Sustainability transitions and transformations: different purposes, shared agenda

Abstract

Abstract Non-technical summary This commentary responds to the argument advanced by Geels that technical innovations are more likely than social innovations to accelerate sustainability action and transformative change. Drawing on a comparison between sustainability transition and transformation theories, the article argues that these conceptualizations come with different strengths and limitations, and therefore, they should be considered distinct analytical traditions serving different purposes but also having the capacity to complement each other. In terms of implications, the comparison suggests that responding to sustainability challenges requires sustained societal commitment to advancing both technical and social innovations, rather than an overreliance on technological acceleration alone. Technical summary This commentary responds to Geels’s argument that technical innovations are more likely than social innovations to accelerate change toward more sustainable practices, and that socio-technical transition theory is more compatible for analyzing such change than transformation approaches. It argues that sustainability transitions and sustainability transformations are distinct analytical traditions with different purposes. First, theoretical focus: transition scholarship foregrounds innovation dynamics, sectoral reconfiguration, and governance, whereas transformation scholarship foregrounds deeper system-wide change and the conditions under which societies reorganize. Second, spatial–temporal orientation: transitions research excels at reconstructing how change unfolds over time, while transformation research typically adopts a prospective, cross-scale orientation linking change to wider systemic challenges. Third, approaches to sustainability change differ: transitions research explains mechanisms but offers less guidance for judging whether outcomes are sufficient, whereas transformation research more readily invokes sustainability reference frames to evaluate adequacy. These differences can be complementary if terminology, analytical reference points, and the aims of the analysis are explicit. The commentary concludes that clearer evaluative criteria are needed to connect debates about acceleration to adequacy relative to sustainability goals, and that effective responses require sustained societal investment in both technical and social innovation. Social media summary Sustainability transitions and transformations are different but complementary ways to understanding systems’ change.