst 206:103604 Köhler J, Geels FW, Kern F, Markard J, Onsongo E, Wieczorek A, Alkemade F, Avelino F, Bergek A, Boons F, Fünfschilling L, Hess D, Holtz G, Hyysalo S, Jenkins K, Kivimaa P, Martiskainen M, McMeekin A, Mühlemeier MS, Nykvist B, Pel B, Rohracher RH, Sandén B, Schot J, Sovacool B, Turnheim B, Welch D, Wells P (2019) An agenda for sustainability transitions research: state of the art and future directions. Environ Innov Soc Trans 31:1–32 Lange S, Pütz P, Kopp T (2018)Do mature economies grow exponentially? Ecol Econ 147:123–133. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecole con. 2018. 01. 011 Latouche S (2010) Degrowth. J Clean Prod 18(6):519–522. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2010. 02. 003 Lewin AY, Volberda HW (2003) The future of organization studies. Beyond the selection-adaptation debate. In: Tsoukas H, Knudsen C (eds) The Oxford handbook of organization theory. Meta-theoretical perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford Loorbach D, Frantzeskaki N, Avelino F (2017) Sustainability transitions research: transforming science and practice for societal change. Ann Rev Environ Resour 42:599–626. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur evenv iron1 02014 021340 Meadowcroft J (2011) Engaging with the politics of sustainability transitions. Environ Innov Soc Trans 1(1):70–75. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. eist. 2011. 02. 003 Mocca E (2020) The local dimension in the degrowth literature. A critical discussion. J Political Ideol 25:78–39. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13569 317. 2019. 16969 26 Muiderman K (2022) Approaches to anticipatory governance in West Africa: how conceptions of the future have implications for climate action in the present. Futures 141:102982. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. futur es. 2022. 102982 Otchere-Darko W (2023) Scaling-up degrowth: re-imagining institutional responses to climate change. Urban Stud 60(7):1316– 1325. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00420 98022 11468 61 Pacheco DF, York JG, Dean TJ, Sarasvathy SD (2010) The coevolution of institutional entrepreneurship: a tale of two theories. J Manag 36(4):974–1010. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06309 360280 Panzer-Krause S (2019) Networking towards sustainable tourism: innovations between green growth and degrowth strategies. Reg Stud 53(7):927–938. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00343 404. 2018. 15088 73 Parrique T (2019) The political economy of degrowth. Economics and Finance. Université Clermont Auvergne; Stockholms universitet, 2019. English. NNT : 2019CLFAD003 Parrique T, Barth J, Briens F, Kerschner C, Kraus-Polk A, Kuokkanen A, Spangenberg JH (2019) Decoupling Debunked. Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability. European Environmental Bureau. eeb.org/ decoupling-debunked Patterson J, Schulz K, Vervoort J, van der Hel S, Widerberg O, Adler C, Hurlbert M, Anderton K, Sethi M, Barau A (2017) Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability. Environ Innov Soc Trans 24:1–16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. eist. 2016. 09. 001 Paulson S (2017) Degrowth: culture, power and change. J Political Ecol 24(1):425–448. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2458/ v24i1. 20882 Pichler M, Brand U, Görg C (2020) The double materiality of democracy in capitalist societies: challenges for social-ecological transformations. Environ Politics 29(2):193–213. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09644 016. 2018. 15472 60 Ramcilovic-Suominen S, Kröger M, Dressler W (2022) From progrowth and planetary limits to degrowth and decoloniality: an emerging bioeconomy policy and research agenda. For Policy Econ 144:102819. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. forpol. 2022. 102819 Reichel A, Seeberg B (2011) The ecological allowance of enterprise: an absolute measure of corporate environmental performance, Sustainability Science its implications for strategy, and a small case. J Environ Sustain. https:// doi. org/ 10. 14448/ jes. 01. 0006 Rotmans J, Loorbach D (2009) Complexity and transition management. J Ind Ecol 13(2):184–196. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 15309290. 2009. 00116.x Savini F, Ferreira A, von Schönfeld KC (eds) (2022) Post-growth planning: cities beyond the market economy. Routledge, New York Schindler S (2016) Detroit after bankruptcy: a case of degrowth machine politics. Urban Stud 53(4):818–836. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00420 98014 563485 Schneider F, Kallis G, Martínez-Alier J (2010) Crisis or opportunity? Economic degrowth for social equity and ecological sustainability. Introduction to this special issue. J Clean Prod 18:511–518 Scott WR (1991) Unpacking institutional arguments. In: Powell WW, DiMaggio PJ (eds) The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 164–182 Scott WR (2008) Institutions and organizations. Ideas and interest, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications Schmid B (2019) Degrowth and postcapitalism: transformative geographies beyond accumulation and growth. Geogr Compass 13(11):e12470. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ gec3. 12470 Sekulova F, Kallis G, Rodríguez-Labajos B, Schneider F (2013) Degrowth: from theory to practice. J Clean Prod 38:1–6. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2012. 06. 022 Smith TSJ, Baranowski M, Schmid B (2021) Intentional degrowth and its unintended consequences: uneven journeys towards postgrowth transformations. Ecol Econ 190:107215. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecole con. 2021. 107215 Svensson O, Nikoleris A (2018) Structure reconsidered: towards new foundations of explanatory transitions theory. Res Policy 7(2):462–473. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. respol. 2017. 12. 007 UNTFSSE (2014) Social and solidarity economy and the challenge of sustainable development. A position paper. https:// unsse. org/ 2014/ 09/ 08/ tfsseposit ionpapersocialandsolid arityecono myandthechall eng eofsus ta inablede vel opment/. Accessed 27 May 2021 Vadén T, Lähde V, Majava A, Järvensivu P, Toivanen T, Hakala E, Eronen JT (2020) Decoupling for ecological sustainability: a categorisation and review of research literature. Environ Sci Policy 112:236–244. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. envsci. 2020. 06. 016 Vandeventer JS, Lloveras J (2021) Organizing degrowth: the ontological politics of enacting degrowth in OMS. Organization 28(3):358–379. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 13505 08420 975662 Ward JD, Sutton PC, Werner AD, Constanza R, Mohr SH, Simmons CT (2016) Is decoupling GDP from environmental impact possible? PLoSOne 11(10):40164733 Wesseling J, Kieft A, Fuenfschilling L, Hekkert M (2022) How sociotechnical regimes affect low-carbon innovation: global pressures inhibiting industrial heat pumps in the Netherlands. Energy Res Soc Sci 89:102674. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. erss. 2022. 102674 Xue J (2014) Is eco-village/urban village the future of a degrowth society? An urban planner’s perspective. Ecol Econ 105:130–138. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecole con. 2014. 06. 003 Zografos C, Robbins P (2020) Green sacrifice zones, or why a green new deal cannot ignore the cost shifts of just transitions. One Earth 3(5):543–546 Zucker LG (1977) The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. Am Sociol Rev 42(5):726–743 Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.