Department of Space, Earth and Environment CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Gothenburg, Sweden 2018 Unlocking the transformative potential of Agenda 2030 Investigating strategies for engagement in multi-stakeholder environments Master’s thesis at the Challenge Lab LINNEA JOHANSSON Master of Science in Quality and Operations Management GEORGIA MESSARITOU Master of Science in International Project Management I II Unlocking the transformative potential of Agenda 2030 Investigating strategies for engagement in multi-stakeholder environments LINNEA JOHANSSON GEORGIA MESSARITOU © LINNEA JOHANSSON, GEORGIA MESSARITOU, 2018. Department of Space, Earth and Environment Chalmers University of Technology SE-412 96 Göteborg Sweden Telephone + 46 (0)31-772 1000 Cover: [The 17 Sustainable Development Goals presented in the document Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development published by United Nations in 2015. A more thorough description of the Agenda and the goals can be found on page 9. Photographer: Nickhil Sharma] Göteborg, Sweden 2018 III Unlocking the transformative potential of Agenda 2030 Investigating strategies for engagement in multi-stakeholder environments LINNEA JOHANSSON GEORGIA MESSARITOU Department of Space, Earth and Environment CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Göteborg, Sweden 2018 IV Unlocking the transformative potential of Agenda 2030 Investigating strategies for engagement in multi-stakeholder environments LINNEA JOHANSSON and GEORGIA MESSARITOU Department of Space, Earth and Environment Chalmers University of Technology Abstract To address the sustainability challenge outlined in the United Nations document Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development within the given time-frame is by many perceived as a difficult, yet urgent and necessary task. Such a task requires incremental change to be complemented by processes of societal transformation, and such transformation requires multi-stakeholder engagement. The work presented here takes its starting point in West Sweden, where indications point towards low engagement with the Agenda among organisations and an uncertainty regarding the implications of the transformative nature of the Agenda. This thesis therefore seeks to engage with the following research question: How might the transformative potential of Agenda 2030 be unlocked in a multi-stakeholder environment? To answer this question, a Transformation lens as an analytical framework was created to help identify elements suppressing or supporting transformation. Additionally, interview data on current engagement with, and attitudes towards Agenda 2030 was collected from representatives from organisations in West Sweden and analysed by thematic mapping. In parallel, a document analysis based on the Transformation lens helped identify transformative elements in existing recommendations regarding engagement with the Agenda. The Transformation lens highlighted elements such as the need for a vision of sustainability, settings for learning and experimentation and transformation of the current socio-technical system, all while ensuring engagement from diverse stakeholders. With that said, the most common current engagement with the agenda does not challenge the current system. However, potentially more transformative ways to engage were described both by academics in interviews, and in documents. This shows a gap between current practices and existing recommendations. Additionally, the interviews and documents did not problematise the same things. For example, resistance to change was a rather central topic in the interviews but not at all addressed in the documents. Based on the identified elements and the gaps, we created a set of recommendations on how to work more transformatively with the Agenda in multi-stakeholder environments. The main aspect in these recommendations is to ensure time and space for reflections, both individually and in groups within organisations as well as across multiple organisations. Topics to reflect upon are what is the desired vision for sustainability, what the next step could be in realising that vision, and what roles different actors have and what the interaction between them should be. Additionally, reflection upon how safe spaces for continuous learning and experimentation could be created to complement more mainstream activities in today’s organisations. This set of recommendations may provide initial stepping stones to help organisations engage with Agenda 2030 in a way which transforms not only themselves, but also have positive impact in the networks in which they operate. Keywords: sustainability, sustainable development, transformation, United Nations 2030 Agenda, SDG, multi-stakeholder, collaboration V Table of contents Abstract __________________________________________________________________ IV Table of contents ___________________________________________________________ V List of figures ______________________________________________________________ VII List of tables _____________________________________________________________ VIII Acknowledgements ________________________________________________________ IX Lists of abbreviations ________________________________________________________ X 1. Introduction ____________________________________________________________ 1 1.1 Thesis context ___________________________________________________________ 1 1.1.1 The Challenge Lab __________________________________________________________ 1 1.1.2 Identifying a thesis topic _____________________________________________________ 3 1.2 Topic background ________________________________________________________ 6 1.3 Aim and research question _________________________________________________ 6 1.4 Scope and limitations _____________________________________________________ 7 1.5 Thesis outline ___________________________________________________________ 8 2. Theoretical Framework ___________________________________________________ 9 2.1 Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals ___________________________ 9 2.2 Sustainability and sustainable development __________________________________ 13 2.3 Transformation _________________________________________________________ 14 2.4 Systems thinking and a multi-level perspective ________________________________ 15 2.5 Stakeholder theory ______________________________________________________ 16 2.5.1 Stakeholder dialogues, dialogue facilitation and dialogic leadership _________________ 17 3. Analytical framework: the Transformation lens ______________________________ 20 3.1 Initiate ________________________________________________________________ 21 3.2 Guide _________________________________________________________________ 21 3.3 Accelerate _____________________________________________________________ 22 4. Method ______________________________________________________________ 27 4.1 Stakeholder interviews ___________________________________________________ 29 4.1.1 Conducting the interviews __________________________________________________ 29 4.1.2 Mapping and analysis of interview data _______________________________________ 31 4.2 Document analysis ______________________________________________________ 32 4.2.1 Document selection _______________________________________________________ 32 4.2.2 Document analysis ________________________________________________________ 33 4.3 Generating our recommendations __________________________________________ 34 4.4 Stakeholder feedback session ______________________________________________ 34 5. Results and analysis _____________________________________________________ 35 5.1 Stakeholder interview findings _____________________________________________ 35 5.1.1 Current engagement _______________________________________________________ 35 5.1.2 Attitudes towards the Agenda _______________________________________________ 39 5.2 Document analysis findings ________________________________________________ 52 5.2.1 Selection of documents for data extraction _____________________________________ 52 5.2.2 Summary of the data extracted ______________________________________________ 54 5.2.3 Transformative elements identified in documents _______________________________ 55 VI 6. Synthesis of the results obtained from interviews and documents _______________ 70 6.1.1 Initiate __________________________________________________________________ 70 6.1.2 Guide ___________________________________________________________________ 73 6.1.3 Accelerate _______________________________________________________________ 75 7. Recommendations for unlocking transformative engagement with Agenda 2030 ___ 77 7.1 Initiate: Preparations before engaging with Agenda 2030 realisation _______________ 77 7.1.1 Increase knowledge and awareness ___________________________________________ 77 7.1.2 Reflect on contributions ____________________________________________________ 78 7.1.3 Integrate sustainability vision in strategies _____________________________________ 78 7.2 Guide: Conditions for moving towards achieving the Agenda 2030 _________________ 79 7.2.1 Create space for learning and exploring new ideas _______________________________ 79 7.2.2 Evaluate your role in the system _____________________________________________ 79 7.2.3 Form partnerships and collaborations _________________________________________ 80 7.3 Accelerate: Addressing the need for transformation ____________________________ 80 7.3.1 Challenge the current system ________________________________________________ 80 7.3.2 Assist change _____________________________________________________________ 81 8. Discussion ____________________________________________________________ 82 References________________________________________________________________ 86 Appendix _________________________________________________________________ 94 VII List of figures Figure 1.1 Examples of stakeholder groups the students might interact with through Challenge Lab _________ 2 Figure 2.1 The sustainable development goals presented as logos ____________________________________ 11 Figure 2.2 The lighthouse model for sustainable development (Holmberg & Larsson, 2018) _______________ 13 Figure 2.3 Multi-level perspective on transitions, figure from Geels (2005) _____________________________ 15 Figure 2.4 Leverage points by Meadows (1999) visualised by Composite Creative (2014) __________________ 16 Figure 2.5 The quintuple helix innovation model (Carayannis & Campbell, 2010) describing how the triple-helix actors academia, industry and public sector operates (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1995) within the societal sector, which in turn is limited by natural environment ___________________________________________________ 17 Figure 2.6 Four practices for dialogic leadership (Isaacs, 1999) ______________________________________ 19 Figure 3.1 The learning cycle recommended for transformative learning. Inspired by Loorbach et al. 2017. ___ 22 Figure 4.1 Outline of research process __________________________________________________________ 28 Figure 4.2 Overview of the steps taken to gather and analyse interview data ___________________________ 29 Figure 4.3 Method used to extract and evaluate data from documents. Document content analysis involves becoming familiar with the content of each document (step i). This was followed by data extraction (step ii). Element identification and synthesis was done by applying indicator-derived codes to the extracted data and, when necessary the original documents (steps iii). Identified elements were judged for their transformative potential using the Transformation lens. ________________________________________________________ 34 Figure 5.1 A graphical representation of the engagement described as backwards confirmation, the SDGs are used as a check-list to compare ongoing or planned initiatives against. _______________________________ 35 Figure 5.2 Visual representation of forward guiding, where the sustainability Agenda 2030 are put in the core of an organisation and are used as a vision to guide initiatives. ________________________________________ 37 Figure 5.3 Representation of educate and consult where actors help other actors in engage with the Agenda 2030, for example through couching or by providing material and tools. ______________________________ 38 Figure 5.4 Thematic network for "Society as a system" _____________________________________________ 39 Figure 5.5 Thematic network for “Building competence together” ____________________________________ 44 Figure 5.6 Thematic network for "Sensemaking and contextualisation"________________________________ 47 Figure 5.7 Thematic network for "Resistance to change" ___________________________________________ 50 Figure 5.8 Summary of issues relating to long-term perspective discussed in the documents. Issues can be grouped into three main categories (mindsets, engagement and desired end-result). ____________________ 58 Figure 5.9 Potential Collaborative Learning Loop set up by the Future-fit Foundation ____________________ 61 Figure 5.10 Summary of global-local links as presented in the recommendations. 1: achieving SDGs at the local level will lead to achieving them globally, 2: the SDGs described in the Agenda and indicators used to follow progress need to be adjusted to the national/local level. ___________________________________________ 64 Figure 7.1 Summary of the proposed recommendations ____________________________________________ 81 VIII List of tables Table 2-1 The 17 Sustainable Development Goals presented in their full form .................................................... 12 Table 3-1 Data supporting the Transformation lens ............................................................................................. 23 Table 4-2 Table of the organisations represented in the stakeholder interviews. For each organisation, its geographical focus, the societal segment it represents, and in what way it engages with the Agenda 2030 is presented. The organisation where the recommendations later were tested is marked with an asterisk. .......... 30 Table 4-1 Topics covered in stakeholder interviews .............................................................................................. 31 Table 5-1 Meeting the criteria for selection of documents for analysis ................................................................ 53 Table 5-2 List of documents analysed ................................................................................................................... 53 Table 5-3 Summary of key findings from documents, part 1. ............................................................................... 54 Table 5-4 Summary of key findings from documents, part 2. ............................................................................... 55 Table 5-5 Summary of proposed visions of sustainability in relation to their potential of being shared and encompassing the three dimensions of sustainability........................................................................................... 57 Table 5-6 Summary of elements from document analysis related to category one, Initiate, in the Transformation lens ........................................................................................................................................................................ 60 Table 5-7 Summary of elements from document analysis related to first part of category two, Guide, in the Transformation lens .............................................................................................................................................. 63 Table 5-8 Summary of elements from document analysis related to second part of category two, Guide, in the Transformation lens .............................................................................................................................................. 66 Table 5-9 Summary of challenges to the established societal structures and qualitative changes in the system, as presented in the documents analysed. .................................................................................................................. 67 Table 5-10 Summary of elements from document analysis related to category three, Accelerate, in the Transformation lens .............................................................................................................................................. 69 IX Acknowledgements This thesis marks the end of an era: graduating from Chalmers University of Technology. We would therefore like to take some space to express our gratitude to people who has been extra important for the process. Thank you  Johan Larsson for the excellent supervision you have provided. You have been an important support for the massive project we decided to take on, and in that not only provided academic support, but also inspiration, mental support, and language support.  John Holmberg, for your vast knowledge which you gladly share with anyone who is interested. As our examiner, you have been engaged and interested, and keen to help us create something which creates value for more people than only ourselves.  All contributors to the project. You shared your thought freely, and without you this thesis wouldn’t have come to life. Especially thanks to Mats Bergh at Johanneberg Science Park who early on believed in our idea and who let us use his organisation for feedback.  Andreas Hanning, Gavin McCrory, and all other people connected to the Challenge Lab for support and your endless positivity. Also, thank you for making Challenge Lab possible which allowed us to try our wings in areas where we are not always comfortable, and to realise we can make it.  All our fellow students in the Challenge Lab: Adarsh, Alice, Fabian, Gabriella, Johanna, Kreshnik, Louise, Magdalena, Marina, Nickhil, Pia, Sara, Ville. Your desire to make a difference is inspiring. Additionally, our coffee break discussions has both entertained and taught us both a lot.  All inspiring lecturers we have had throughout our years here at Chalmers. You have opened our eyes, widened our minds, and expanded our knowledge.  Last, but not least, we would like to express our thank you to our family and friends for your interest in what we do, your support and questions, and for your belief in us. Especially thanks to our significant others who for the past months has let us be happy, grumpy, joyful, frustrated, victorious etc., and who supported us through it all. Georgia and Linnea Göteborg, May 2018 X Lists of abbreviations Agenda 2030 Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development GRI Global Reporting Initiative MDG Millennium Development Goals MLP Multi-Level Perspective SDG Sustainable Development Goals SDSN Sustainable Development Solutions Network UN United Nations 1 1. Introduction ‘Transforming our world’, as the agenda published by United Nations in 2015 was named, presents a comprehensive plan for what sustainable development in the upcoming 15 years could look like. As apparent from its name, the Agenda not only suggests incremental improvements, but rather promotes transformation processes in society which seek to change systems on a more fundamental level (UNGA, 2015). However, although progress has been made in the years since the Agenda 2030 was published, the efforts are still not considered sufficient to meet the Sustainable Development Goals outlined in the Agenda at the given timeframe (Eurostat, 2017; United Nations, 2017). However, this thesis was not conducted according to the same procedure as most theses at Chalmers University of Technology (Chalmers). Instead, it was written at the Challenge Lab where part of the thesis process is to identify a topic to address and formulate a research question, and to connect with a thesis partner, a supervisor, and stakeholders relevant for the topic. Therefore, before going deeper into the specific topic of this thesis, the Challenge Lab as well as the process which led up to the topic is presented. Thereafter, a background to the topic Agenda 2030 and the need for transformation is given, before the purpose, aim, scope and delimitations of the thesis is presented. The section ends with a presentation of the outline of the thesis and its chapters. 1.1 Thesis context The Challenge Lab is an arena with students from all Master’s programmes at Chalmers can meet to conduct their theses on sustainability transitions in multi-stakeholder settings. This section shortly describes the Challenge Lab and the investigation process which resulted in the topic of this thesis: Unlocking the transformative potential of Agenda 2030 in multi- stakeholder environments. 1.1.1 The Challenge Lab In 2011, three “building blocks” to support a bigger transition towards sustainability were identified at Chalmers: to “create a neutral arena/organisation; build on individual engagement and involvement; and communicate a clear commitment from the management team” (Holmberg et al., 2012, pp. 222–223). As a response to this strategy, the Challenge Lab 2 was founded at Chalmers in 2014 to provide a platform for students doing their master’s thesis to address complex issues regarding sustainability transitions from an inter- and transdisciplinary perspective (Holmberg, 2014). A more thorough description of Challenge Lab can be found in Holmberg and Larsson (2017). Students are seen as a neutral actors, not representing any particular interest (Holmberg, 2014). This feature can grant the students access to various groups, and through due to their ability to be “simultaneously non-threatening and challenging, a feature crucial to the kind of change society greatly needs” (ibid, p. 97), they can have the ability to connect various groups of stakeholders to together face sustainability challenges. The students with their natural curiosity could therefore support the neutral arena sought after in the Chalmers sustainability strategy, while their interest and engagement could be used to inspire change in the broader society around them. To further strengthen the neutrality, the physical location of the Challenge Lab is in one of the science parks connected to the university. This location, near academia as well as industry, facilitates interaction between the participating students and stakeholders from the Triple Helix (academic-industry-government (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1995)) along with other, for the addressed challenges, relevant actors such as NGOs and civil society groups. This neutral space allows for the students to invite and interact with diverse set of stakeholders to together address the sustainability challenges. Figure 1.1 Examples of stakeholder groups the students might interact with through Challenge Lab Throughout the Lab, students work closely with stakeholders from various backgrounds. The interaction starts in the preparatory courses Leadership for sustainable transitions and Managing stakeholders for sustainability where dialogues with stakeholders help the students identify sustainability challenges, ongoing projects/initiatives, and societal trends. Dialogues and stakeholder interactions then continues throughout both Phase I and Phase II or the thesis. This process of early and regular interactions builds relationships and trust between students and stakeholders, which allows the students to ask questions not normally raised in Students Academia Industry Public sector Governments and Regulators NGOs Civil society groups Other? 3 the target organisations and through that access information to really understand the issue they are trying to address (Holmberg et al., 2015). The students participating in the Lab are guided in a backcasting process combining an outside-in perspective with and inside-out perspective. The outside-in perspective consists of methods, theories and knowledge about sustainability, system thinking and transition management, while the inside-out perspective is based on self-leadership, strengths, and motivations, as well as tools for dialoguing and trust building (Holmberg, 2014). This inside- out, outside-in combination is applied in a backcasting approach, where the students are encouraged to lead change with a desired future in mind. The thesis process at Challenge Lab is divided into two phases. In Phase I, all participants jointly create a framework for a sustainable society described by principles on a broader scale. Thereafter, though a series of workshops and stakeholder dialogues, sustainability challenges based on the gap between the desirable, sustainable future and the current situation are identified, alongside leverage points where these challenges can be addressed. Often, these challenges and leverage points are found in between responsibilities held by actors in traditional silo-structures, reinforcing the need to address them in an collaborative, experimental way including diverse set of actors (Holmberg & Larsson, 2017). The challenges and leverage points are then used as input for Phase II where the students divide into pairs where each pair choose one leverage point to address for the rest of the thesis period. At this stage, the pair also establish contact with a supervisor and engage stakeholders relevant to the topic. In the 2018 edition of Challenge Lab, 15 students representing eight nationalities and eight engineering masters programmes participated. This thesis is one out of eight theses conducted at Challenge Lab during spring 2018. 1.1.2 Identifying a thesis topic This thesis followed the process described in the previous section, where the thesis process is divided in two phases. This section briefly describes Phase I, that is to say, the process to identify and select the topic of this thesis. Phase I had a duration of 4 weeks and was aimed at going from a broad understanding of sustainability into specific sustainability challenges in a local context. The context for this year’s Challenge Lab edition is West Sweden, the region in Sweden where Chalmers University of Technology is located. During this phase, all participants in the Lab worked collaboratively as one group with guidance from the Challenge Lab staff. Method for identifying the topic As mentioned in the previous section, the process followed in the thesis is backcasting from sustainability principles (Holmberg, 1998; Holmberg & Robért, 2000). This methodology is by Holmberg and Robért described as: a methodology for planning under uncertain circumstances. In the context of sustainable development, it means to start planning from a description of the requirements that have to be met when society has successfully become 4 sustainable, then the planning process proceeds by linking today with tomorrow in a strategic way (p. 293) The methodology used at the Challenge Lab is based on four steps adapted from (Holmberg, 1998): (1) Framing a sustainable future based on personal values and sustainability principles, (2) Understand the current system in relation to the sustainability principles, and based on that identify gaps and challenges, (3) Designing conceptual solutions in leverage points that can bridge the gaps, and (4) Identify feasible ways/strategies to realise the future solutions concepts (Holmberg & Larsson, 2017). Phase I mainly covered step one to two. In step one, a framework of principles covering four dimensions of sustainability (ecological, social, economic, and well-being) was created. The principle framework was used to guide step two, where the current situation was analysed in relation to the principles to identify gaps and challenges. To gather data about the current situation, strategy documents, and documents about ongoing initiatives in the region were gathered and read. Additionally, several stakeholder dialogues were held, both in the preparatory courses (see Section 1.1.1) and with stakeholders invited for Phase I. From the data, ongoing initiatives and potential barriers were gathered, but also intervention points where stakeholders saw potential for making transformative changes. Together, the data was analysed according to the Multi-level Perspective, dividing the system into regime, niches, and landscape (Geels, 2005). The goal of the data collection was to identify so called leverage points, which are points where a small intervention can lead to big system changes (Meadows, 1997, 1999). These leverage points were described by the four questions what – the identified challenge and topic, why – the rationale for why it would make a difference to address it, how – a preliminary idea of how to address the challenge, and who – one or more stakeholders which would benefit from a solution and possibly want would want to engage in the process. Our outcome of the topic identification process The evaluation of the current situation revealed multiple potential gaps to address, of which three independent but interrelated gaps were chosen for this particular thesis. These were visions for sustainability, multi-stakeholder collaborations to address sustainability issues, and the use of and engagement with Agenda 2030. First, although many organisations and projects are addressing sustainability issues, a lack of shared visions for a desired future and including holistic approaches on how to reach that future were identified. Instead, it was reported that the organisations often are guided by multiple separate policy documents, and that these often are peripheral to the core activities and operations. Additionally, the visions, ambitions, and strategies vary greatly between organisations. Furthermore, it was brought up that there is lack of resources assigned to sustainability related issues and that employee initiatives are sometimes suppressed by managers due to perceived need for control by and accountability towards top managers. Secondly, multi-stakeholder collaborations were perceived as necessary to transform society and address the challenges connected to sustainability that the society is facing. Actors from 5 academia, industry, the public sector, and civil society were all seen as important contributors to understand and address sustainability challenges. At the same time, several stakeholders expressed that collaboration involving multiple actors was problematic and not frequently occurring. The collaboration includes both intra- and inter-organisational collaboration and was theorised to partly derive from a culture of silos which limits the interactions between different groups. Additionally, some indications pointed towards professional cultural clashes and low levels of trust between the different actors which could also be hindering collaboration. Thirdly, and interestingly, despite the conversations focusing around sustainability and sustainable development, and despite Sweden’s commitment to Agenda 2030: Neither the Agenda, nor the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) presented in the Agenda were referred to by the stakeholders during the dialogues, with only one or two exceptions. They were not given much attention in the documents studied to understand the current situation either. This suggests that there may be a weak link with the SDGs at the regional and/or local level. Alternatively, there could be lack of motivation for communication about the SDGs. As just mentioned, three topics were identified. First, the need for a common vision to collectively guide the efforts for sustainable transformation; second, the need for more collaboration, particularly for collaborations that break the current silos; and third, an unattended potential for the SDGs to provide a common and universal vision, one that could potentially bring people together across disciplines. Together these three independent, yet interrelated, topics formed a leverage point: to use the SDGs as a unifying vision to support a transformation towards sustainability in a collaborative way. We therefore posed the following initial question: How can the SDGs be used to promote sustainable transformation? To investigate the validity and relevance of this question as a focus for the thesis, a short desk research around the current use of SDGs was conducted, as well as short discussions with a few stakeholders. This process identified a big interest as well as several efforts to work with the Agenda 2030 in Sweden and around the world. In Sweden, the interest spans both the national and regional level, including public and business sectors, academia and the civil society. However, the identified efforts were often only focused on the SDGs and seem to be mainly at initial stages of trying to understand how to work with them. Alternatively, the SDGs were used as a “check-list”, aspects to tick off as considered within projects or organisations without deeper reflection of their consequences and possible wider implications. During this investigation, the focus expanded to Agenda 2030 as a whole and not only the SDGs, as we became aware of how the SDGs would need to be seen through the context of the rest of the Agenda 2030 document to support transformation. Resulting from the preliminary findings from the validation, the topic, with the extension of attending to the whole Agenda 2030, was therefore seen as relevant and motivating starting point to contribute to the knowledge body of sustainability transformations and Agenda 2030 engagement. 6 1.2 Topic background Today, many challenges connected to sustainability are of global scale: climate change has both origin and effects globally, poverty can be found in all countries and regions, and inequality is a challenge both within and between countries. As a consequence, it is often acknowledged that the sustainability challenges that the world is facing cannot be addressed by small, and isolated efforts, instead, even local efforts must acknowledge the global complexity and involve partners from all over the globe to collaborate (Hirsch Hadorn et al., 2006). In 2015, United Nations launched a new agenda for sustainable development named Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UNGA, 2015) aiming to “shift the world into a sustainable and resilient path” (p. 1) and unite global efforts in a transformation towards a sustainable society. To achieve its vision of transformation, the Agenda requires transformative change, i.e. changes that include “profound changes [...] in production and consumption patterns and energy use through legislation, regulation and public policies” and “changes in social structures and relations, including addressing the growing economic and political power of elites” (UNRISD, 2016, p. 3). Looking at these examples, it is implicit that organisations, governments and individuals all must engage with the Agenda beyond the business-as-usual practices, and that all three dimensions of sustainability (ecological, economic and social) are to be considered (UNGA, 2014; UNRISD, 2016). Apart from the need for transformation, the Agenda also recognises the need for partnership. Not only does it state that “all countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership, will implement this plan” (UNGA, 2015, Preamble), but Goal 17 (“Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development”, ibid, p. 14), is specifically devoted in this aspect. This is not surprising considering that sustainable development is usually described as a wicked problem and as such requires the collaboration of multiple stakeholders (Roberts, 2000). However, it is not an easy task to transform our world as the Agenda suggests. Unsustainable traditions, attitudes, structures must be replaced by sustainable alternatives (EEA, 2017; O’Brien & Sygna, 2013; Roorda et al., 2014), and new types of partnerships involving multiple stakeholders must be created (Roberts, 2000; Waddock et al., 2015). Nevertheless, it is necessary if the world should become sustainable, and the Agenda might be a platform to support it. 1.3 Aim and research question The universal acceptance of the Agenda at the political level, its transformative character, as well as the wide range of critical areas that the SDGs address make Agenda 2030 an important and potentially powerful policy document. It is therefore not surprising that the Agenda has received attention globally and across the public, private, academic and civil society sectors. It is unclear, however, whether current engagement with the Agenda does indeed go beyond business-as-usual practices. As already explained in Section 1.2, such engagement is imperative if the intended sustainable transformations are to be achieved. 7 Our findings during Phase I (see Section 1.1.2) suggest that current engagement with Agenda 2030 is not sufficient to fulfil its transformative potential among some key stakeholder in West Sweden (and possible also elsewhere), and that Agenda 2030 has potential to transform society, but that this potential is often not tapped into. Additionally, collaboration is preferable for addressing sustainability challenges. Therefore, the aim of this thesis is to identify elements supporting transformative engagement of Agenda 2030 in multi- stakeholder environments and develop recommendations that may support realising the Agenda’s transformative potential. This will be done by investigating the current engagement with, and attitudes towards the Agenda 2030 with a focus on West Sweden, but also existing documents with recommendations on how to work with the Agenda. Building on the initial research question presented in Section 1.1.2.2, our research question was reformulated to: How might the transformative potential of Agenda 2030 be unlocked in a multi- stakeholder environment? This question will be answered by, in current practice in relation to the Agenda among organisations present in West Sweden, and in existing recommendations regarding implementation, engage with to the following sub-questions: 1. What key elements can be found that either support or suppress transformation? 2. How might these elements be used to initiate transformation in multi- stakeholder environments? 1.4 Scope and limitations There are many ways in which the abovementioned questions could be addressed, however, some delimitations were made. Firstly, the initial investigations which gave rise to the topic was done in the West Sweden region. The focus of this study is therefore transformation in a Swedish context, more specifically in West Sweden region with focus on the city of Gothenburg. Data sources are however not only limited to this area, as external stakeholder, such as international organisations or experts on national level, are considered to have valuable knowledge to understand both the West Sweden context and Agenda 2030 and transformation in general. Secondly, to identify what currently is blocking transformation and therefore needs to be addressed, but also recommendations already available, a broad approach was taken. This means that input was collected from multiple sources to gain a general understanding of the situation instead of a detailed scrutinization of few sources. Hence, only one or two data sources is used for each organisation, with the exception of the testing organisation where more sources were considered to also gain an understanding of the organisation in general. Thirdly, as the topic for this thesis is unlocking the potential for transformation, the focus is put on early interventions to be made. Attention is therefore not given to implementation of change processes or later stages of the change 8 1.5 Thesis outline To facilitate for the readers, the different chapters and a short summary of their content is described below. Chapter 1, this chapter, introduces the topic, the research setting and this thesis. Chapter 2 starts by introducing Agenda 2030 including a brief historical background and a description of its content. Thereafter, an introduction to theories which was used for this thesis is presented, theories covering sustainability, transformation, system thinking and stakeholder theory. Chapter 3 presents the analytical framework, a Transformation lens which was created to evaluate whether later identified elements potentially could help initiate, guide, or accelerate processes of transformation. Chapter 4 describes the research process and the methods which were used at different stages of the study. In Chapter 5, the findings from the study is presented. This includes results and a subsequent analysis of the results. Chapter 8 presents a synthesis of the findings from different sources and by that a summary of issues to attend to for transformational change based on the Agenda 2030. Chapter 7 contains a set of proposed recommendations based on the findings and the synthesis on how to engage with Agenda 2030 in a transformative way. Last, but not least, Chapter 8 is dedicated to discussions of the findings and recommendations, and their relations to theory and methodology. This chapter also includes knowledge contributions made by this thesis and suggested areas for future work. 9 2. Theoretical Framework This chapter presents theories and concepts that are central to this study and form the theoretical framework that was later used to interpret the data collected throughout the study. 2.1 Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals The historical context as well as the content of the Agenda 2030 are both helpful to understand what the Agenda 2030 is and what it aims to fulfil. These are presented in this section. The background of the Agenda 2030 can be traced back through a number of milestones related to sustainability through the history of United nations. An early milestone was the Conference on Environment and Development in Stockholm in 1972 (UN, 1972), the first major conference where for the issue of environment where acknowledged as a question of international interest. 15 years later, in 1987, the definition of sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, sec. 2.1) was presented alongside a call for a common effort to work towards sustainability. The first global agenda for sustainable development, Agenda 21, was presented in Rio 1992 (UN, 1992). The agenda addressed issues connected to social, economic, and ecological dimension of sustainability, but also promoted the strengthening of marginalised groups. It was confirmed by 178 world leaders and was set to be reached until year 2000. Agenda 21 had several positive implications on the global development, for example to emphasise the need to put “sustainable human development at the heart of development” (UN, 2012, p. 5), to produce international laws connected to sustainable development, and to emphasise the need to consider multiple stakeholders and include them in co-creative processes for sustainable development. However, few of the aspirational goals were met (United Nations, 2012). In year 2000, Agenda 21 was replaced by the United Nations Millennium Declaration, an agenda aiming to reach eight new sustainability goals by year 2015 (UNGA, 2000). The goals, which covered aspects such as poverty, education and health, were directed towards improving the conditions for people in developing countries. Huge efforts were mobilised in 10 the name of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and by the end of the time span, in developing countries the number of people suffering from extreme poverty had decreased from 47% in 1990 to 14 % in 2015, the imbalance between boys and girls attending primary school had been erased, and new HIV infections has decreased with nearly 40% (UN, 2015). In other words, important progress was made. However, the MDGs were criticised. Fehling et al. (2013), for example, pointed out in their meta-analysis of limitations of the MDGs that only a relatively small group of experts barely including representatives from developing countries generated the goals and that therefore “political agendas influenced the structure of the MDGs” (Fehling et al., 2013, p. 1111), that the one-sided focus on development countries which did not encourage engagement in industrialised countries, and that the MDGs only reflected a narrow share of sustainability issues and human needs. When the post-2015 agenda process started in 2012, there was an understanding that the new agenda must build on the knowledge gained from the previous processes (UNGA, 2014). As previously mentioned, one criticism against the MDGs was the non-inclusive creation process, so the post-2015 agenda process was done in the opposite way. Millions of people contributed with their thoughts through online and offline dialogues and surveys. Leaders of national and local governments, academics and experts, business representatives, youth groups, and civil society groups from all over the world were represented in the process, which lead to a global interest even before the agenda was officially launched (UNGA, 2014). Additionally, the outcomes of multiple previous summits were reaffirmed and included in the agenda. The agenda got the name Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and was in September 2015 signed by 193 world leaders. Agenda 2030 (UNGA, 2015) consists of several parts, where the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), shown in Figure 2.1 and Table 2-1, might, as of today, be the most well-known. However, the other parts are just as important, as they address the questions what, why, how and who. The Agenda presents a vision, alongside 17 goals, 169 targets and 230 indicators of what should be prioritized to achieve a sustainable world (IAEG-SDGs, 2016; UNGA, 2015). The vision intents to stimulate and guide actions between 2016-2030 with the aim to “free the human race from the tyranny of poverty and want and to heal and secure our planet” while ensuring “no one will be left behind” (UNGA, 2015, Preamble). Additionally, the Agenda recognises the need for a collaborative effort of all actors in society through global partnerships to realise the Agenda, with national governments having the responsibility for follow-up and review and translation of the Agenda to the national context. Some keywords words often referred to in the UN processes of the Agenda 2030 are important to understand its intention. First of all, the Agenda is meant to be transformative, meaning it is intended to radically change all aspects of our world that contributes to non- sustainability. In a summary of the post-2015 process, the United Nations write: Transformation is our aim. We must transform our economies, our environment and our societies. We must change old mindsets, behaviours and destructive patterns. We must embrace the integrated essential elements of dignity, people, prosperity, planet, justice and partnership. We must build cohesive societies, in pursuit of international peace and stability. And we must prioritize good international solutions through the prism of the national interest of every Member State (UNGA, 2014, para. 159) 11 Secondly, the Agenda 2030 is universal, meaning that it is relevant for all countries and all actors. The meaning of universal is two-fold, both pointing towards how the Agenda is directed to everyone and therefore must be a joint effort of everyone (Sachs, 2012), but also towards that the SDGs cannot be said to be achieved until they are being met everywhere, leaving no one behind (UNGA, 2015). Lastly, the Agenda and the SDGs should be seen as integrated and indivisible. The SDGs link the three dimensions of sustainability, social, economic and environmental, together “in a balanced and integrated manner” (UNGA, 2015, para. 2). The Agenda also recognises the interconnection between the SDGs, that activities towards one goal have consequences on other goals and that therefore the SDGs should be treated as one unit and not as a set of discrete goals to address one by one (International Council for Science, 2016; Singh et al., 2017; UNGA, 2015). Figure 2.1 The sustainable development goals presented as logos 12 Table 2-1 The 17 Sustainable Development Goals presented in their full form 1 End poverty in all its forms everywhere 2 End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture 3 Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages 4 Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all 5 Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls 6 Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all 7 Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all 8 Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all 9 Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation 10 Reduce inequality within and among countries 11 Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable 12 Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns 13 Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts 14 Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development 15 Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss 16 Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels 17 Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development 13 2.2 Sustainability and sustainable development As previously mentioned, sustainable development is defined by the UN as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, sec. I.2.27). The same document, also known as the Brundtland report, highlights three dimensions of sustainability, namely ecological, social and economic, as well as the importance that all three can be simultaneously fulfilled for sustainable development to be realised (Du Pisani, 2006). Despite this, it is only recently that all three dimensions are beginning to receive equal attention. In 2015, Holmberg (2015) proposed a framework of four dimensions, to incorporate the well- being aspect of current and future generations. More recently, the framework has been presented as a lighthouse model (Holmberg & Larsson, 2018). Since this model has been used in this thesis, it is explained in more detailed below. The Holmberg framework can be thought of as a set of principles within which development remains sustainable. In this model, each sustainability dimension is described by a set of conditions (or principles) that must be fulfilled to achieve sustainability. The three (out of four) socio-ecological principles for ecological sustainability are described in detail in Holmberg (1998) and Azar et al. (1996). Social sustainability refers to those conditions that preserve our ability to live together, whilst economic sustainability refers to distributing resources within and between generations. Conditions that ensure well-being take inspiration from a study by Max-Neef et. al (1989) where he proposes that human well-being is achieved when nine needs are fulfilled. Figure 2.2 The lighthouse model for sustainable development (Holmberg & Larsson, 2018) Starting from the requirement to simultaneously fulfil all the dimensions, it is clear that sustainable development is both complicated and complex, a so called wicked problem (Andersson et al., 2014). Like most wicked problems, they involve many stakeholders and no 14 clear answer to neither on what the actual problem nor possible solution is (Rittel & Webber, 1973). 2.3 Transformation The Agenda 2030 calls for a transformation, something that is implied already in the title Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. But what is included in the concept of transformation? Put in simple terms, transformation can be described as a fundamental change of a system (Elzen et al., 2004; EEA, 2017; Grin et al., 2010), often “abrupt, non-linear and disruptive” (EEA, 2017, p. 16). Transformation is commonly discussed within the field of sustainability (E.g. Grin et al., 2010; Loorbach et al., 2017; Westley et al., 2011), due to the need to fundamentally change the current, unsustainable system into a different reconfiguration to achieve sustainability (Loorbach et al., 2017; Sachs, 2015). The desired outcome of such transformation has been identified to vary across different contributions (Mccrory et al., 2018), but has for example been described as solving societal problems (Loorbach, 2014; Loorbach et al., 2017), to reach resilience and stay within planetary boundaries (Park et al., 2012; Rockström et al., 2009), to ensure transfer of the “desirable features of the current world for future generations” (O’Brien & Sygna, 2013, p. 3), or, as in the Agenda 2030, fulfilling the 17 SDGs with focus to eradicate global poverty (UNGA, 2015). Transformation towards sustainability requires interventions on system level, where addressing root causes of unsustainability in current systems should be sought for. Consequently, a wide range of aspects are suggested to be addressed, from institutions, structures, economic and financial systems, policy and regulatory systems and power relations, to world views, beliefs, mindsets, lifestyles and values (EEA, 2017; Meadows, 1997; Roorda et al., 2014), as they all interact and influence each other. In summary, there is a need to address personal, political and practical aspects in order to manage transformation towards sustainability (O’Brien & Sygna, 2013; Sharma, 2007). If transformation is essential to reach sustainability, the question arises, can it be engineered? The common answer among researchers seems to be no, however, this does not mean that transformations cannot be influenced. Firstly, the theory on leverage points (Meadows, 1997), explains how certain interventions work as levers, sparking changes with effects rippling throughout the system. These ripples are especially strong when the intent or design of the system is challenged (Abson et al., 2017). It can therefore be argued that transformation can be purposefully induced or initiated. Secondly, transformation can be guided, for instance through addressing problem solving in multi-stakeholder settings and providing spaces allowing for experimentation where the learning outcomes are incorporated into standard activities (Geels, 2005; Roorda et al., 2014). Thirdly, transformation can be accelerated, for example by purposeful spreading of ideas and solutions, and integration of them into ongoing practices. 15 2.4 Systems thinking and a multi-level perspective The complexity, uncertainty and interdependency of sustainability transitions, as well as their dynamic nature, call for a systems thinking approach (Williams et al., 2017). Systems thinking suggests a holistic view and analysis of systems and problems. Rather than breaking eventual problems in the system down to individual components, addressing them one by one; focus is placed on all components and how these are interconnected, including how they change over time. Reaching a sustainable state requires a shift in the current socio-technical systems towards a more sustainable one. Geels (2002, 2005) propose a multi-level perspective to explain how transitions in socio-technical systems occur (Figure 2.3). According to this model, multiple innovations (technological niches) that are in some way linked lead to the creation of a new socio-technical regime where the regime can be explained as “dominant and stable configuration in a societal system” (Loorbach et al., 2017, p. 605). Changes in the external environment (landscape) can create “windows of opportunity” (Geels, 2005, p. 685), where the new regime can challenge and eventually replace the old socio-technical regime. Figure 2.3 Multi-level perspective on transitions, figure from Geels (2005) Such mapping of a system can lead to the identification of leverage points, namely points within the system where an initially small change eventually can lead to a bigger shift (Meadows, 1997, 1999). Meadows suggested 12 points, ranging from more shallow interventions such as adjustment of constants, parameters and numbers, to deep interventions which questions the system and its goals and intents. Later it has been argued 16 that although the more shallow ones might be easier to adjust, only the deepest leverage points have the possibility to transform systems towards sustainability (Abson et al., 2017). Figure 2.4 shows the leverage points identified by Meadows with increasing potential of causing a shift, from shallow to deep, going from left to right. Figure 2.4 Leverage points by Meadows (1999) visualised by Composite Creative (2014) 2.5 Stakeholder theory Stakeholder theory recognises the need to manage and engage a wider group of interested parties than the shareholders of an organisation. This idea was first put forward by Freedman, who defines a stakeholder as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organisation’s objectives” (Freeman, 2010, p. 46). In addition, the normative perspective of stakeholder theory argues that stakeholders have an inherent value and a legitimate claim in an organisation’s activities based solely on their interest in that organisation (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). The importance of stakeholder management issues is widely recognised in the business world, and it is reflected by the extensive literature studies in this topic, as well as in the multiple models used for stakeholder identification and management (Bryson, 2004). In general, stakeholders must be identified, prioritised and appropriate levels and methods of involvement must be selected. For sustainability transitions, where multi-stakeholder involvement is needed, the decision of who to involve and to what extent is difficult but acknowledged of central importance. Here, a distinction must be made between involvement and influence: involving stakeholders does not necessarily mean allowing them to influence decision-making. Edelenbos and Klijn (2005) describe fives ways of involvement, with increasing levels of influence: informing, consulting, advising, co-producing and co-deciding. Thus, different stakeholder can be invited to participate with different expectations on engagement and involvement. For example, stakeholders with high interest and/or high power are usually invited for a high level of engagement. Correspondingly, investing resources on engaging low interest stakeholders is less likely to be beneficial (Jeffery, 2009). 17 In relation to addressing complex sustainability issues, the value of involving a wide range of stakeholders from a diverse backgrounds is commonly acknowledged (Mikalsen & Jentoft, 2001; Reed, 2008). First, it is recognised that there is a need to involve society in order to change the current regime. Second, there is a need for collaboration between different actors. The concept of the triple helix (Section 1.2) has been expanded to the quintuple helix, to include not only academia, industry and the public sector, but also civil society and the natural environment (Carayannis & Campbell, 2010, 2014, 2012). Carayannis et al. (2012) focus on the transfer of knowledge between these different actors. However, complementarity in power to influence, culture and perspectives are also likely to be important when addressing complex sustainability issues. Figure 2.5 The quintuple helix innovation model (Carayannis & Campbell, 2010) describing how the triple-helix actors academia, industry and public sector operates (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1995) within the societal sector, which in turn is limited by natural environment Once decisions are made on who to involve and to what extent, one needs a set of appropriate tools for stakeholder involvement. Below, the main tools used in Phase I of this study (Section 1.1) and later in the stakeholder interviews and feedback session (Chapter 4) are described. 2.5.1 Stakeholder dialogues, dialogue facilitation and dialogic leadership Dialogues is one possible way to involve stakeholders. Leroux (2017) makes a clear distinction between five different forms of dialogues. In short, these are: 18 1. Information - Stakeholders are informed. 2. Consultation - Stakeholders are invited to give their input. 3. Discussion and debate - Stakeholders present their opinion in an effort to influence and convince each other. 4. Thinking together - Stakeholders are open to the point of view of the other parties to reach mutual understanding and learning. 5. Deep dialogue - Issues that are beyond intellectual understanding, such as feelings and the subconscious, are considered. Going from 1 to 5, there is an increase in the extent of information flow, from unidirectional (1-2) to multidirectional (3-5). There is also a shift in the aim of stakeholder involvement from informing towards co-producing and co-deciding (see Section 2.5) when thinking together (4) or practising deep dialogue (5). By being open to others’ opinions, as one is in 4 and 5, trust is built within the group, collaboration is supported, and collective thinking can be achieved (Sandow & Allen, 2005). Additional benefits of involving stakeholders through such dialogues are that it incorporates multiple perspectives and it becomes a more democratic process; presumably leading to a better and more widely accepted results (Van De Kerkhof, 2006). Any form of dialogue requires facilitation to ensure the smooth and fruitful realisation of the process. Facilitating a dialogue appropriately requires preparation, practice, specific skills and appropriate tools. For example, it is important to be impartial and neutral, where impartiality refers to avoiding to align with any one side, whilst neutrality refers to regarding all opinions as different perspectives rather than positions one agrees or disagrees with (Leroux, 2017). One important tool for a facilitator is dialogic leadership, as it “can dissolve fragmentation and bring out people’s collective wisdom” (Isaacs, 1999, p. 2). According to this type of leadership, as a facilitator you should consider four functions during a dialogue: “speaking your true voice and encouraging others to do the same; listening as a participant; respecting the coherence of others’ views; and suspending your certainties” (Isaacs, 1999, p. 4). To fulfil these functions, the facilitator should seek to develop and practice four skills (Figure 2.6): • Listening - listen deeply and with an open mind to what others are saying, without imposing one's own interpretations, so that we reach a shared understanding • Respecting - allow others to express their opinion and try to make sense of the true meaning of what they are saying • Suspending - suspend the certainty that one's point of view is the correct one, without dismissing it but express it instead in a way that others can understand it • Voicing - voice what is true for one’s self 19 Figure 2.6 Four practices for dialogic leadership (Isaacs, 1999) 20 3. Analytical framework: the Transformation lens To answer our first research question What elements can be found that can support or suppress transformation, we aimed to conduct interviews to reveal current practices and analyse documents to extract existing recommendations with regards to how to engage with the Agenda. To support the extraction of relevant data from the documents, and to evaluate the current practices and existing recommendation for their transformative potential, it was necessary to create an analytical framework that could be used for this purpose. This analytical framework was named the Transformation lens. The Transformation lens is described below, while its application is described in the next chapter. The lens is primarily informed by conditions of transformation that are presented by Loorbach et al. (2017), Meadows (1997, 1999), and the Flagship report published by UNRISD (UNRISD, 2016)1. Loorbach et al. was selected as a recent and comprehensive study that is highly relevant for our research question as it reviews sustainability transition research. As it identifies the main shared concepts in this field, it provides insights to what could be a commonly accepted framework for sustainability transitions. Meadows was chosen for its concept of identifying leverage points, which potentially could induce transformation. The Flagship report was included since it specifically seeks to interprets Agenda 2030’s transformative purpose. Conditions of transformation were identified in the documents above based on the active contribution of these conditions in driving sustainability transformation as assessed by the documents’ authors. They were also selected to be in agreement with our own knowledge and understanding of sustainable transformation. They were summarised or directly extracted from each document and compared. When similarities were found, they were grouped together into criteria and broken down again into sub-criteria (Table 3-1). The sub- criteria were then re-formulated as indicators of transformative potential, specifically designed to answer the research question and sub-questions. Finally, the indicators were grouped in four categories based on their potential to purposefully initiate (category I), guide (categories II and III) and accelerate (category IV) sustainability transitions. The four categories are described below, and the indicators are summarised in Box 3-1. 1 This document will be referred to as Flagship report. 21 3.1 Initiate Initiate refers to the preconditions that need to be in place for transformation to begin to take place. The main topic identified in the Transformation lens refers to having a vision to work towards and a strategy to reach it. I. Vision of and strategy towards sustainability Starting from the vision of reaching sustainability, this set of indicators examine the requirements that presumably need to be fulfilled for sustainability to be realised, as well as the strategies that need to be employed in order to achieve this vision. As a first requirement, all three sustainability dimensions, as well as the interlinks between them, need to be considered. This requirement comes directly from the Agenda 2030, and it is based on the UN definition of sustainability (Section 2.1). Second, the vision of sustainability needs to be shared by those that are to implement it since collaboration is required for the vision to be achieved. This can be at an organizational level, but it can also be on a wider scale. The Agenda itself aspires for this vision to be global. In terms of the means to reach sustainable development, two factors are highlighted. One is the need for long-term planning in order to reach a sustainable future. The second is the need for indicators to systematically monitor the progress towards sustainability. 3.2 Guide Guide refers to the supportive framework that needs to be in place when sustainable transformation is under way. Two conditions were identified in the lens: the need to learn/experiment and the need for collaboration. II. Learning and experimenting This refers to the need for learning and experimenting as a means to reach a new state, in this case of sustainability. A learning/experimenting cyclic process, see Figure 3.1, can be used which consists of reflecting, rethinking, reshaping and experimenting. The starting point of this process is reflecting on the current situation, both individually but also within groups, such as a department or an organization. The current situation can refer to thoughts, actions, relationships, roles, knowledge, language and practices. The next step of rethinking refers to looking for new possibilities to change this current situation in a way that supports the vision of sustainability. Reshaping refers to planning and implementing actions that are taken as a result of the previous steps. Finally, experimenting allows testing those actions in practice. Repetition of this loop will mean an evaluation and adjustment of those actions so that they can better support reaching the vision of sustainability defined above. III. Collaboration towards a common goal This refers to the need for partnerships and collaboration in order to achieve the Agenda 2030 including its SDGs. On the one hand, the link between local actions and global effects must be understood and supported, as required by the Agenda. On the other hand, engaging multiple stakeholders is a condition necessary for sustainable transformation (Section 2.5). These stakeholders may come from different sectors of the quadruple helix, but they could also come from marginalized groups that are not organized in formal structures. 22 Figure 3.1 The learning cycle recommended for transformative learning. Inspired by Loorbach et al. 2017. 3.3 Accelerate Accelerate refers to those conditions that could contribute to shifting the current system towards a sustainable state at a faster rate. The conditions are framed in the context of socio- technical systems (Geels, 2005). IV. Transformation of socio-technical systems This refers to the need for transformation of the current unsustainable socio-technical system to a new and sustainable one, and the conditions that contribute to this transition. The transformation can be thought of as the result of two major components, that need to work in complementarity. The first component is questioning, disrupting and destabilizing the current regime or status quo, and particularly those aspects that are suppressing reaching a sustainable state. The second component is supporting innovative and/or transformational alternatives to become main stream options and replace the current regime. These alternatives can target transformation at different levels, for example technological, social and organisational. Reflect Rethink Reshape Experiment 23 Table 3-1 Data supporting the Transformation lens Flagship report and Meadows leverage Loorbach et al. 2017 Criteria Sub-criteria Indicators What elements could support or suppress: Lift voices of multiple groups, especially groups usually not heard Pay attention to multiple actors including radical outsiders, frontrunners, marginalised groups Promote multi- stakeholder involvement and inclusion Lift voices of multiple groups Pay attention to groups not usually heard e.g. radical outsiders, frontrunners, marginalised groups engagement of multiple stakeholders, including ones not normally heard? Consider all 3 aspects of sustainability from the start “Create a shared future orientation and guiding values” (p.608) Create a shared vision of sustainability as a guide Create a shared future orientation Consider all aspects of sustainability creating a shared vision of sustainability, based on guiding principles for example, and all aspects of sustainability are equally considered? Support and allow for test beds Create “space for experimentation and diversity in the short term, allowing for new solutions and ways of organising to emerge” (p.608). Experimentation can be at the technological, organisational, place- explicit, and governance levels. (experimentation can be transition arenas, scenarios, experiments) Support experimentation with solutions and new ways to work Create, support or allow for test beds Create, support or allow experimentation at the technological, organisation, place- explicit and governance level the existence of “space” for experimentation with solutions and new ways to work? 24 Flagship report and Meadows leverage Loorbach et al. 2017 Criteria Sub-criteria Indicators What elements could support or suppress: Share and spread knowledge within and between stakeholder groups Learning-by-doing and doing-by-learning “Social learning: reshaping interactions, roles, knowledge, language and practices” “Reflect, rethink, and reshape” thoughts and actions Support transformational learning Support sharing and spreading of knowledge Support Learn-by-doing or do-by-learning Promote or allow for reshaping interactions, roles, knowledge, language and practice Promote of allow for reflecting, rethinking or reshaping thoughts and actions reflection, rethinking and reshaping of thoughts, actions, relationships, roles, knowledge, language or practices? Question and challenge established world views and paradigms Challenge status quo regarding power structures, economic structures etc Empower/use strategies that can destabilise the current regime and/or lead to institutionalisation of emerging transitions “mobilise and empower disruptive innovations and transformative capacity” (p.612) Change needs to occur at the systemic level, and result in a qualitative change in the current social system Challenge current systems Question or challenge established world views and paradigms Challenge status quo regarding established societal structures such as power and economic structures Promotes or supports a qualitative change in the current social system Empower or use strategies that can destabilise the current regime challenging the current system towards reaching sustainable state? 25 Flagship report and Meadows leverage Loorbach et al. 2017 Criteria Sub-criteria Indicators What elements could support or suppress: Promote institutionalisation of innovative and transformative Empower/use strategies that lead to institutionalisation of emerging transitions institutionalisation of innovative and transformative Long-term horizon aim for long-term impact Aim towards the origins of a problem, not the symptom of it Plan long-term Plan with a long-term horizon Aim for long-term impact Address the origins of a problem, not the symptoms of it long-term planning towards a sustainable future? Consider both local and global consequences and effects Consider local and global consequences and effects Consider both local and global consequences and effects the understanding of the global and local impact of one’s actions? Transformative change involves multiple actors, and transparent and democratic political processes involving all those actors are also part of the 'transformation we want' Increase transparency Increase transparency an increase in the level of transparency? Promote democracy Promote democracy an increase in the level of democracy? Systematic transition monitoring and evaluation Monitor progress towards transformation Contribute to systematic transition monitoring or evaluation the evaluation of progress towards sustainable transformation? 26 Box 3-1 Indicators of sustainable transformation supporting Agenda 2030. Element refers to a tool, process, guideline, behaviour or opinion extracted from interviews or document analysis. Each indicator is labelled as Q1-Q11 for ease of reference. Initiate I. Vision of and strategy towards sustainability What elements could support or suppress: Q1. creating a vision of sustainability, based on guiding principles for example, that is shared and where all dimensions of sustainability and the interlinks between them are considered? Q2. a long-term perspective towards a sustainable future? Q3. evaluating the progress towards sustainable transformation? Guide II. Learning and experimenting What elements could support or suppress: Q4. the existence of “space” for experimentation with solutions and new ways to work? Q5. reflection, rethinking and reshaping of thoughts, actions, relationships, roles, knowledge, language or practices? III. Collaboration towards a common goal What elements could support or suppress: Q6. the understanding of the global and local impact of one’s actions? Q7. engagement of multiple stakeholders across different sectors, including ones that are marginalised and not normally heard? Accelerate IV. Transformation of socio-technical system What elements could support or suppress: Q8. challenging the current system towards reaching sustainable state? Q9. the institutionalisation of innovative and transformative solutions to sustainability challenges? Q10. an increase in the level of transparency? Q11. an increase in the level of democracy? 27 4. Method The thesis was conducted according to the current Challenge lab process described in Section 1.1, and it therefore consists of two phases, namely Phase I and II. Phase I was a preparatory phase that led to the identification of the research question. Phase II refers to the work done to address the formulated research question: How might the transformative potential of Agenda 2030 be unlocked in a multi-stakeholder environment? This section describes the research process applied in Phase II to address the research question, and a visual representation of the whole research process is visualised in Figure 4.1 In general terms, the research process of Phase II consists of four steps: collection, generation, testing and ending as follows: 1. Collection: data were collected from interviews with stakeholders and from written documents describing how to engage with Agenda 2030. In the initial stages, this work served to validate our Phase I preliminary findings and our research question. Later, the findings were analysed using the Transformation lens described in Chapter 3, and the outcome became the foundation for step 2: generation. 2. Generation: the findings were synthesised to generate a set of proposed recommendations on how to engage with Agenda 2030 in a transformative way. 3. Testing: feedback regarding these recommendations was obtained during a workshop with Johanneberg Science Park, an organisation coordinating multi-actor collaborations, which seeks to engage with the Agenda. 4. Finalise: the feedback was used to verify and improve the proposed recommendations. Step 1 is described in Sections 4.1 and 4.2., step 2 in Section 4.3, steps 3-4 in Section 4.4. 28 Figure 4.1 Outline of research process 29 4.1 Stakeholder interviews This section will describe the process of conducting, interpreting, and analysing stakeholder interviews. The aim of the interviews was two-fold: (i) to identify elements supporting or supressing transformation and (ii) to learn more about the organisation in which testing later would be conducted. Interviewing is a method which allows for the researchers to collect qualitative data regarding “views, experiences, beliefs and/or motivations of individuals on specific matters” (Gill et al., 2008, p. 292). These insights can be used to generate a deeper understanding of the topic covered in the interview. In brief, the semi-structured interviews were used to collect data, while thematic network mapping was used for analysis. As part of the analysis, the Transformation lens was used to interpret the transformative potential of the findings. The process is visualised in Figure 4.2. Figure 4.2 Overview of the steps taken to gather and analyse interview data 4.1.1 Conducting the interviews Interviews were conducted with 18 individuals representing 10 organisations (including the organisation where recommendations later were tested, see Section 4.4). These people were identified through “snowballing” (Yin, 2011) where each interviewee was asked for recommendations on other individuals or organisations to contact. From the recommendations, interviewees were chosen to together cover all perspectives in four areas: geographical focus (local, regional, and national level), societal segment (industry, academia, public sector, and civil society), type of Agenda engagement (policy making, consulting and implementing), and responsibility within the organisation (executives, managers, employees, Transformation lens (Indicators of sustainability transformation) 2. Extraction and coding of relevant material 1. Interviewing followed by digitalisation of notes 4. Evaluation of extracted data 3. Generation of themes and thematic networks 30 consultants). A list of represented organisations can be found in Error! Reference source not f ound.. Table 4-1 Table of the organisations represented in the stakeholder interviews. For each organisation, its geographical focus, the societal segment it represents, and in what way it engages with the Agenda 2030 is presented. The organisation where the recommendations later were tested is marked with an asterisk. Organisation Geographical focus Societal segment Agenda engagement Chalmers University of Technology Local/regional /national Academia Consulting Development Perspectives Local (Ireland) Civil Consulting FN-förbundet National/local Civil Consultant Johanneberg Science Park* Local Industry Implementing PwC Local (Sweden and England) Industry Consultant SDSN North Europe Local Academia Consulting Sveriges kommuner och Landsting (SKL) Local/regional /national Public Consulting The Swedish Agenda 2030 delegation National Public Policy maker/ consulting Västra Götalandsregionen (VGR) Regional Public Implementing/ policy making Västtrafik Regional Public/ industry Implementing In total 16 interviews were held, each with one to three interviewees present. The interviews were conducted either in person at the interviewees offices (seven interviews), through Skype (four interviews) or through phone (five interviews). The interviews lasted between 15 and 130 minutes, with phone calls between 15-30 minutes and Skype and live conversations ranging from 70 to 130 minutes. Both authors of this thesis participated during the interviews: one person led the conversation while the other one took notes by hand and filled in with questions and clarifications when needed. The interviews conducted in person or through Skype were after approval from the interviewees recorded with either a mobile phone or a computer software. During phone interviews, no recordings were done. All interviewees were granted anonymity when participating. After each interview, the notes were digitalised. Additionally, supported by the recordings, information that was missed or misinterpreted in the notes was adjusted, and descriptive quotes were added. This material laid the foundation for the interview analysis described in next section. For the interviews, a semi-structured setup based on an interview protocol (Yin, 2011, p. 139) made it possible to have a living conversation while still being able to control that all topics of interest were covered. Additionally, probing was used to seek for clarifications when answers were vague and to deepen the understanding of the reasoning behind the answers (Yin, 2011). The protocol was based on nine topics, shown in Table 4-2, which together covered the aspects why, how, when and who in relations the Agenda, but also other aspects such as what 31 sustainability is and what would be required for change to happen. The choice of topics was done to identify elements, such as opinions, actions, and recommendations which either supported or suppressed transformation. As the interviews proceeded, more knowledge was gained regarding the topics and therefore, the details in the interview protocol was continuously updated to confirm previously gained knowledge and expand with new knowledge, but one example of an interview protocol can be found in Appendix A. Table 4-2 Topics covered in stakeholder interviews Vision/definition of sustainability Intention, purpose and vision with Agenda Incentives for engaging with Agenda Current and desired engagement with the Agenda Roles/responsibilities in fulfilling the Agenda Role of networks and collaborations in achieving the Agenda Challenges and barriers engaging with the Agenda Opportunities and strengths with Agenda Transformation and change From Phase I it was assumed that the Agenda is often not used in a transformative way (see Section 1.1.2). To investigate these assumptions in the context of this thesis, the first interviews put more emphasis on the topics “Current and desired engagement with the Agenda” and “Intention, purpose and vision with Agenda”, to allow for verification of the assumptions. As will be shown in Section 5.1.1, the findings were in line with the assumptions and consequently the research topic could be considered relevant and the process could continue as initially planned. As mentioned above, one purpose of the interviews was to gain information regarding the organisation in which testing of the generated recommendations later would be conducted. This was done through four interviews with three employees: three with the CEO and one with two project managers. During the interviews, in addition to the topics discussed in the other interviews, topics such as organisational structure and processes for internal reformation were addressed. This knowledge was used to design a workshop where testing of the recommendation could be done with content adapted for the organisation (see Section 4.4). 4.1.2 Mapping and analysis of interview data The data from the interviews were interpreted through thematic mapping, which is a method to identify common themes within sets of data and interpret them in relation to theories and the dataset itself (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2012). Thematic mapping is done by identifying reoccurring patterns within the data set and group them into themes which can be reported and interpreted (Aronson, 1995; Attride-Stirling, 2001; Braun & Clarke, 2012). The first step of doing this is to collect extracts from the notes. From each interview, all quotes or comments which addressed any of the topics from the 32 interview protocol, or in any other way relating to the research question was extracted. An extract could therefore be a description of the current state, a process for doing something, an observation, or an opinion. The extracts were grouped together under the respective topics. Furthermore, the extracts which did not fit into any of the existing topics but still added knowledge relevant for the research questions were collected and grouped as miscellaneous. The next step was to identify themes within the extracts and map them into networks which was done according to the process proposed by Attride-Stirling (2001). In the theme identification process, the extracts were coded, issues discussed under each code identified, and preliminary themes which encapsulated the issues as well as underlying assumptions to the issues were created. These themes were then clustered into networks of themes relating to similar matters. These steps were iterated until all major insights from the data was captured within the themes and the themes could be said to represent the data (Attride- Stirling, 2001). In doing this, the definition of theme was taken from Braun & Clarke (2006, p. 10), that a theme should “capture something important about the data in relation to the research question, and represents some level of patterned response or meaning within the data set”. When a draft of the thematic network map was created, the other person verified the themes. The mapping were considered done when both researchers were satisfied with the identified themes and networks, which means when all data addressing the research question were represented in the themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2012), the themes reflected the content of the data, and the conditions regarding internal homogeneity and external heterogeneity (Patton, 1990), themes are non-overlapping and internally consistent, were fulfilled. As a final step of analysis, the Transformation lens described in Section 3 was applied to the themes and networks. By doing this, elements that presumably supported or suppressed transformation could be identified and gathered, later to be used in the generation of recommendations. 4.2 Document analysis An analysis of documents describing how to engage with Agenda 2030 was performed according to Bowen (2009). Briefly, the method was first used to extract data on current recommendations on how to engage with Agenda 2030 (Section 4.2.1). Subsequently, it was used to identify elements that could support or suppress transformation (Section 4.2.2). Finally, the method was adapted to investigate the transformative potential of the extracted elements. Document analysis was used in combination with the analytical framework (Chapter 3), as described in detail below (Section 4.2.2). 4.2.1 Document selection A snowball approach was used for initial document selection: documents were found during desk research on Agenda 2030 and background research in preparation for stakeholder interviews. In some cases, they were mentioned by the interviewees. Subsequently, documents were selected for analysis based on the following criteria (adapted from Bowen, 2009): 33 • Relevance to the research purpose • Authenticity and credibility: documents are published by a credible organization that is largely independent of the UN and retrieved from the original source • Representativeness: actors of the triple helix are represented by at least one document to include academic, industry and public-sector perspectives 4.2.2 Document analysis The document analysis was performed in four steps, as described below and summarised in Figure 4.3. First, documents were read to obtain an initial understanding of their content. Content was found to mainly consist of tools, recommended actions, processes and guidelines. Second, data was extracted from each document according to the following questions: a. For whom are the recommendations written? b. What do the recommendations contain? c. How do the recommendations suggest engaging with Agenda 2030? d. Why do they recommend engaging with the Agenda in this way? This data was summarised and is presented in Appendix B. Third, data relating to each indicator of the Transformation lens (Chapter 3) was extracted from each of the document summaries. This allowed focusing on data that relates to transformation. When appropriate, extracted data were supplemented based on the reader’s own understanding of the entirety of the documents and by revisiting the original source. Documents were revisited several times to ensure that sufficient and relevant data were extracted. To help extract data specifically relating to transformation, key words derived from the indicators were used (codes). The codes were selected so as to focus but not unnecessarily limit the search of transformative elements. For example, vision was chosen over shared vision (Q1), long-term over long-term perspective (Q2) etc (Table 5-6). All codes are presented in Section 5.2. The codes were used to search the extracted information and identify issues discussed across the different sources. Using these codes also served to collectively look at the issues discussed by each source and to thus derive elements that were common across all documents. Finally, once described, the elements were assessed for their potential to support or suppress transformation. In order to do this assessment, the analytical framework together with additional knowledge from theories and the Agenda was applied. 34 Figure 4.3 Method used to extract and evaluate data from documents. Document content analysis involves becoming familiar with the content of each document (step i). This was followed by data extraction (step ii). Element identification and synthesis was done by applying indicator-derived codes to the extracted data and, when necessary the original documents (steps iii). Identified elements were judged for their transformative potential using the Transformation lens. 4.3 Generating our recommendations To generate our recommendations, key elements in the documents and interviews were identified, and their importance was evaluated based on the Transformation lens. Within these elements, similarities, overlaps and complementarity as well as differences and contradictions were identified and used to create our recommendations. Additional theories from published literature were incorporated into generating the recommendations when needed. 4.4 Stakeholder feedback session The generated recommendations were tested to evaluate their relevance and applicability. This was done through a stakeholder feedback session, which will be described below. To test how the recommendations were received in an organization, a workshop was held with 10 of the 18 employees at Johanneberg Science Park, a science park connected to Chalmers University of Technology with sustainability in its core (Mats Berg, Personal Communication, March 1, 2018). In the workshop, the participants got to experience parts of what is found in the recommendations through dialogues in a World Café setting (Brown et al., 2001) which allowed them to have generative dialogues and collectively explore the questions. Further documentation about the workshop can be found in Appendix C. Transformation lens (Indicators of sustainability transformation) 2. Data extraction (for whom, what, how, why) 1. Document Content Analysis 4. Evaluation of extracted data 3. Element identification and synthesis Codes generated from indicators 35 5. Results and analysis This chapter describes the data and conclusions that were obtained from the interviews and the document analysis, in the light of the Transformation lens. In the last section of the chapter, these insights are combined and elements to consider for transformative engagement are presented. 5.1 Stakeholder interview findings Two categories of results, each accompanied by a set of sub-categories, came out from the stakeholder interviews: descriptions of current engagement and attitudes towards the Agenda. The examples of how the represented organisations currently engage with the Agenda provided a background to understand the attitudes. Both these categories will be described in the following sections. 5.1.1 Current engagement A range of different types of engagement with the Agenda was identified. However, these could be clustered into three groups where each group shared some distinct characteristics. The three clusters were: backwards confirmation, forward guiding, and teaching/counselling. However, there were no distinct borders between these clusters but rather a continuum. This section will describe the clusters and discuss the transformative potential (as described in Section 3) in each one of them. Backwards confirmation Figure 5.1 A graphical representation of the engagement described as backwards confirmation, the SDGs are used as a check-list to compare ongoing or planned initiatives against. The most common type of engagement could be described as backwards confirmation, where an action was initiated and then compared to the Agenda, or more often compared to the 36 SDGs. This way of engagement often results in business-as-usual approaches, possibly with incremental changes towards sustainability. There were several versions of backwards confirmation. The first type of observed backward confirmation was to either only look at ongoing actions and remark how they relate to the SDGs, or to prioritise contribution to goals where connections to already ongoing activities are obvious. For now [we] only engage with SDGs on level ‘which ones to we contribute to’ to write it in sustainability report [i3] Mostly, what I have seen is that they [other organisations] choose different goals that they want to work more with or where they feel ‘we can contribute more in this field’ [i5] The second type of engagement is to use the SDGs as a checklist to decide whether projects or initiatives is allowed to continue or not. We do a little project description, that is our own process that describes the [organisation’s] part in a big project. [Before, we] wrote something about the environmental and wrote something about the social. But now we […] take this picture [the SDG map] and make a mark which one of these that you relate to, and perhaps describe one line about it. So instead of writing something about economic sustainability then in that case it's like do you mean responsible consumption or someone else. [i9] [We] plan to use the SDGs to screen projects at the beginning, when the project is an idea. If the project relates to, say 3 SDGs, then go ahead with it, if not, drop it [i8] The transformative potential of this type of engagement is questionable. The first indicator of the Transformation lens concerns initiation of transformation