The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Towards a typology of intermediaries in sustainability transitions: A systematic review and a research agenda
Open accessAbstract
Intermediary actors have been proposed as key catalysts that speed up change towards more sustainable socio-technical systems. Research on this topic has gradually gained traction since 2009, but has been complicated by the inconsistency regarding what intermediaries are in the context of such transitions and which activities they focus on, or should focus on. We briefly elaborate on the conceptual foundations of the studies of intermediaries in transitions, and how intermediaries have been connected to different transition theories. This shows the divergence – and sometimes a lack – of conceptual foundations in this research. In terms of transitions theories, many studies connect to the multi-level perspective and strategic niche management, while intermediaries in technological innovation systems and transition management have been much less explored. We aim to bring more clarity to the topic of intermediaries in transitions by providing a definition of transition intermediaries and a typology of five intermediary types that is sensitive to the emergence, neutrality and goals of intermediary actors as well as their context and level of action. Some intermediaries are specifically set up to facilitate transitions, while others grow into the role during the process of socio-technical change. Based on the study, as an important consideration for future innovation governance, we argue that systemic and niche intermediaries are the most crucial forms of intermediary actors in transitions, but they need to be complemented by a full ecology of intermediaries, including regime-based transition intermediaries, process intermediaries and user intermediaries.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Callon, M. (1984) · The Sociological Review · doi:10.1111/j.1467-954x.1984.tb00113.x · Cited by 7,763
Geels, F. W. (2002) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00062-8 · Cited by 7,275
Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006) · doi:10.1002/9780470754887 · Cited by 3,586
The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics
Pielke, Jr. (2007) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818110 · Cited by 2,020 · cited 1×
“Intermediaries are often described as neutral or honest brokers without clear normative interests beyond that innovation occurs (Pielke, 2007; Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2009).”
Anchoring of innovations: Assessing Dutch efforts to harvest energy from glasshouses
Elzen, B., van Mierlo, B., & Leeuwis, C. (2012) · Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions · doi:10.1016/j.eist.2012.10.006 · Cited by 221
Scale dynamics of grassroots innovations through parallel pathways of transformative change
Hermans, F., Roep, D., & Klerkx, L. (2016) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.07.011 · Cited by 155
Self-citationGreen tides in Brittany: What can we learn about niche–regime interactions?
Diaz, M., Darnhofer, I., Darrot, C., & Beuret, J.-E. (2013) · Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions · doi:10.1016/j.eist.2013.04.002 · Cited by 130
Cited by
An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions
Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F., Avelino, F., Bergek, A., Boons, F., et al. (2019) · Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions · doi:10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004 · Cited by 2,800
Self-citationVrontis, D., Christofi, M., Pereira, V., Tarba, S., Makrides, A., & Trichina, E. (2022) · The International Journal of Human Resource Management · doi:10.1080/09585192.2020.1871398 · Cited by 1,134
“Developing an understanding of the contexts under which technology-enabled HR practices converge or diverge would be of great importance to firms that operate in various countries (Kivimaa et al., 2019).”
BackgroundGeels, F. W. (2019) · Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability · doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.009 · Cited by 949
Digital transformation in healthcare: technology acceptance and its applications
Stoumpos, A. I., Kitsios, F., & Talias, M. A. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20043407 · Cited by 939
Digital transformation in healthcare: Analyzing the current state-of-research
Kraus, S., Schiavone, F., Pluzhnikova, A., & Invernizzi, A. C. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.030 · Cited by 853
Metadata
- Authors
- Kivimaa, P., Boon, W., Hyysalo, S., & Klerkx, L.
- Venue
- Research Policy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-05
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1062-1075
- ISSN
- 0048-7333 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2896303451
- Cited by
- 841
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 9.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Towards a typology of intermediaries in sustainability transitions: A systematic review and a research agenda. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.006
- The paper
- Kivimaa, P., Boon, W., Hyysalo, S., & Klerkx, L. (2019). Towards a typology of intermediaries in sustainability transitions: A systematic review and a research agenda. Research Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.006
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.