Of solar collectors, wind power, and car
sharing: Comparing and understanding
successful cases of grassroots innovations
Michael Ornetzeder and Harald Rohracher
Linköping University Post Print
N.B.: When citing this work, cite the original article.
Original Publication:
Michael Ornetzeder and Harald Rohracher, Of solar collectors, wind power, and car sharing:
Comparing and understanding successful cases of grassroots innovations, 2013, Global
Environmental Change, (23), 5, 856-867.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenycha.2012.12.007
Copyright: Elsevier
http://www.elsevier.com/
Postprint available at: Linköping University Electronic Press
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-102986
1
Of Solar Collectors, Wind Power, and Car Sharing: Comparing and
Understanding Successful Cases of Grassroots Innovations
1
Michael Ornetzeder
a
, Harald Rohracher
b
a
Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA), Austrian Academy of Sciences, Strohgasse 45/5, 1030 Vienna, Austria
b
Department of Thematic Studies – Technology and Social Change, Linköping University, 58183 Linköping, Sweden
Abstract: Grassroots activities so far have not been sufficiently appreciated as sources of
innovation. Transition processes towards more sustainable socio-technical energy, transport
or production systems, however, are hardly imaginable without a broader participation of
engaged citizens. This paper presents and compares three cases of successful grassroots
innovations for sustainability. In particular we compare the development of wind technology
in Denmark, the solar collector do-it-yourself movement in Austria, and the development of
car sharing in Switzerland. The paper aims at a better understanding of the preconditions,
patterns of growth and change and factors of success of grassroots innovations for more
sustainable socio-technical regimes such as energy and transport. In the analysis we focus on
dimensions such as the structural conditions and resources of origin, motivations of social
actors involved, learning processes and outcomes, competences and activities of those actors,
processes of institution-building, and the relationships to mainstream market actors. Based
on the empirical background the paper discusses implications for the theorisation of
grassroots innovations for greater sustainability and draws implications for further research.
1 Introduction
The way towards sustainability is often framed as a quest for revolutionary large-scale
solutions. However, many of the changes required for such a transformation start out by
modifying existing configurations of technologies, services or practices of use at a small scale
and eventually growing them into an alternative option to prevailing systems of production
and consumption. In innovation research we can find different drivers and contexts for the
introduction of such new ideas, concepts, or products for more sustainable systems. The
predominantly described case, particularly in economic innovation research is a market-driven
development of new products by small start-ups or larger companies. Other cases are more
science-driven and are developed by research labs or their spin-offs, as e.g. Garud and Karnøe
(2003) describe in the case of wind energy development in the U.S. More recently, with an
increasing policy focus on a more sustainable energy generation and use, policy has become
an important driver of sustainable technologies by changing regulations and providing
economic incentives, such as exemplarily described by Dewald and Truffer (2012) in the case
of PV development in Germany. However, less research has been invested so far in
1
Published in: Global Environmental Change 23(5), 2013, pp. 856–867,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.007
2
innovation processes for sustainability driven by community-based networks (Seyfang and
Smith, 2007). Research with a special focus on such grassroots innovations could help shed
light on innovative activities outside the traditional realms of science and industry based
innovation and improve our ability to collectively profit from ideas and concepts thus far
overlooked.
In this article we want to contribute to this endeavour by comparing a number of
successful grassroots innovations and thereby enhancing our understanding of the way those
initiatives work, the preconditions and contexts they require to thrive, and the phases in the
innovation process during which they appear to be most effective. We have chosen three cases
of grassroots innovations which have significantly contributed to the improvement and
dissemination of sustainable innovations and which already have been well documented in
our own research and further literature. The first case is the development of wind turbines in
Denmark. Back in the 1970s grassroots activists had a strong influence on the technical design
of windmills and promoted local windmill cooperatives to own and operate early electricity
producing installations. Today, Denmark has the highest level of wind power penetration in
the world and Danish companies are still among the leaders in wind power technology
(Observ’ER et al., 2008). The second case deals with the diffusion of solar technology in
Austria. For more than ten years do-it-yourself groups dominated the domestic solar heater
market causing high diffusion rates and a number of decisive changes in the design of solar
technology. Today, Austria takes a similar position regarding thermal solar technology as
Denmark does in reference to wind power. Per capita Austria is one of the best equipped
countries with solar thermal energy systems in the world (Weiss and Mauthner, 2010). In
addition, Austrian solar collector producers are market leaders in Europe. Today, one out of
three solar systems sold in Europe comes from Austria. The last example brings us to
Switzerland, the country with the most mature market for car sharing in the world (Haefeli et
al., 2006). As we will see, organised car sharing started in the 1980s as a private initiative in
two regions, set up exclusively by grassroots activists. Without doubt, these are not the only
examples of grassroots innovations (see e.g. Smith, 2007, on alternative housing constructions
or organic agriculture) nor can they claim to be representative. With a systematic overview
and analysis of grassroots innovations in different technology and application fields still
lacking, we have chosen these examples as they are empirically well documented, they aim at
changing core elements of sustainable energy or transport systems, there is strong evidence
that grassroots activities played a major role in developing these innovations and,
consequently, because these grassroots innovations have contributed to the strong position of
industries and markets for wind power, thermal solar technology, and car sharing in the three
respective countries. Moreover, we think that the chosen cases are sufficiently different in
their focus and contexts to allow us to identify some common patterns and required
preconditions for successful grassroots innovations.
There are certainly different views on what can be regarded a success of grassroots
movements. Some initiatives have no ambition to grow and see their aim in contributing to
community life, others rather opt for a strategy of helping further initiatives to thrive while
maintaining a small size which allows for personal interaction of its members. The group of
3
initiatives we have chosen to study, in contrast, appears to see success less in their internal
interactions, but rather in their external impact on the existing energy and transport regime
and the knock-on effects they have on commercial products or adoption of new technologies
and practices. Success from this point of view means that grassroots initiatives contributed to
the development and selection of alternatives, e.g. renewable forms of energy as alternative to
fossil fuels or nuclear energy, and were able to influence principles of the design in the very
beginning in a lasting way. From the perspective of transforming existing energy and
transport systems towards greater sustainability these types of grassroots innovations thus
may constitute an important and maybe underestimated mode of innovation along with
market, science or policy driven innovation processes.
Using these three cases as the empirical background, this paper aims at a better
understanding of the preconditions, patterns of growth and change and factors of success of
grassroots innovations for more sustainable socio-technical regimes such as energy and
transport. In our analysis we will focus on internal dynamics as well as external conditions
considering criteria, such as the socio-political context of origin, motivations of social actors
involved, learning processes and outcomes, competences and activities of those actors,
processes of institution-building, and the relationships to mainstream market actors.
The paper begins with a discussion of literature relevant for better understanding such
types of innovation. We draw on former research on grassroots innovations and build on
relevant concepts from science and technology studies, including the multi-level perspective
approach, the analysis of technological innovation systems, concepts of social learning and
the role of users in innovation processes. In the next section a brief description of each case is
given, drawing on our own research as well as on secondary case study material. Against the
backdrop of our cases we then compare and discuss a number of observations, which aim to
improve our theoretical framing of grassroots innovations for sustainability.
2 Conceptualising and understanding grassroots innovations
Our cases of wind mills, solar thermal collectors and car sharing are all examples of emerging
and evolving socio-technical configurations, i.e. they can be described as new arrangements
of technologies, competencies, social practices of design or use, institutions and further
elements which have to come together to make these technologies work. These changes and
re-arrangements need not be radical; in many cases they are rather gradual improvements in
design, shifts in user practices or new meanings and expectations linked to particular
technologies. They also have in common that they are part of long-term visions of more
sustainable energy and transport systems.
Several concepts exist in science, technology and innovation studies to describe such
processes of emerging, expanding and adapting socio-technical arrangements. Of particular
use in our case is the multi-level perspective of innovations (Rip and Kemp, 1998) which
conceptualises socio-technical stability and change as being shaped by the interaction of
different levels of socio-technical structuration. Niches are only loosely structured
configurations of technologies and practices and can be seen as testbeds for emerging
4
technologies (Hoogma et al., 2002; Smith and Raven, 2012; Geels, 2011); the numbers of
actors involved is small, the degree of alignment between elements is low (Geels, 2011), and,
we can add, existing rules and standards procedures are put up for negotiation. Socio-
technical regimes, in contrast, represent much more obdurate socio-technical structures such
as the present predominantly fossil fuel based and centralised energy system. Such regimes
also provide a selection environment for emerging niches and cause many new technologies
to fail. Socio-technical landscapes, finally, provide the broader context of deeply entrenched
and slowly changing structures in society in which regimes are embedded. Understanding the
growth of a niche thus not only requires taking into account niche-internal processes such as
the formation of new actor-networks but also interactions between niches, regimes and
landscape. Under specific (and rare) circumstances the availability and growth of alternative
niche configurations may be an important factor for a more fundamental transformation of
existing regimes such as envisioned in the transition towards sustainable energy and transport
systems.
Literature on niche-innovation (Kemp et al., 1998; Schot and Geels, 2008) focuses on
core processes that are essential to transform inventions and ideas into robust configurations.
Accordingly, niches have to support three crucial processes, (a) the articulation and the
adjustment of expectations and visions; (b) the building of social networks and the enrolment
of a growing number of actors; and (c) learning and articulation processes on dimensions such
as technical design, user preferences, or symbolic meanings (Geels, 2011). Moreover, it is of
great interest, how local niche experiments eventually contribute to the formation of global
niches (Geels and Raven, 2006) and how they transform or are adopted and adapted by
dominant regimes structures (Smith, 2007). Niches are protected spaces which may fulfil
different roles in shielding innovations from mainstream selection pressures, nurturing such
innovations or empowering them to compete with incumbent technologies or transform
existing regimes (Smith and Raven, 2012).
As we will argue later, grassroots movements may be functional for various of these
core processes of niche development—in terms of network formation, learning and
competence building, but also in shielding, nurturing or empowering niche innovations. Of
particular interest to us—and not yet systematically studied in the transitions or niche
management literature—is the way such niches unfold and develop, how they expand and
transform or adapt to existing regime structures and how this process can be driven and
shaped by grassroots initiatives. A notable exemption of this lack of studies on the linkages
between niches and regimes are Smith’s (2007) studies on the niches of eco-housing and
organic food in Great Britain.
A further concept frequently used to study the emergence and expansion of new socio-
technical configurations is the analysis of “technological innovation systems (TIS)”. TIS can
be defined as a “network of agents interacting in a specific economic/industrial area under a
particular institutional infrastructure and involved in the generation, diffusion and utilization
of technology” (Carlsson and Stankiewicz, 1991). The development of technological fields
such as renewable energy technologies (Jacobsson and Johnson 2000) or biogas (Negro et al.,
2008), to name just two examples, have been analysed from this perspective. The aim is to
