Grassroots innovations in community energy: The role of intermediaries in niche development

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present an in-depth analysis of intermediary work in the UK community energy sector and find that intermediaries adopt a variety of methods to try and diffuse generic lessons about context-specific projects, but that trying to coordinate support for local projects that exist amidst very different social and political circumstances is challenging.

Abstract: Community energy projects are attracting increasing attention as potential sources of innovation to support sustainable energy transitions. Research into ‘grassroots innovations’ like community energy often recognises the difficulties they face in simply surviving let alone in growing or seeding wider change. Strategic niche management theory is potentially helpful here as it highlights the important roles played by ‘intermediary actors’ in consolidating, growing and diffusing novel innovations. This paper presents the first in-depth analysis of intermediary work in the UK community energy sector. New empirical evidence was gathered through interviews with 15 community energy intermediaries and a content analysis of 113 intermediary-produced case studies about community energy projects. Analysis finds intermediaries adopting a variety of methods to try and diffuse generic lessons about context-specific projects, but that trying to coordinate support for local projects that exist amidst very different social and political circumstances is challenging. This is exacerbated by the challenges of building a coherent institutional infrastructure for a sector where aims and approaches diverge, and where underlying resources are uncertain and inconsistent. Applications of relatively simple, growth-oriented approaches like strategic niche management to grassroots innovations need to be reformulated to better recognise their diverse and conflicted realities on the ground.

Summary

2. Intermediaries and grassroots innovation

• Seyfang and Smith highlight the ‘grassroots’ as ‘‘a neglected site of innovation for sustainability’’ (Seyfang and Smith, 2007, p. 585).
• Whilst early work in niche theory tended to focus on single projects and experiments (e.g. Hoogma et al., 2002), the focus has since shifted to try and understand how lessons and experiences from across multiple local projects get exchanged and distributed to form, gradually, a shared development trajectory for the emerging innovation sector as a whole.
• Here, by virtue of their ability to interface with a large number of different local projects, intermediaries are seen as uniquely placed to ‘‘compare experiences in different locations, reflect on differences and draw general conclusions’’ (Geels and Deuten, 2006, p. 267).
• Such an infrastructure consists of forums that enable (and induce) the gathering and interaction of actors, the exchange of experiences and the organisation of collective action.

3. Researching community energy intermediaries in the UK

• Small-scale, sustainable energy projects led by local communities have recently flourished in the UK.
• Community energy projects thus encompass a wide range of novel sociotechnical arrangements, including the development of new ownership and funding models to ensure benefits are shared throughout communities; new approaches to support the deployment of renewable technologies at a community-scale, as well as new organisational structures to ensure community-involvement in decision-making (e.g. Hielscher et al., 2013).
• Some of these Please cite this article in press as: Hargreaves, T., et al., Grassroots inno development.
• //dx.doi.org/10.1 initiatives were solely designed to boost activity within the community sector, often by providing funds to intermediary organisations in order that they could advise local community groups over the development of projects, also known as Change (2013), http.
• As such, and of necessity, in this paper the results of the content analysis have a dual-status acting a To preserve anonymity, all interviewees have been assigned a unique identifier.

4. Findings: intermediaries and intermediation in UK community energy

• Following Geels and Deuten’s model, this section structures their findings according to the three key roles intermediaries are theorised to play in niche development processes: aggregation and learning (Section 4.1); establishing an institutional infrastructure (Section 4.2) and framing and coordinating local project activities (Section 4.3) (Geels and Deuten, 2006).
• The authors findings suggest, however, that UK community energy intermediaries are increasingly playing a fourth, new role in which they are seen to broker and coordinate partnerships with actors beyond the niche.
• This new role is outlined in Section 4.4.

4.1. Aggregating lessons from local community energy projects

• The first role Geels and Deuten identify for intermediaries is one of ‘aggregating’ lessons from across a range of local innovation projects in order to identify general and abstracted principles and lessons for the emerging niche as a whole (Geels and Deuten, 2006).
• Within the UK community energy sector, a key means by which intermediaries have attempted to gather and aggregate this knowledge is through the production of case studies about specific local projects.
• On the one hand, the lessons learnt are so diverse that it is neither obvious nor automatic for other local projects to identify which ones might be applicable for them, whilst on the other hand, some lessons can be so locally-specific that they may have little wider applicability.
• By contrast, others suggested they could be potentially demotivating and even disempowering because such ‘success stories’ offered little detail on the processes gone through, the challenges faced and the pitfalls experienced which can leave people feeling that ‘‘the authors can’t do that here’’ (NN3).
• Where case studies focus on whole projects, these toolkits and handbooks thus focus instead on specific elements of local projects (e.g. around organisational structures; funding models; communications and consultation techniques etc.) and, as a result, are beginning to identify and aggregate together some common processes.

4.2. Establishing an institutional infrastructure for UK community energy

• The second key role that Geels and Deuten identify for intermediaries involves the creation of an institutional infrastructure that serves as a repository and forum for the storage, exchange and circulation of aggregated, global knowledge (Geels and Deuten, 2006).
• Please cite this article in press as: Hargreaves, T., et al., Grassroots inno development.
• Nonetheless, their interviewees suggested that, in practice, the Communities and Climate Action Alliance struggled to find this common voice: Within the [Communities and Climate Action Alliance]. . .I think the problem is that there is not necessarily a common voice.
• In addition to these challenges of finding a common voice or set of aims and approaches, several interviewees highlighted that the lack of resources in this sector, as heightened in the ‘age of austerity’, means that efforts to share resources and learning and to network together were often extremely fragile.

4.3. Framing and coordinating community energy action on the ground

• For Geels and Deuten, the third key role for intermediaries is one in which they begin to frame and coordinate action inside local projects (Geels and Deuten, 2006).
• It is perhaps expected, therefore, that this third, framing and coordinating role may prove similarly challenging.
• . .to take it back to a level where you could imagine a group in a room, someone would be able to understand it and then explain it to others (NN5).
• Whilst the difficulties of replicating local projects due to local contextual difficulties and the need to go beyond knowledge transfer to build the confidence and capabilities of local projects were the key issues their interviewees identified in relation to their framing and coordinating role, two further points also deserve attention here.
• In relation to the first point, their analysis suggested that different parts of the UK community energy sector face different pressures and challenges and may therefore require different forms of support and framing or coordination from intermediaries.

4.4. Brokering and managing partnerships

• As the previous section highlighted, their analysis suggests that community energy intermediaries increasingly find themselves playing a fourth role, one of brokering and managing partnerships between local community energy projects and other actors from outside the community energy sector – particularly major energy companies.
• Here, the local project has negotiated a deal in which a developer provided capital funding for fifteen wind turbines, and the Development Trust can pay back the capital cost of one turbine over time through the revenue generated.
• For these reasons, their interviewees also suggested that attempts to lobby policy makers had so far been far from successful: . .I got access to the Secretary of State every now and again, more or less when you’re pouring out a cup of tea, [but].

5. Discussion and conclusions

• This paper started by identifying a key problem that, whilst local community-led sustainability initiatives may be critical in developing solutions to sustainability problems, these same ‘grassroots innovations’ (Seyfang and Smith, 2007) also often face profound challenges in simply surviving, let alone in growing and diffusing more widely.
• Specifically, their analysis has shown, first, that learning must be seen as a constant and ongoing process both for local community energy projects and for intermediaries themselves.
• The authors analysis suggests that the UK community energy sector may currently contain aspects of both simple and strategic niches existing side-by-side.
• As a result, grassroots intermediation seems likely to require different kinds of support.
• In conclusion, whilst the authors have found Geels and Deuten’s model to be very helpful in outlining the core roles played by intermediaries, their findings illustrate that care and sensitivity needs to be taken when transposing theories of transition and strategic niche management to grassroots innovations (Geels and Deuten, 2006).

Figures

Fig. 1. Local projects and emerging technical trajectories. Source: Geels and Deuten (2006), p. 274.

Table 2 Examples of community energy handbooks and toolkits.

Table 1 Table of interviewees.

Full text

Grassroots
innovations
in
community
energy:
The
role
of
intermediaries
in
niche
development
Tom
Hargreaves
a,
*
,
Sabine
Hielscher
b
,
Gill
Seyfang
a
,
Adrian
Smith
b
a
Science,
Society
and
Sustainability
Research
Group
(3S),
School
of
Environmental
Sciences,
University
of
East
Anglia,
Norwich
NR4
7TJ,
UK
b
Science
and
Technology
Policy
Research
Unit
(SPRU),
University
of
Sussex,
Brighton
BN1
9QE,
UK
1.
Introduction
Realising
a
sustainable
society
is
increasingly
seen
as
demand-
ing
a
fundamental
transition
in
the
way
a
whole
range
of
different
societal
functions
–
from
energy
to
water
and
from
food
to
mobility
–
are
met
(Elzen
et
al.,
2004).
Whilst
scholars
working
in
the
field
of
innovation
studies
have
increasingly
come
to
see
novel
innova-
tions
emerging
from
small-scale
and
relatively
protected
‘niches’
(Geels,
2005),
to
date,
the
majority
of
this
work
has
focused
on
market-based
innovations
designed
for
competitiveness,
rather
than
more
novel
socio-technical
alternatives
emerging
from
civil
society
activism
on
sustainability
(Smith
et
al.,
2010).
In
this
context,
an
emerging
body
of
work
has
come
to
focus
on
radical
‘grassroots
innovations’
–
those
that
challenge
and
often
attempt
to
replace
existing
and
unsustainable
sociotechnical
systems
–
as
an
arena
that
might
be
developed
(Seyfang
and
Smith,
2007).
At
the
same
time,
however,
whilst
many
community
activists
and
increasingly
policy
makers,
seek
to
promote
their
growth
and
diffusion,
much
of
the
existing
work
on
grassroots
innovations
has
identified
the
significant
difficulties
they
face
in
simply
surviving,
let
alone
in
having
a
substantial
influence
over
wider
unsustainable
systems.
In
trying
to
understand
how
grassroots
innovations
might
overcome
these
challenges,
we
focus
in
this
paper
on
the
roles
played
by
‘intermediary’
actors
in
the
grassroots
innovation
process.
Within
the
literature
on
niches,
intermediaries
are
identified
as
playing
a
number
of
important
roles
in
helping
niches
to
develop
and
become
more
robust
(Geels
and
Deuten,
2006).
Specifically,
intermediaries
connect
specific
and
often
isolated
local
innovation
projects
with
one
another
and
with
the
wider
world
(Howells,
2006).
Through
this
‘relational
work’
(Moss,
2009)
they
are
able
to
identify
common
issues
and
problems
encountered
across
multiple
local
projects,
and
can
therefore
support
niche
development
and
diffusion
by
sharing
this
knowledge
more
widely,
helping
subsequent
projects
to
benefit
from
accumulated
experience.
To
date,
however,
very
little
work
has
examined
the
role
of
intermediaries
in
sustainability
niches
and
still
less
has
examined
the
nature
and
extent
of
the
roles
they
may
play
in
helping
grassroots
innovations
to
develop
and
grow.
Such
development
and
growth
is
an
important
issue
and
one
that
is
increasingly
sought
by
policy
makers
and
by
many
community
activists.
At
the
Global
Environmental
Change
xxx
(2013)
xxx–xxx
A
R
T
I
C
L
E
I
N
F
O
Article
history:
Received
21
August
2012
Received
in
revised
form
14
February
2013
Accepted
17
February
2013
Keywords:
Strategic
niche
management
Intermediary
actors
Grassroots
innovation
Community
energy
A
B
S
T
R
A
C
T
Community
energy
projects
are
attracting
increasing
attention
as
potential
sources
of
innovation
to
support
sustainable
energy
transitions.
Research
into
‘grassroots
innovations’
like
community
energy
often
recognises
the
difficulties
they
face
in
simply
surviving
let
alone
in
growing
or
seeding
wider
change.
Strategic
niche
management
theory
is
potentially
helpful
here
as
it
highlights
the
important
roles
played
by
‘intermediary
actors’
in
consolidating,
growing
and
diffusing
novel
innovations.
This
paper
presents
the
first
in-depth
analysis
of
intermediary
work
in
the
UK
community
energy
sector.
New
empirical
evidence
was
gathered
through
interviews
with
15
community
energy
intermediaries
and
a
content
analysis
of
113
intermediary-produced
case
studies
about
community
energy
projects.
Analysis
finds
intermediaries
adopting
a
variety
of
methods
to
try
and
diffuse
generic
lessons
about
context-
specific
projects,
but
that
trying
to
coordinate
support
for
local
projects
that
exist
amidst
very
different
social
and
political
circumstances
is
challenging.
This
is
exacerbated
by
the
challenges
of
building
a
coherent
institutional
infrastructure
for
a
sector
where
aims
and
approaches
diverge,
and
where
underlying
resources
are
uncertain
and
inconsistent.
Applications
of
relatively
simple,
growth-oriented
approaches
like
strategic
niche
management
to
grassroots
innovations
need
to
be
reformulated
to
better
recognise
their
diverse
and
conflicted
realities
on
the
ground.
ß
2013
Elsevier
Ltd.
All
rights
reserved.
*
Corresponding
author.
Tel.:
+44
0
1603
593116;
fax:
+44
0
1603
593739.
E-mail
address:
tom.hargreaves@uea.ac.uk
(T.
Hargreaves).
G
Model
JGEC-1084;
No.
of
Pages
13
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Hargreaves,
T.,
et
al.,
Grassroots
innovations
in
community
energy:
The
role
of
intermediaries
in
niche
development.
Global
Environ.
Change
(2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.008
Contents
lists
available
at
SciVerse
ScienceDirect
Global
Environmental
Change
jo
ur
n
al
h
o
mep
ag
e:
www
.elsevier
.co
m
/loc
ate/g
lo
envc
h
a
0959-3780/$
–
see
front
matter
ß
2013
Elsevier
Ltd.
All
rights
reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.008

same
time,
not
all
grassroots
innovations
do
wish
to
grow
and
diffuse
and
it
is
therefore
important
to
be
critical
of
policy
goals
as
well
as
analytical
approaches
that
seek
to
simplify
and
standardise
this
highly
diverse
field.
With
these
concerns
in
mind,
our
paper
focuses
on
how
intermediary
actors
engage
with
the
diverse
forms
of
grassroots
innovation
being
developed
within
the
field
of
community
energy
in
the
UK
–
a
field
that
has
received
a
great
deal
of
policy
attention
in
recent
years
because,
if
growth
and
diffusion
could
be
achieved,
it
has
the
potential
to
make
a
substantial
contribution
to
tackling
current
energy
challenges
(e.g.
Walker
et
al.,
2007).
Examples
of
community
energy
intermediaries
include
the
Centre
for
Sustainable
Energy;
or,
operating
on
a
more
regional
basis,
Community
Energy
Scotland.
Both
help
to
initiate
new
community
energy
projects,
provide
training
and
advice
to
practitioners,
and
undertake
research
and
policy
analysis
on
community
energy
making
this
available
to
local
projects.
Section
2
introduces
the
literature
on
grassroots
innovations,
niches
and
intermediaries
more
broadly,
before
Section
3
outlines
the
UK
community
energy
sector
and
the
methodological
approach
adopted
in
this
study.
Drawing
on
interviews
with
15
intermediary
actors
working
within
UK
community
energy,
as
well
as
a
content
analysis
of
113
case
studies
produced
by
intermediary
actors
about
local
community
energy
projects,
Section
4
then
details
the
different
roles
played,
and
challenges
faced,
by
intermediaries
working
in
this
area.
Finally,
Section
5
draws
some
conclusions
for
future
research
on
and
theorising
about
grassroots
innovations.
2.
Intermediaries
and
grassroots
innovation
Seyfang
and
Smith
highlight
the
‘grassroots’
as
‘‘a
neglected
site
of
innovation
for
sustainability’’
(Seyfang
and
Smith,
2007,
p.
585).
Understanding
‘grassroots’
to
refer
to
initiatives
undertaken
by
committed
activists
within
civil
society
arenas,
they
highlight
a
number
of
important
ways
in
which
grassroots
innovations
differ
from
the
more
mainstream,
market-based
innovations
that,
to
date,
have
been
the
mainstay
of
both
empirical
research
and
theoretical
development
in
innovation
studies
(Geels,
2005).
These
differences
include:
distinct
organisational
forms
(firms
vs.
a
wide
range
of
organisational
types
encompassing
co-ops,
voluntary
associations,
informal
community
groups
etc.);
different
resource
bases
(commercial
income
vs.
voluntary
labour,
grant
funding
etc.);
divergent
contextual
situations
(the
market
economy
vs.
the
social
economy);
alternative
driving
motivations
(the
pursuit
of
profit
vs.
meeting
social
needs
or
pursuing
ideological
commit-
ments);
and
the
pursuit
of
qualitatively
different
kinds
of
sustainable
development
(mainstream
business
greening
vs.
radical
reform
of
sociotechnical
systems)
(Seyfang
and
Smith,
2007,
p.
592).
It
is
the
nature
of
these
differences,
the
fact
that
grassroots
innovations
exist
in
spaces
where
‘the
rules
are
different’
from
(and
at
times
oppositional
to)
the
mainstream,
that
makes
grassroots
innovations
a
profoundly
interesting
and
challenging
site
for
the
application
and
development
of
niche-
based
innovation
theories.
Since
Seyfang
and
Smith’s
work,
a
growing
number
of
studies
have
examined
how
various
kinds
of
grassroots
organisations
are
either
seeking
to
influence
innovation
processes
from
the
outside
(e.g.
Elzen
et
al.,
2011;
Geels
and
Verhees,
2011),
or
are
actively
engaged
in
innovation
processes
themselves.
For
example,
recent
studies
have
looked
at
grassroots
innovations
in
eco-housing
and
eco-villages
(Avelino
and
Kunze,
2009;
Seyfang,
2009;
Smith,
2007);
complementary
currencies
(Longhurst,
2012)
organic
and
local
food
systems
(Smith,
2006a);
and
energy
(Geels
and
Verhees,
2011;
Hielscher
et
al.,
2013).
Common
across
many
of
these
case
studies,
however,
is
the
identification
of
the
profound
difficulties
grassroots
innovations
face
even
in
simply
surviving
in
the
medium
to
longer
term,
let
alone
in
growing,
diffusing
or
challenging
mainstream
systems.
Seyfang
and
Smith
categorise
these
challenges
into
two
forms
(Seyfang
and
Smith,
2007).
Intrinsic
challenges
refer
to
internally
focused
issues
of
how
grassroots
innovations
are
organised
and
managed,
the
skills
and
resources
they
require,
and
the
ways
in
which
this
can
leave
them
vulnerable
to
wider
shocks,
such
as
funding
cuts,
loss
of
key
people,
or
changes
in
policy
priorities.
By
contrast,
diffusion
challenges
refer
to
the
many
and
various
barriers
that
work
to
reduce
the
wider,
external
influences
that
grassroots
innovations
may
have.
These
can
include
context-specificity
and
‘geographical
rootedness’,
ideological
commitments
to
being
‘other’
and
outside
the
mainstream,
competition
from
more
powerful
mainstream
groups
who
may
develop
watered-down
alternatives,
and
the
general
risk
aversion
of
policy
makers
when
dealing
with
small-scale,
often
radical,
and
relatively
informal
innovating
organisations.
Whilst
the
precise
cha llenges
will
inevitably
differ
from
case
to
case,
in
attempting
to
understand
how
grassroots
innovations
in
general
may
be
helped
to
survive
for
longer
and,
should
they
or
policy
makers
and
intermediaries
so
desire,
to
diffuse
and
grow,
we
turn
to
developments
in
niche
theories
(e.g.
Kemp
et
al.,
1998;
Hoogma
et
al.,
2002;
Hegger
et
al.,
2007;
Raven,
2007)
as
offering
some
potentially
helpful
theoretical
tools.
Specifically,
strategic
niche
management
is
a
theory
of
how
innovations
develop
and
grow
and
how
those
processes
can
be
harnessed
strategically
so
as
to
challenge
and
potentially
replace
existing
sociotechnical
systems.
To
be
clear,
whilst
it
is
far
from
the
case
that
all
grassroots
innovations
necessarily
wish
to
scale-up,
grow
or
diffuse,
the
application
of
niche
theories
is
potentially
extremely
valuable
for
those
that
do,
as
well
as
for
normative
policy
goals
in
this
area
and,
accordingly,
has
attracted
considerable
recent
attention
(e.g.
Kemp
et
al.,
2001;
Truffer,
2003;
Smith,
2006a,
b;
and
see
Smith
et
al.,
2010
for
a
review).
Here,
and
like
grassroots
innovations,
niche
theories
emphasise
that
the
status
quo
of
incremental
efficiency
improvements
and
business
greening
will
no
longer
do
and
that
more
fundamental
cha nges
–
whether
in
technologies
and
infrastructures
or
in
social
norms,
val ues
and
institutions
–
are
required.
Within
the
niche
theory
literature,
a
number
of
key
factors
have
been
identified,
often
through
analysis
of
historical
case
studies,
as
important
in
facilitating
the
development
of
robust
and
successful
niches.
Smith
and
Raven
et
al.,
for
example,
highlight
the
importance
of
various
forms
of
learning,
networking
between
stakeholders,
the
development
of
institutions
to
promote
the
niche
innovation,
and
the
ways
in
which
niche
innovations
might
be
translated
to
fit-in
with
mainstream
systems
(Smith,
2007;
Raven
et
al.,
2010).
In
this
paper,
however,
we
have
chosen
to
focus
on
one
key
factor
that
has
hitherto
been
largely
neglected
–
intermediary
actors
(Geels
and
Deuten,
2006).
Whilst
early
work
in
niche
theory
tended
to
focus
on
single
projects
and
experiments
(e.g.
Hoogma
et
al.,
2002),
the
focus
has
since
shifted
to
try
and
understand
how
lessons
and
experiences
from
across
multiple
local
projects
get
exchanged
and
distributed
to
form,
gradually,
a
shared
development
trajectory
for
the
emerging
innovation
sector
as
a
whole.
In
the
terminology
of
niche
theory,
the
focus
has
shifted
from
understanding
‘local
projects’
towards
understanding
how
multiple
such
projects
combine
to
form
a
‘global
niche’
level
which
refers
to
an
emerging
field
or
community
at
which
shared
rules
and
practices
form
and
evolve
(e.g.
Geels
and
Raven,
2006;
Raven
et
al.,
2008,
2010).
Here,
Geels
and
Deuten
observe
that
global
niches
do
not
just
arise
spontaneously,
but
that
this
requires
‘dedicated
socio-cognitive
work’
(Geels
and
Deuten,
2006,
p.
266)
undertaken
by
‘intermedi-
ary
actors’.
T.
Hargreaves
et
al.
/
Global
Environmental
Change
xxx
(2013)
xxx–xxx
2
G
Model
JGEC-1084;
No.
of
Pages
13
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Hargreaves,
T.,
et
al.,
Grassroots
innovations
in
community
energy:
The
role
of
intermediaries
in
niche
development.
Global
Environ.
Change
(2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.008

Whilst
Geels
and
Deuten’s
contribution
remains
one
of
the
few
papers
within
the
niche
literature
to
explore
the
role
of
intermediaries
–
perhaps
partly
because
the
niche
literature
is
based
predominantly
on
ex
post
facto
case
studies
rather
than
on
examining
niche
development
in-the-making
(Geels
and
Deuten,
2006,
although
see
Raven,
2006;
Bos
and
Grin,
2008)
–
some
attention
has
been
paid
to
intermediaries
within
the
wider
literature
on
environmental
governance.
In
this
literature,
a
range
of
different
types
of
intermediaries
have
been
identified,
encom-
passing
social,
cultural,
market,
labour,
knowledge,
welfare
and
planning
intermediaries
(Medd
and
Marvin,
2008).
Despite
this
variety,
Moss
highlights
that
their
central
commonality
is
that
they
all
operate
as
‘boundary
organisations’
engaging
in
‘relational
work’
to
connect
up
and
bridge
between
different
actors:
Whether
facilitating
dialogue,
providing
guidance,
bridging
gaps,
advocating
reform,
or
pioneering
novel
forms
of
interac-
tion,
their
arenas
of
action
are
defined
by
their
‘in-betweenness’
(Moss,
2009,
p.
1481).
As
such,
and
in
relation
to
niches
specifically,
intermediary
actors
can
be
broadly
defined
as
organisations
or
individuals
engaging
in
work
that
involves
connecting
local
projects
with
one
another,
with
the
wider
world
and,
through
this,
helping
to
generate
a
shared
institutional
infrastructure
and
to
support
the
development
of
the
niche
in
question.
Based
on
an
historical
case
study
of
the
development
of
reinforced
concrete,
Geels
and
Deuten
identify
three
key
roles
for
intermediary
actors
in
niche
development,
each
of
which
involves
managing
the
flows
of
knowledge
between
local
projects
and
the
emerging
global
niche
level.
The
first
role
relates
to
the
‘aggregation’
of
knowledge
from
across
a
broad
range
of
local
projects.
Here,
by
virtue
of
their
ability
to
interface
with
a
large
number
of
different
local
projects,
intermediaries
are
seen
as
uniquely
placed
to
‘‘compare
experiences
in
different
locations,
reflect
on
differences
and
draw
general
conclusions’’
(Geels
and
Deuten,
2006,
p.
267).
The
aggregation
process
is
thus
seen
to
involve
making
local
knowledge
‘context-free’
in
order
that
it
can
travel
beyond
its
local
moorings
and
circulate
throughout
the
entire
global
niche:
‘Aggregation’
is
the
process
of
transforming
local
knowledge
into
robust
knowledge,
which
is
sufficiently
general,
abstracted
and
packaged,
so
that
it
is
no
longer
tied
to
specific
contexts.
This
global
knowledge
can
travel
between
local
practices
(Geels
and
Deuten,
2006,
p.
266–267).
The
second
role
that
Geels
and
Deuten
highlight,
involves
the
creation
of
an
‘institutional
infrastructure’
that
serves
as
a
repository
and
forum
for
the
storage,
exchange
and
circulation
of
this
aggregated
global
knowledge:
Such
an
infrastructure
consists
of
forums
that
enable
(and
induce)
the
gathering
and
interaction
of
actors,
the
exchange
of
experiences
and
the
organisation
of
collective
action.
Examples
of
such
forums
are
conferences,
seminars,
workshops,
technical
journals,
proceedings,
and
so
on
(Geels
and
Deuten,
2006,
p.
267–268).
Finally,
the
third
role
sees
a
‘reversal’
in
the
relationship
and
knowledge-flows
between
local
projects
and
the
emerging
global
niche.
Once
local
experiences
and
lessons
have
been
sufficiently
aggregated
to
form
a
shared
institutional
infrastructure
and
emerging
development
trajectory
for
the
niche
as
a
whole,
Geels
and
Deuten
suggest
that
intermediaries
then
begin
to
‘coordinate’
and
‘frame’
subsequent
action
on-the-ground
in
local
projects:
A
reversal
occurs,
in
which
collective
knowledge
repertoires
at
the
global
level
become
guiding
for
local-level
activities
(Geels
and
Deuten,
2006,
p.
268).
In
this
final
role,
therefore,
intermediaries
come
to
guide
the
development
of
local
activities
by
drawing
from
their
aggregated
global
knowledge
to
provide
advice,
guidelines
or
even
templates
for
how
subsequent
local
projects
should
develop.
As
summarised
in
Fig.
1,
below,
through
these
three
roles
–
the
aggregation
of
knowledge,
the
creation
of
an
institutional
infrastructure,
and
framing
and
coordinating
local-level
activities
–
intermediaries
are
thus
seen
as
critical
to
the
development
of
robust
and
successful
niches
that
might
be
capable
of
surviving
in
the
medium
to
longer
term,
and
potentially
of
diffusing
and
scaling-up
more
widely.
To
be
clear,
whilst
some
community
activists,
intermediaries
and
policy
makers
have
strong
aims
for
the
growth
and
diffusion
of
particular
grassroots
innovations,
it
is
far
from
apparent
that
all
grassroots
innovations
share
these
normative
goals.
As
such,
whilst
it
is
conceptually
appropriate
to
apply
strategic
niche
management
theory
to
this
area,
it
is
also
critical
that
it
is
applied
in
a
way
that
is
sensitive
to
the
diversity
and
dynamism
of
grassroots
innovations
and,
if
necessary,
that
it
is
adapted
accordingly.
Nonetheless,
whatever
the
specific
aims
of
different
local
grassroots
innova-
tions,
given
the
specific
challenges
they
face
it
seems
likely
that
intermediary
actors
could
have
an
especially
critical
role
to
play
in
supporting
them.
In
particular,
intermediary
actors
seem
Fig.
1.
Local
projects
and
emerging
technical
trajectories.
Source:
Geels
and
Deuten
(2006),
p.
274.
T.
Hargreaves
et
al.
/
Global
Environmental
Change
xxx
(2013)
xxx–xxx
3
G
Model
JGEC-1084;
No.
of
Pages
13
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Hargreaves,
T.,
et
al.,
Grassroots
innovations
in
community
energy:
The
role
of
intermediaries
in
niche
development.
Global
Environ.
Change
(2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.008

well-placed
to
help
local
grassroots
innovations
address
both
the
intrinsic
challenges
they
face,
as
well
as
the
diffusion
challenges
that
those
looking
to
expand
may
encounter.
For
example,
and
as
Fig.
1
suggests,
even
if
some
specific
local
projects
fail,
intermediaries
might
be
crucial
in
helping
the
wider
niche
to
survive
and
become
more
robust
by
helping
others
to
learn
from
such
failures.
Further
still,
where
local
projects
do
succeed
and
where
they
wish
to
grow
and
diffuse
more
widely,
intermediaries
can
potentially
play
an
important
role
in
publicising
and
building
on
this
success
in
order
to
build
interest,
confidence
and
momentum
in
the
niche
more
generally.
To
date,
however,
not
only
has
the
role
of
intermediaries
in
niche
processes
generally
received
very
little
empirical
attention,
the
potentially
critical
role
of
intermediaries
in
grassroots
innovations
has,
to
the
best
of
our
knowledge,
never
been
previously
addressed.
The
rest
of
this
paper
therefore
focuses
specifically
on
intermediary
actors
in
relation
to
a
particular
area
of
grassroots
innovation:
community
energy
projects
in
the
UK.
The
next
section
outlines
the
UK
community
energy
sector,
and
details
the
methodological
approaches
we
employed.
3.
Researching
community
energy
intermediaries
in
the
UK
Small-scale,
sustainable
energy
projects
led
by
local
communi-
ties
have
recently
flourished
in
the
UK.
Whilst
Walker
identified
over
500
community
renewables
projects
existing
in
2005,
by
2013
the
EnergyShare
website
–
an
online
forum
for
community
energy
initiatives
–
is
able
to
list
more
than
1000
active
groups
(Walker,
2008).
Within
this
growing
field,
a
very
wide
range
of
different
activities
are
being
undertaken,
from
small-scale
renewable
energy
generation
projects
such
as
community-owned
windfarms
or
solar
photovoltaic
cooperatives,
through
schemes
to
promote
energy
efficiency
such
as
bulk-buying
loft
insulation,
to
awareness
raising
and
behaviour
change
initiatives
designed
to
encourage
reductions
in
energy
consumption
(e.g.
Hielscher,
2011b).
The
forms
of
innovation
occurring
within
this
grassroots
field
are
also
manifold.
Whilst
the
specific
technologies
or
behaviour
approaches
being
used
are
often
not
especially
novel
in
and
of
themselves,
having
often
been
developed
in
more
mainstream
settings,
the
fact
of
applying
them
in
the
community
sector
poses
a
wide-range
of
challenges
that
demand
forms
of
‘social
innovation’
(Mulgan,
2006).
Community
energy
projects
thus
encompass
a
wide
range
of
novel
sociotechnical
arrangements,
including
the
development
of
new
ownership
and
funding
models
to
ensure
benefits
are
shared
throughout
communities;
new
approaches
to
support
the
deployment
of
renewable
technologies
at
a
commu-
nity-scale,
as
well
as
new
organisational
structures
to
ensure
community-involvement
in
decision-making
(e.g.
Hielscher
et
al.,
2013).
Whilst
community-scale
action
on
energy
dates
back
at
least
as
far
as
the
1970s
movements
around
alternative
technology
and
the
development
of
a
‘soft
energy
path’
(Lovins,
1977;
Smith,
2006b),
before
the
late-1990s
much
of
it
was
dismissed
as
small-scale
and
irrelevant
by
mainstream
energy
actors.
Since
then,
however,
the
‘new
localism’
of
the
New
Labour
Government,
and
the
current
Conservative-Liberal
Democrat
Coalition’s
policy
rhetoric
around
the
‘Big
Society’
have
resulted
in
several
policy
initiatives
designed
to
enhance
the
potential
benefits
of
a
more
decentralised
energy
system
with
higher
levels
of
community
involvement
and
thus
to
try
and
expand
the
community
energy
sector
(even
if
growth
and
expansion
is
not
always
an
aim
for
local
community
energy
projects
themselves).
Under
New
Labour,
for
example,
the
‘Community
Renewables
Initiative’
and
‘Community
Action
for
Energy’
were
amongst
a
range
of
measures
designed
to
provide
support
for
community-
level
activity
on
energy
(Walker
et
al.,
2007).
Some
of
these
initiatives
were
solely
designed
to
boost
activity
within
the
community
sector,
often
by
providing
funds
to
intermediary
organisations
in
order
that
they
could
advise
local
community
groups
over
the
development
of
projects.
In
other
cases,
these
initiatives
were
more
general-purpose,
inviting
competitive
applications
from
individual
householders,
public
sector
organisa-
tions
(like
schools)
and
business,
as
well
as
community
groups.
More
recently,
under
the
Conservative-Liberal
Democrat
coalition,
a
significant
shift
has
occurred
away
from
grants
and
the
subsidy
of
upfront
investment
costs,
and
towards
revenue-
guarantee
schemes
to
encourage
new
forms
of
‘community
enterprise’.
The
Feed-in-Tariff,
for
example,
provides
guaranteed,
above
market
rate
payment
for
each
unit
of
electricity
generated
from
approved
and
certified,
small-scale
renewable
electricity
technologies.
What
this
means
for
community
groups
is
that
they
now
have
to
adopt
more
business-like
models,
whereby
they
generate
investment
capital
from
sources
other
than
grants.
Other
recent
examples
within
this
general
approach
model
are
the
Green
Deal
for
home
energy
efficiency
measures,
and
the
Renewable
Heat
Incentive
–
both
of
which
are
non-community
group
specific.
To
survive
within
this
shifting
policy
and
funding
landscape,
community
energy
intermediaries
themselves
have
been
frequent-
ly
forced
to
learn
and
adapt,
often
modifying
and
updating
the
support
services
they
provide
to
local
community
energy
projects.
Accordingly,
and
building
on
Geels
and
Deuten
work,
it
is
possible
to
identify
a
wide
range
of
different
intermediaries
offering
a
wide
variety
of
different
services
within
the
community
energy
field
(Geels
and
Deuten,
2006).
Broadly
speaking,
three
distinct
‘waves’
of
the
emergence
of
intermediaries
in
this
area
are
discernable:

The
first
wave,
from
the
1970s
onwards,
involved
organisations
such
as
the
Centre
for
Alternative
Technology
or
the
Centre
for
Sustainable
Energy
(originally
known
as
the
Urban
Centre
for
Appropriate
Technology)
who
formed
in
support
of
the
alterna-
tive
technology
movement.

The
second
wave,
in
the
late-1990s
and
2000s,
saw
organisations
such
as
the
Energy
Savings
Trust
and
regionally-based
organisa-
tions
benefitting
from
the
Community
Renewables
Initiative,
such
as
Severn
and
Wye
Energy
Agency,
or
Thames
Valley
Energy
Agency,
emerge
to
manage
the
spending
of
public
money
in
support
of
community
energy
initiatives.

The
third
wave,
from
2010
onwards,
has
seen
the
development
of
a
number
of
independent
consultants
and
professional
service
providers,
such
as
Carbon
Leapfrog
(who
provide
legal
support
to
community
energy
initiatives);
looser
networks
for
information
exchange,
discussion,
and
events,
such
as
the
Low
Carbon
Communities
Network;
as
well
as
a
growing
interest
in
and
advocacy
for
community
energy
from
non-governmental
orga-
nisations
and
think-tanks,
such
as
Forum
for
the
Future
and
ResPublica.
The
result
is
a
highly
differentiated
layering
of
organisations
over
time,
resulting
in
a
complex
field
of
community
energy
intermediaries
made
up
of
a
number
of
distinct
organisations
each
with
their
own
history,
aims
and
objectives.
Our
initial
snowballing
search
identified
94
different
interme-
diary
actors
operating
across
the
areas
of
community
renewables,
energy
efficiency
and
behaviour
change
and
at
both
local
and
national
scales.
Further,
our
search
highlighted
that
these
organisations
play
a
range
of
different
roles,
including:

Initiating
new
community
energy
projects;

Sharing
information
and
developing
forms
of
networking
between
local
community
energy
groups
(e.g.
newsletters,
seminars
and
conferences);
T.
Hargreaves
et
al.
/
Global
Environmental
Change
xxx
(2013)
xxx–xxx
4
G
Model
JGEC-1084;
No.
of
Pages
13
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Hargreaves,
T.,
et
al.,
Grassroots
innovations
in
community
energy:
The
role
of
intermediaries
in
niche
development.
Global
Environ.
Change
(2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.008


Providing
tools
(e.g.
carbon
calculators)
and
resources
(e.g.
good
practice
case
studies
and
handbooks);

Offering
specific
professional
services
such
as
legal
or
financial
advice;

Managing
and
evaluating
funding
programmes;
and

Interfacing
with
policymakers
and
energy
companies
to
further
develop
community
energy.
Drawing
from
this
list
of
94
intermediary
actors,
we
conducted
semi-structured
interviews
with
15
representatives
from
these
organisations
asking
them
about
their
organisation’s
aims
and
objectives
with
regards
to
community
energy
and
their
responses
to
past,
ongoing
and
future
developments
within
the
community
energy
sector.
Interviewees
were
selected
to
ensure
a
geographical
spread
throughout
UK,
to
cover
the
areas
of
community
renew-
ables,
energy
efficiency
and
behaviour
change,
and
to
capture
all
of
the
specific
roles
played
by
intermediaries
as
outlined
in
the
list
above.
The
interviews
were
conducted
between
February
and
May
2011
and
lasted
an
average
of
1.5
h.
Table
1
provides
details
of
all
15
interviews
(Hielscher,
2011a).
In
addition,
to
examine
the
kinds
of
knowledge
that
intermediaries
were
circulating
about
community
energy,
we
collected
113
third
party
case
study
reports
produced
by
intermediaries
about
specific
local
community
energy
projects.
A
systematic
content
analysis
of
these
113
case
study
reports
was
then
conducted
based
on
a
coding
protocol
that
focused
on:
core
project
details,
project
aims
and
objectives,
organisational
structures,
sources
of
funding,
challenges
and
barriers
identified,
lessons
learned,
as
well
as
stakeholders,
partnerships
and
networking
activities
mentioned
(Hargreaves,
2011).
Before
proceeding,
it
is
necessary
to
comment
briefly
on
the
somewhat
ambiguous,
dual-status
of
the
data
produced
by
this
content
analysis.
The
data
is,
at
once,
a
representation
of
on-the-ground
community
energy
activity
produced
by
intermediary
actors
and
therefore
as
likely
to
reflect
the
intermediary
actors’
aims
and
objectives
as
those
of
the
local
community
energy
projects
themselves.
Whilst,
at
the
same
time
and
in
the
absence
of
other
comprehensive
and
up-to-date
surveys
or
information
about
the
extent
and
activity
of
the
UK
community
energy
sector,
the
data
is
also
among
the
best
available
sources
of
information
about
UK
community
energy
projects,
although
this
is
a
problem
we
are
seeking
to
address
through
other
work
ongoing
as
part
of
this
research
(e.g.
Seyfang
et
al.,
2013)
As
such,
and
of
necessity,
in
this
paper
the
results
of
the
content
analysis
have
a
dual-status
acting
as
both
intermediaries’
second-order
reflections
on
community
energy
projects
and
as
a
direct
source
of
information
about
the
projects
(with
inevitable
limitations).
The
next
section
presents
our
key
findings.
4.
Findings:
intermediaries
and
intermediation
in
UK
community
energy
Following
Geels
and
Deuten’s
model,
this
section
structures
our
findings
according
to
the
three
key
roles
intermediaries
are
theorised
to
play
in
niche
development
processes:
aggregation
and
learning
(Section
4.1);
establishing
an
institutional
infrastructure
(Section
4.2)
and
framing
and
coordinating
local
project
activities
(Section
4.3)
(Geels
and
Deuten,
2006).
Our
findings
suggest,
however,
that
UK
community
energy
intermediaries
are
increas-
ingly
playing
a
fourth,
new
role
in
which
they
are
seen
to
broker
and
coordinate
partnerships
with
actors
beyond
the
niche.
This
new
role
is
outlined
in
Section
4.4.
4.1.
Aggregating
lessons
from
local
community
energy
projects
The
first
role
Geels
and
Deuten
identify
for
intermediaries
is
one
of
‘aggregating’
lessons
from
across
a
range
of
local
innovation
projects
in
order
to
identify
general
and
abstracted
principles
and
lessons
for
the
emerging
niche
as
a
whole
(Geels
and
Deuten,
2006).
Within
the
UK
community
energy
sector,
a
key
means
by
which
intermediaries
have
attempted
to
gather
and
aggregate
this
knowledge
is
through
the
production
of
case
studies
about
specific
local
projects.
Typically
just
2–3
pages
long,
these
case
studies
generally
include
key
facts
about
local
community
energy
projects
(e.g.
name,
start
date,
location,
source(s)
of
funding,
key
activities
undertaken
and
results
achieved
etc.)
and
often
identify
the
‘lessons
learned’
by
projects.
For
example,
in
our
analysis
of
113
of
these
case
studies
(Hargreaves,
2011),
58
explicitly
identified
one
or
more
key
lessons.
As
Fig.
2
shows,
some
of
the
more
common
lessons
identified
in
the
intermediary-produced
case
studies
included
the
need
to
generate
support
from
the
local
community
(present
in
34%
of
cases)
or
specific
lessons
around
financing
projects
(28%)
or
gaining
planning
permission
for
renewables
installations
(26%).
Other,
perhaps
more
abstract,
lessons
were
also
identified
such
as
the
need
to
persevere
with
local
projects
(7%)
or
to
stay
aware
of
key
policy
and
market
developments
(5%).
Perhaps
the
central
message
of
this
analysis,
however,
is
that
a
very
wide
range
of
lessons
are
being
identified
across
projects,
with
each
individual
project
confronting
a
locally-specific
set
of
issues
and
thus
generating
its
own
particular
combination
of
lessons.
This
mix
of
different
lessons
would
appear
to
make
it
difficult
to
transfer
an
overall
package
from
one
local
project
to
another.
On
the
one
hand,
the
lessons
learnt
are
so
diverse
that
it
is
neither
obvious
nor
automatic
for
other
local
projects
to
identify
which
ones
might
be
applicable
for
them,
whilst
on
the
other
hand,
some
lessons
can
be
so
locally-specific
that
they
may
have
little
wider
applicability.
Aggregating
lessons
beyond
local
projects
and
contexts
would
therefore
seem
to
be
far
from
straightforward.
Within
our
interviews,
however,
the
role
of
these
case
studies
in
disseminating
and
aggregating
key
lessons
was
challenged.
Some
interviewees
saw
case
studies
as
offering
vital
sources
of
inspiration
that
could
give
would-be
project
initiators
ideas
about
what
was
possible
and
encourage
them
to
start-up
projects
in
their
local
area.
The
case
studies
served
to
indicate
the
broad
areas
of
activity,
tasks
and
steps
involved.
By
contrast,
others
suggested
they
could
be
potentially
demotivating
and
even
disempowering
because
such
‘success
stories’
offered
little
detail
on
the
processes
gone
through,
the
challenges
faced
and
the
pitfalls
experienced
which
can
leave
people
feeling
that
‘‘we
can’t
do
that
here’’
(NN3).
Table
1
Table
of
interviewees.
Type
of
intermediary
actor
Intermediary
organisations
interviewed
Interviewee
identifiers
a
Government
departments
and
organisations
DECC;
Scottish
Government;
South
East
England
Development
Association
G1–G4
National-level
NGOs
Centre
for
Sustainable
Energy;
Energy
Saving
Trust;
Global
Action
Plan;
Low
Carbon
Communities
Network;
Transition
Network
NN1–NN5
Local
and
regional
NGOs
Community
Energy
Scotland;
Community
Renewable
Energy;
Development
Trusts
Association
Scotland;
Marches
Energy
Agency.
LN1–LN4
Private
sector
Good
Energy;
Independent
Consultants
P1–P2
a
To
preserve
anonymity,
all
interviewees
have
been
assigned
a
unique
identifier.
The
letters
refer
to
the
type
of
intermediary
actor
the
interviewees
represent
(G
=
Government;
NN
=
National
NGO;
LN
=
Local/Regional
NGO;
P
=
Private
Sector),
and
the
numbers
distinguish
between
individual
interviewees.
T.
Hargreaves
et
al.
/
Global
Environmental
Change
xxx
(2013)
xxx–xxx
5
G
Model
JGEC-1084;
No.
of
Pages
13
Please
cite
this
article
in
press
as:
Hargreaves,
T.,
et
al.,
Grassroots
innovations
in
community
energy:
The
role
of
intermediaries
in
niche
development.
Global
Environ.
Change
(2013),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.008

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What are the contributions mentioned in the paper "Grassroots innovations in community energy: the role of intermediaries in niche development" ?

This paper presents the first in-depth analysis of intermediary work in the UK community energy sector. This is exacerbated by the challenges of building a coherent institutional infrastructure for a sector where aims and approaches diverge, and where underlying resources are uncertain and inconsistent. 

Q2. What are the future works in "Grassroots innovations in community energy: the role of intermediaries in niche development" ?

It is critical, therefore, both that future research on grassroots innovations illuminates and respects this complexity, and that theoretical approaches are applied and developed in ways that do not do violence to grassroots initiatives that are striving hard to generate sustainable solutions in spite of everything. 

Q3. What are the key roles of intermediaries in building robust niches?

Geels and Deuten suggest that intermediaries play three key roles in helping to build robust niches: aggregating lessons from across multiple local projects, establishing an institutional infrastructure for the innovation niche as a whole, and framing and coordinating action on the ground in local projects (Geels and Deuten, 2006). 

Q4. What is the key role of intermediaries in the UK community energy sector?

Within the UK community energy sector, a key means by which intermediaries have attempted to gather and aggregate this knowledge is through the production of case studies about specific local projects. 

Q5. What did the interviewees think of the role of intermediaries in community energy?

Beyond partnerships with major energy companies, however, their interviewees also suggested that intermediaries had a potentially important role to play in lobbying policy-makers to ensure that future policy developments helped rather than hindered the community energy sector as a whole. 

Q6. What was the role of case studies in promoting community energy initiatives?

Some interviewees saw case studies as offering vital sources of inspiration that could give would-be project initiators ideas about what was possible and encourage them to start-up projects in their local area. 

Q7. What is the key role of the interviewees in coordinating local projects?

Developing this theme further, several of their interviewees identified that one of the key roles they play in trying to frame and coordinate the activity of local projects is by building participant confidence and capability to persevere in the face of the many challenges they face. 

Q8. What is the key to building confidence and capabilities?

Building confidence and capabilities, their interviewees suggested, is essential for helping local community energy projects to get going and to keep going ‘inPlease cite this article in press as: Hargreaves, T., et al., Grassroots inno development. 

Q9. What are some of the elements of project-learning that appear to be common across contexts?

Some elements of project-learning appear to be common across contexts and thus seem to travel relatively well, for example around the kinds of codified knowledge and processes involved when trying to win planning permission or licenses, or when deciding on an organisational structure. 

Q10. What is the role of case studies in identifying and aggregating key lessons?

Where case studies focus on whole projects, these toolkits and handbooks thus focus instead on specific elements of local projects (e.g. around organisational structures; funding models; communications and consultation techniques etc.) and, as a result, are beginning to identify and aggregate together some common processes. 

Q11. What kind of networks exist within the UK community energy sector?

Their analysis highlighted that a number of different kinds of networks exist within the community energy sector, including: networks of different local projects (e.g. the Low Carbon Communities Network; Community Powerdown; the Development Trust Association Scotland); networks of intermediary actors (e.g. the Community Energy Practitioners’ Forum; Climate Challenge Fund Supporting Alliance) and even, more recently, what several interviewees described as ‘networks of networks’ (e.g. the Communities and Climate Action Alliance).