Towards a typology of intermediaries in sustainability transitions: A systematic review and a research agenda

Abstract

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.

Full text

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Research Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/respol
Towards a typology of intermediaries in sustainability transitions: A
systematic review and a research agenda
Paula Kivimaa
a,b,⁎
, Wouter Boon
c
, Sampsa Hyysalo
d
, Laurens Klerkx
e
a
Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex, United Kingdom
b
Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), Finland
c
Copernicus Institute, Utrecht University, the Netherlands
d
Aalto University, School of Art, Design and Architecture, Finland
e
Knowledge, Technology and Innovation Group, Wageningen University, the Netherlands
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Sustainability transitions
Innovation intermediaries
Intermediation
ABSTRACT
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.
1. Introduction
Intermediary actors have been proposed as key catalysts that speed
up change towards more sustainable socio-technical systems (e.g.
Hodson et al., 2013) as part of sustainability transition policies
(Wieczorek and Hekkert, 2012). The transformation of socio-technical
systems is characterized by shifts in relations between actor groups,
between infrastructures, and between technologies and contexts of
application. The resulting changing contexts and, consequently,
changes in positions of and interlinkages between actors increase the
need for intermediary action (Van Lente et al., 2003;Moss, 2009).
With the exception of some early studies on intermediaries in
transition processes (Van Lente et al., 2003;Geels and Deuten, 2006),
the theme has only relatively recently gained traction in the sustain-
ability transition field (Hodson and Marvin, 2009;Moss, 2009;Guy
et al., 2011). It has also been related to actor roles and agency in
sustainability transitions (Wittmayer et al., 2017;De Haan and
Rotmans, 2018;Gliedt et al., 2018). Since 2009, much of this literature
has focused on urban and energy contexts (e.g. Hodson and Marvin,
2009;Rohracher, 2009;Backhaus, 2010;Bush et al., 2017;Kivimaa and
Martiskainen, 2018a). Studies using notions such as “middle actors”
(Parag and Janda, 2014), “hybrid actors”(Elzen et al., 2012) and
“boundary spanners”(Franks, 2010;Smink et al., 2015;Tisenkopfs
et al., 2015) have addressed intermediary-like functions. Furthermore,
terms related to mediating space, such as “user assemblages”(Nielsen,
2016) and “interaction arenas”(Hyysalo and Usenyuk, 2015;Hyysalo
et al., 2017) refer to intermediation for technologies in transition
without explicitly mentioning intermediaries.
There has been a recent increase in articles on intermediaries in the
sustainability transition literature. These articles recognize that inter-
mediaries can be influential in transition processes by linking actors –
both new entrants and incumbents –and activities, skills and resources
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.006
⁎
Corresponding author at: University of Sussex, UK.
E-mail address: p.kivimaa@sussex.ac.uk (P. Kivimaa).
Research Policy 48 (2019) 1062–1075
Available online 11 October 2018
0048-7333/ © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).
T

connected to these actors, to create momentum for change, create new
collaborations around niche technologies, ideas and markets, and dis-
rupt prevailing socio-technical configurations (e.g. Kivimaa, 2014;
White and Stirling, 2015;Fischer and Newig, 2016). This literature
presents a wide range of interpretations of intermediaries, with varying
levels of capacity to influence change, i.e. change agency (Kivimaa,
2014;Parag and Janda, 2014), intent to drive sustainability transitions
(e.g. Hodson and Marvin, 2009;Moss, 2009) and normativity ranging
from neutral to strongly advocating a certain position (e.g. Elzen et al.,
2012;Orstavik, 2014).
Despite the existence of an emerging body of research on inter-
mediaries in transitions, inconsistencies regarding what might be called
“transition intermediaries”, and which activities they (should) focus on,
has hindered communication of the concept and understanding of its
usefulness to transition scholars and stakeholders. This is partly due to
studies in this area having widely different starting points and con-
ceptual foundations, similar to what Howells (2006) and Klerkx and
Leeuwis (2009) have noted regarding innovation intermediaries. The
analytical focus of existing research ranges from studying intermediary
processes in innovation projects (e.g. Klerkx and Aarts, 2013;
Martiskainen and Kivimaa, 2018) through analysing the aggregation of
multiple experiments/projects (e.g. Geels and Deuten, 2006) to the
classification and building typologies of specific kinds of organizations
as intermediaries (e.g. Polzin et al., 2016;Barrie et al., 2017).
In this paper, we bring more clarity to the topic of intermediaries in
transitions, by providing a definition and a tentative typology of tran-
sition intermediaries that is sensitive to issues such as emergence,
neutrality and goals of intermediary actors in transition processes. We
argue that both academic and policy communities can benefit from this.
In our typology, we use the multi-level perspective (MLP) of transitions
to structure the types of intermediaries, because this strand of transition
literature has been the most explicit in its treatment of intermediaries.
However, we also acknowledge other conceptual foundations owing to
their important insights on the emergence, context and goals of inter-
mediation.
Informed by Petticrew and Roberts (2006), we systematically re-
viewed literature on intermediaries in sustainability transitions and
created a conceptual framework of intermediary types, highlighting key
issues for future research and innovation policy. By engaging in such
systematic review of literature, we attempt to ascertain:
1 What are the theoretical and conceptual connections made in stu-
dies focused on intermediaries in sustainability transitions?
2 What does the literature say about the origin of intermediaries in
sustainability transitions?
3 In what contexts is intermediation occurring in sustainability tran-
sitions?
Through answering these questions, we create a typology, a defi-
nition and early conclusions of intermediation in sustainability transi-
tions. Section 2brieflysummarizes intermediaries in innovation and
sustainability transitions to guide and situate our systematic review.
Section 3explains the methodology. Our findings in Section 4highlight
the conceptual foundations of the literature on intermediaries in sus-
tainability transitions, the emergence of transition intermediaries, dif-
ferent contexts for intermediating in transitions, the goals and norma-
tive positions of intermediaries, and changes in intermediation during
transitions, ending with a proposed typology of intermediaries. In the
discussion and conclusions (Section 5), we bring out some of the cri-
tique and gaps in this literature and highlight future directions.
2. Conceptual background
2.1. Intermediaries in innovation
Innovation studies and science and technology studies (STS) have
for a long time paid specific attention to intermediaries (e.g. Baum
et al., 2000;Howells, 2006;Meyer, 2010;Pollock and Williams, 2016).
A common thread in this work is that intermediaries are found to bridge
between actors involved in situations where direct interaction is diffi-
cult due to high transaction costs (e.g. locating a suitable partner to
collaborate with, disincentives to collaborate) or communication pro-
blems resulting from differences in culture, interests, and capacity to
absorb or exchange knowledge.
Some scholars perceive intermediaries as “facilitators of innova-
tion”, engaging in network and system-building activities (Klerkx and
Leeuwis, 2009). This correlates with an understanding of intermediaries
by actor-network theorists as actors (or non-human actants) that carry
out their function without altering the shape of knowledge or goods
being transferred (Latour, 2005). Others see intermediaries as actors
who shape the entities being passed on (Stewart and Hyysalo, 2008;
Meyer, 2010), for example, consultants translating scientific knowledge
for their clients. Intermediaries are often described as neutral or honest
brokers without clear normative interests beyond that innovation oc-
curs (Pielke, 2007;Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2009). Yet some intermediaries
have a clear normative orientation, acting as “champions”
(Martiskainen and Kivimaa, 2018) and exercising steering through their
translation functions (Meyer, 2010).
In a given emerging technology field, one may find a dynamic
ecology of differently positioned intermediaries, with differing compe-
tences, remits and operational models. This leads each into inter-
mediating only some aspects of innovation but not others (Stewart and
Hyysalo, 2008). The ecology of intermediaries is subject to evolution in
the course of an innovation process and in the maturation of a tech-
nology area (e.g. Klerkx and Aarts, 2013;Hyysalo and Usenyuk, 2015;
Pollock and Williams, 2016).
Intermediary actors are often identified through the functions they
perform, sometimes constituting a specific actor category with a sepa-
rate identity, as either an individual or an organization. Based on these
functions, typologies of intermediaries have been created for innova-
tion systems and urban contexts. For example, Van Lente et al. (2003)
distinguished three types: hard intermediaries, e.g. research and tech-
nology organizations, which engage in the transfer of technical
knowledge and technology transfer; soft intermediaries, e.g. chambers
of commerce or innovation centres, which are oriented to inter-
mediating skills, human resources or learning from a business innova-
tion perspective; and systemic intermediaries as more strategic actors,
intermediating multiple actors, organizing discourse and creating con-
ditions for learning. Klerkx and Leeuwis (2009) made a similar typology
for the agricultural innovation system. Hodson et al. (2013), in turn,
characterized four modes of intermediation in urban energy contexts by
examining whether intermediaries initiate or implement externally
produced or context-specific priorities, and whether their responses are
systemic or episodic.
While some studies address specific types of intermediaries, the
literature as a whole lacks clarity in how intermediation is defined,
where it begins and ends, and where interaction in general becomes
intermediation. As a result, intermediation covers a range from formal,
self-recognized and defined forms, to informal and emergent (or even
mostly hidden) forms of intermediation.
2.2. Sustainability transitions
The literature on sustainability transitions has introduced a broader
outlook on innovation than mainstream innovation studies, moving
beyond product or process innovation to focus on systemic change for
sustainable futures.
The key premise of this literature is to study and promote sustainable
transformative change, seen as a set of processes leading to funda-
mental shifts in socio-technical systems and involving far-reaching
modifications to technological, material, organizational, institutional,
political, economic, and socio-cultural dimensions (Markard et al.,
P. Kivimaa et al. Research Policy 48 (2019) 1062–1075
1063

2012) with implications for policy. The literature has evolved rapidly,
building on four key conceptual approaches: MLP, strategic niche
management (SNM), transition management (TM) and technological
innovation systems (TIS) (see Markard et al., 2012).
The boundaries of sustainability transitions research are fluid but
informed by a shared normative orientation and a tradition of research
drawing from the four core conceptualizations. Building on MLP and
SNM, “niche”and “regime”have become prominent concepts in tran-
sition studies, although not used in all approaches. Niches are depicted
as spaces in which radical innovations and experimentation are taking
place, while regimes are described as relatively stable and shared
configurations of technologies, practices and institutions (Rip and
Kemp, 1998;Geels, 2002).
Research on sustainability transitions is multidisciplinary, with new
openings made to better account for issues such as spatiality (Hansen
and Coenen, 2015), politics (Avelino et al., 2016) and agency (Fischer
and Newig, 2016). Temporality is an important aspect of transitions,
even more so than in innovation intermediary studies, involving
changes in the emergent and dominant socio-technical configurations.
Thus, intermediary action may appear differently in different stages of
transformative change. Normative directions of innovation are present
in transition studies through considering consequences of change for
environmental and social sustainability (Smith et al., 2010).
3. Method and data
To explore intermediaries in the context of sustainability transitions
conceptually, we undertook a systematic review of academic literature,
in a manner informed by Petticrew and Roberts (2006). We carried out
a scientific literature repository search using keywords. We subse-
quently expanded from the resulting articles to their reference lists and
citations to identify further articles. Our focus was on those articles that
explicitly used the term “intermediary”in the context of sustainability
transitions. The selection of articles was completed in three steps (I–III
in Fig. 1).
First (step I), we searched Scopus combining search terms “transi-
tion*”OR “multi-level perspective”OR “strategic niche management”
OR “technological innovation system*”AND “intermediar*”in the title-
abstract-keywords fields. Following Markard et al.’s (2012) depiction of
core theories of sustainability transitions, MLP, SNM and TIS were
specifically searched. Articles referring to the fourth core theory TM
were captured by the search word “transition*”. We complemented the
Scopus search with another one in Science Direct in the title-abstract-
keywords fields because, while Scopus includes Science Direct journals,
new articles are not updated to Scopus immediately after publication.
The resulting article abstracts were scrutinized using the following
inclusion criteria (step II): the publication had to be (1) a peer-reviewed
piece of academic work in the field of social science and business stu-
dies, (2) thematically oriented to transition studies, and (3) appearing
in Scopus on 11 October 2017. In addition, we applied the following
exclusion criteria: (4) articles that did not address innovation or change
in the context of socio-technical systems were excluded (i.e. the term
“transition”needed to be used in the sense of transformative change);
and (5) articles in which the term “intermediary”was only used in
passing (referring to 1–2 instances and not being part of the main focus)
were excluded from our analysis. Abstract reading resulted in an initial
selection of 45 articles of which 13 were omitted based on reading the
full papers, resulting in 32 articles feeding into step III.
Step III involved searching the reference lists of the selected 32
articles for earlier relevant papers, taking into account terms with si-
milar meaning. This “backward citation snowballing”resulted in nine
additional articles. We also performed a “forward citation snowballing”
by selecting for each of the 32 articles the “cited by”option in Scopus.
The resulting list of citing articles was then scanned: title, keywords and
abstracts were read to assess inclusion. This procedure resulted in 12
new articles. Backward and forward citation yielded 30 articles, of
which nine were excluded after reading the full papers. Thus, 53 arti-
cles form the material for systematic review (Fig. 2).
The first author read and coded all the articles. To check for con-
sistency, the second author read and coded randomly selected articles
(see Appendix A for the list of codes and Appendix B for a complete list
of articles). The two authors discussed coding in an iterative exercise.
No significant inconsistencies emerged.
4. Findings of the systematic literature review
Section 4presents and discusses the findings of the systematic lit-
erature review. The following is covered: the conceptual foundations of
intermediaries and what transition perspectives they are connected to
(Section 4.1); how intermediaries emerge in the context of transitions
(Section 4.2); different contexts for intermediating in transitions (Sec-
tion 4.3); the goals and normative positioning of intermediaries (Sec-
tion 4.4); changes in intermediation during transitions (Section 4.5);
and a typology of transition intermediary types (Section 4.6).
4.1. Conceptual foundations of intermediaries in relation to transitions
perspectives
Transitions studies refer to intermediary actors through four con-
ceptual lenses on which subsequent publications have mostly built.
Research on intermediaries in transitions originated in 2003, when Van
Lente et al. (2003) wrote a seminal piece on systemic intermediaries that
is cited by 15 out of 53 articles in our review (221 citations in Google
Scholar). They used concepts from research on systems of innovations
(Lundvall, 1992;Nelson, 1993;Edquist, 1997), intermediation in
knowledge-intensive business services, research and technology orga-
nizations, and public and industry organizations. They described sys-
temic intermediaries as building blocks of innovation systems, being
new types of intermediaries that operate “in networks instead of ‘one to
one’mediation”(Van Lente et al., 2003). Such intermediaries are seen to
carry out systemic functions, including the articulation of options and
demand, alignment of actors and possibilities, and support in learning
processes. The article illustrates this in cases that relate to sustainability
transitions.
Twelve articles in our review referred to another strand of the lit-
erature on intermediaries in transitions, i.e. urban transitions, building
on the work of Hodson, Marvin and Medd (Medd and Marvin, 2008;
Hodson and Marvin, 2009,2010,2012;Hodson et al., 2013). Con-
ceptualization of intermediaries in this body of work has initially lar-
gely been formed from the empirical context of urban transitions. Some
cross-referencing is made to Van Lente et al. (2003), and loose con-
nections have been made to cultural intermediaries by Bourdieu
(1984), technology translators by Iles and Yolles (2002), social inter-
mediaries by Piore (2001), and the work of Callon (1986) and Latour
(2005).
In 2006, Geels and Deuten (2006) described how intermediaries
operate to connect local experimental projects and the building of a
“global”niche for transitions (see also Geels and Raven, 2006). This
conceptualization emerged from empirical and conceptual studies on
niche development, rather than referring to previous academic con-
ceptualizations of intermediaries. This work was only directly ac-
knowledged in six other papers in our review (64 citations in Scopus;
138 citations in Google Scholar). However, Hargreaves et al. (e.g.
Hargreaves et al., 2013;Seyfang et al., 2014;Smith et al., 2016) have
built significantly on Geels and Deuten in further developing the con-
ceptualization of intermediaries in niche development, and have, in
turn, sparked a wide range of studies.
The latest scholarly lens on intermediaries in transitions (Klerkx and
Leeuwis, 2009;Polzin et al., 2016;Barrie et al., 2017) increasingly
connects to the large body of work on “innovation intermediaries”.
Klerkx and Leeuwis (2009) and Kivimaa (2014), being the first to make
a connection between innovation intermediaries (Bessant and Rush,
P. Kivimaa et al. Research Policy 48 (2019) 1062–1075
1064

1995;Howells, 2006;Boon et al., 2011) and transitions, have informed
recent research on intermediaries in transitions. Nine articles in our
review referred to one or both of these sources (383/66 citations in
Google Scholar and 168/30 citations in Scopus, respectively). This lens
is differentiated from the first one. While systemic intermediaries link
to the facilitation of interactions with the aim of strengthening the in-
novation system, innovation intermediaries derive, for example, from
management studies’depiction of knowledge brokers (Hargadon, 2002)
and science and technology studies (Guston, 1999), exploring a variety
of innovation intermediary roles (also captured by the seminal review
of Howells (2006)).
We, thus, identified four conceptual lenses through which inter-
mediary work in sustainability transitions has been studied: (1) sys-
temic intermediaries, (2) intermediaries in urban transitions, (3) in-
termediaries in niche development, and (4) innovation intermediaries
in transitions (Fig. 3). Yet many articles in our review used the term
“intermediary”without using any of these conceptual lenses as a
foundation. Thirteen articles refer to only one literature source when
briefly explaining the intermediary focus, and in four articles no
grounding is given to the use of intermediary.
Over half of the studies reviewed treat intermediaries in the context
of one or both of the two interlinked core approaches of transition
studies (Fig. 4): MLP and SNM. Therefore, we specifically draw on the
idea of intermediation in the interface of niches and regimes, two
cornerstone concepts of MLP and SNM, in Sections 4.2–4.6. The lit-
eratures on technological innovation systems and transition manage-
ment have been used much less to guide the work on intermediaries in
transitions. However, the findings pertaining to intermediaries in the
few articles written from the TIS perspective (e.g. Lukkarinen et al.,
2018;Normann and Hanson, 2018) could be “translated”to the re-
gime/niche orientation, because these articles also reference niche/re-
gime studies. Slightly less than a third of the studies did not link to any
of the four core perspectives, rather connecting to urban transitions,
innovation systems, large technical systems and socio-technical ar-
rangements. Urban transition studies, arguing the limited influence of
MLP in place-based transitions, have focused on spatial or scalar in-
termediation between the city–region level and national governance
(Hodson and Marvin, 2012) or between different localities within a
region (Medd and Marvin, 2008).
Fig. 1. Steps in selecting the publications.
Fig. 2. Spread of articles included in the systematic review based on year of
publication.
P. Kivimaa et al. Research Policy 48 (2019) 1062–1075
1065

4.2. Emergence of dedicated “transition intermediaries”
While many of the articles reviewed did not explicitly address the
origin of intermediaries, 27 articles articulated through empirical de-
scriptions the varying ways in which intermediary actions emerge and,
hence, pointed to the existence of what can be called a “transition in-
termediary”. Our literature review presents four distinct ways through
which the identity of “transition intermediary”emerges.
(1) Theoretically, perhaps the clearest one is a transition intermediary
that is specifically established to intermediate a transition process
(e.g. Hodson and Marvin, 2009,2010;Hamann and April, 2013;
Hamilton et al., 2015), for example, to coordinate local actions with
the “sustainable”economic strategy of a city region (Hodson and
Marvin, 2012), to facilitate the implementation of “neighbourhood
contracts”for urban renovation (Kampelmann et al., 2016), or to
promote low-carbon transition by engaging municipalities as
“change laboratories”(Lukkarinen et al., 2018). Hodson and
Marvin (2010) argue that intermediaries need to be created as new
forms of governance to boost transitions. This may occur in places
where, for instance, innovation policymakers or cities play an ac-
tive role in transforming governance (Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2009;
Hodson et al., 2013).
(2) Yet, more mentions as intermediaries were made in the systematic
review of already established actors (organizations, individuals)
who assumed intermediary roles and activities during their ex-
istence, even though they were not initially set up to intermediate
(e.g. Rohracher, 2009;Schreuer et al., 2010;Horne and Dalton,
2014;Judson et al., 2015;Mattes et al., 2015). These may be part of
the prevailing socio-technical system or of newly emerging niches
or technological innovation systems, for example, advancing en-
ergy-efficient buildings (Fischer and Guy, 2009;Parag and Janda,
2014), renewable energy technology (Normann and Hanson, 2018),
community energy (Martiskainen, 2017) or forest sector innovation
(Berkvist and Söderholm, 2011). Judson et al. (2015) and Parag and
Janda (2014) argue for the importance of established actors to
adopt intermediary roles to advance transitions (also Fischer and
Guy, 2009).
(3) Equally common are transition intermediaries that had not existed
before, nor been mandated to intermediate by some higher-level
actor, but had emerged in the process of transition. They may ap-
pear in response to large-scale institutional change (e.g. Moss,
2009;Rohracher, 2009;Backhaus, 2010;Moore et al., 2012)orto
failures in markets and innovation systems to address sustainability
Fig. 3. Conceptual foundations and research strands of the emerging literature on intermediaries in transitions.
Fig. 4. Transition perspective adopted in the systematic review articles.
P. Kivimaa et al. Research Policy 48 (2019) 1062–1075
1066

concerns or new technologies related to transitions (e.g. Van Lente
et al., 2003;Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2009; Hamann and April; Hyysalo
et al., 2013,2017). For instance, Moss (2009) argues that inter-
mediaries may especially originate in response to market re-
structuring and new modes of regulation, and to fill institutional
gaps (a finding supported by a case of fiscal reform in Canada; see
Moore et al., 2012). Hyysalo et al. (2013,2018) found that peer-to-
peer internet discussion forums grew to take a major intermediary
role in the diffusion of renewable technologies. Kanger and Schot
(2016) found user clubs becoming intermediaries during the
emergence of the car, and being particularly important in accel-
erating transitions.
(4) Moss (2009) and Hodson et al. (2013) have made reference also to
transition intermediaries unaware of their intermediation. They can
often be found at the interface of radical innovation/experimental
activities and the prevailing regime. Examples include social land-
lords (Judson et al., 2015), building professionals (Horne and
Dalton, 2014) and architects translating low-carbon building reg-
ulations into practice (Fischer and Guy, 2009). Equally, user in-
termediaries, such as peers in internet discussion forums, only
gradually understand that they have come to play an important role
(Hyysalo et al., 2013,2017,2018). These kinds of actors may be
crucial in forming a critical mass for accelerating transitions. For
example, architects could play a significant, but so far non-actua-
lized, role in intermediating low-carbon transitions (Fischer and
Guy, 2009).
The above observations point also to the evolution of intermediaries.
Changes in socio-technical system configurations are likely to lead to
the formation of new intermediaries, changing intermediary roles and,
perhaps, termination of others. Van Lente et al. (2003) and Klerkx and
Leeuwis (2009) make an argument for the emergence of more systemic
intermediaries in the context of changing innovation systems, inter-
mediating in many-to-many relationships as opposed to intermediating
in bilateral relationships. There are also sector-specific dynamics that
influence intermediary emergence. The deregulation of electricity and
water markets (Moss, 2009;Rohracher, 2009;Backhaus, 2010) led to
the creation of new intermediaries connecting unbundled parts of the
system.
During a transition new intermediaries may emerge and old ones
cease to exist either intentionally, in the course of a “battle”between
actors, or accidentally. Changing contexts may create conflicts between
intermediaries (e.g. Moore et al., 2012), taking focus away from their
task. Long-term intermediaries may choose to have a limited role to
play in a given transition (Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2009;Kivimaa, 2014).
When transition advances, tasks of intermediaries supporting niches
may be taken over by regime players, making intermediaries less im-
portant (Kanger and Schot, 2016), or transition intermediaries may
change their role and become intermediaries institutionalized as part of
the new regime (e.g. Berkvist and Söderholm, 2011). As the proposals,
solutions and uses that start as novel and different gradually tend to
move towards normalcy and find their new institutional logics and
stable actor configurations, a transition intermediary may transform to
a more incremental player no longer able to act as an advocate or even
a neutral party to alternative socio-technical configurations (e.g.
Orstavik, 2014).
4.3. Different contexts for intermediation in transitions
Transition intermediaries operate in and between different contexts.
One form of transition intermediation occurs between experimental and
innovative local projects and the “global”niche (Geels and Deuten,
2006), global implying a more aggregate level instead of geographical
scale. Empirical studies indicate that intermediary actors aggregate
learning from individual projects and translate best practice, resources,
standards and global visions to influence the formation of new projects
and the selection environment (e.g. Raven et al., 2011;Seyfang et al.,
2014;Holden et al., 2016). Hargreaves et al. (2013, p.77) found that, in
addition to intermediating between different projects, community en-
ergy intermediaries increasingly broker and manage “partnerships be-
tween local community energy projects and other actors from outside
the community energy sector –particularly major energy companies”.
Similarly, Raven et al. (2011) describe how mobilizing “allies”, such as
local politicians, was an important intermediary activity in increasing
the public acceptance of new niche solutions in river management.
Smith et al. (2016) go further in describing roles in policy advocacy,
such as mobilizing political programmes to support a particular niche.
Intermediation between actors within experimental projects is an
important micro-scale activity that has only recently been studied in the
context of transitions (Kampelmann et al., 2016;Martiskainen and
Kivimaa, 2018). On a project level, intermediation occurs between
differing interests for the purposes of vision formation and project
implementation (Martiskainen and Kivimaa, 2018) and between phy-
sical and people-oriented operations (Kampelmann et al., 2016).
Urban transition studies offer a spatial perspective to intermedia-
tion, where intermediation occurs between national, regional and city
scales. In this context, intermediation may aim to improve integration
between national (transition) priorities and city strategies (Hodson and
Marvin, 2012), or to translate regional strategies into local practices
covering multiple spatialities (Medd and Marvin, 2008). Thus, inter-
mediaries cross both spatial and administrative scales (Hermans et al.,
2016).
Another form of transition intermediation is that between con-
sumers and producers (e.g. Van Lente et al., 2003;Medd and Marvin,
2008;Rohracher, 2009;Judson et al., 2015), where a process of in-
termediating interests and ideas and shifting power positions takes
place. New technologies required for sustainability transition may dif-
fuse among consumers “as is”, but it is common that they require ad-
justment and re-innovation in particular locales where they are
adopted, and may further require adaptions in consumer routines and
practices. Installers, maintenance technicians and other users may act
as intermediaries who facilitate and configure new technology to suit
local particularities (Judson et al., 2015;Hyysalo et al., 2013,2017;
Schot et al., 2016). Research in this area has empirically focused on the
energy use and heating of buildings (Horne and Dalton, 2014;Parag
and Janda, 2014;Judson et al., 2015;Hyysalo et al., 2018), where
different technological configurations can be made to derive system or
architectural innovation (Martiskainen and Kivimaa, 2018). In some
cases, such intermediation extends to the post-technology-adoption
phase, in which the concrete benefits, e.g. for energy demand reduc-
tion, depend on how improved use of the technology is facilitated by
intermediaries (Hyysalo et al., 2013;Grandclement et al., 2015;
Martiskainen and Kivimaa, 2018).
A vital context for transition intermediaries is the overall system
comprising both niche and regime actors, where intermediation is de-
picted as occurring between multiple network partners (Van Lente
et al., 2003;Hodson and Marvin, 2009;Mattes et al., 2015;Lukkarinen
et al., 2018) or system actors (Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2009;Polzin et al.,
2016;Barrie et al., 2017). At the interface between new, radically
different alternatives and the prevailing socio-technical regime, inter-
mediaries link niche actors with dominant socio-technical structures,
aid in negotiating change by assisting in the building of alliances, and
bring in supporters from the dominant regime (Diaz et al., 2013;Elzen
et al., 2012;Hargreaves et al., 2013;Ingram, 2015;Smink et al., 2015;
Hess, 2016). In such contexts, intermediaries act as brokers between
multiple priorities, interests and knowledge pools for creating a shared
vision and activities to facilitate transitions. Mattes et al. (2015) de-
scribe how organizations from industry and administration have di-
verging organizational cultures and rationales for action and thus re-
quire intermediation in the context of creating innovation systems.
Fischer and Guy (2009), in turn, exemplify how new regulation for
energy transitions needs to be translated by intermediaries to be
P. Kivimaa et al. Research Policy 48 (2019) 1062–1075
1067

understandable, so that building practitioners can implement it in
practice. Such translation by intermediaries may also be needed across
different regions and networks that have differing established interests
(Medd and Marvin, 2008).
The multidimensionality, complexity and multi-actor-network or-
ientation of transition processes makes the operation of one inter-
mediary alone often insufficient. Indeed, our systematic review de-
monstrates that, in the transition context, an ecology of intermediaries
plays an important role in creating new markets for innovative solu-
tions through pooling knowledge, finance and people for niche devel-
opment (Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2009;Rohracher, 2009), while simulta-
neously challenging existing market structures and voicing demands for
regime change (Kivimaa, 2014). Thereby, transition intermediaries
engage in both supporting radical innovation from the ground and
disrupting the prevailing (unsustainable) socio-technical configurations
from the system level. The ecology of transition intermediaries condi-
tions the ways in which information is exchanged or translated and
learning takes place (Geels and Deuten, 2006;Hodson and Marvin,
2009;Wihlborg and Söderholm, 2013;Seyfang et al., 2014). It is crucial
to note that even within a specific ecology of intermediaries, the opi-
nions and priorities of different intermediaries vary (Holden et al.,
2016;Hyysalo et al., 2018), meaning that they do not concur ne-
cessarily on how the transition is best pursued.
4.4. Goals of intermediation and normative positions of transition
intermediaries
Intermediaries are frequently labelled as “neutral”or “without
specific agency”(Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2009;Backhaus, 2010;
Kampelmann et al., 2016;Parag and Janda, 2014). There are, however,
questions about the degree of neutrality intermediaries can possess in
connection to change agency (cf. Kivimaa, 2014). Indeed, to denote
their position, references have also been made to them supporting the
“collective good”(Geels and Deuten, 2006), “societal benefit”(Hyysalo
et al., 2013) or trustworthiness of knowledge (Wihlborg and
Söderholm, 2013).
The systematic review reveals that many transition intermediaries
are likely to possess a degree of bias and agency in relation to the
normative position and strategic goals of espoused niches vis-à-vis the
prevailing socio-technical configuration. Intermediaries may advocate
particular socio-technical solutions or trajectories. Martiskainen and
Kivimaa (2018) illustrate how some (but not all) intermediaries take on
championing roles when working on zero-carbon building transitions.
Holden et al. (2016), when describing intermediary organizations in
advancing sustainable neighbourhood development, talk about vision-
aries having “a bias towards limiting human population growth to
within local ecological capacity”.Smith et al. (2016) illustrate political
advocacy work supporting specific sustainable solutions. Other transi-
tion intermediaries may have biases through attachments to existing
institutional regimes as parts of either formal governance structures
(e.g. Orstavik, 2014;Polzin et al., 2016) or informal institutions (e.g.
Parag and Janda, 2014;Hamilton et al., 2015).
Intermediaries may also be commercially or financially dependent
on, for example, the government or industrial partners in their inter-
mediation activities (Fischer and Guy, 2009;Hodson and Marvin, 2012;
Moore et al., 2012;Horne and Dalton, 2014). This iterates Kivimaa's
(2014) assertion that neutrality or bias may be dependent on politics,
finance and technological orientation. In contrast, “strategic inter-
mediaries”are specifically established to intermediate between sets of
different social interests (and technologies) to produce an outcome that
would not have been possible, or as effective, without their involve-
ment (Hodson and Marvin, 2009;Kanger and Schot, 2016). What is of
relevance is the legitimacy that transition intermediaries possess in
facilitating and helping in configuring transitions.
4.5. Changes in intermediation over the course of transitions
Limited insight is available on how intermediation changes over the
course of transitions, but this has recently received emerging interest
(cf. Hyysalo et al., 2018;Kivimaa and Martiskainen, 2018b). Most ar-
ticles on transition intermediaries focus on the early stage of transitions
(sometimes labelled as “predevelopment”), when experimental projects
are starting to form a niche and have some visibility. During this phase,
making connections between local and global developments is seen as
important to move beyond individual experiments towards a “suc-
cessful”niche (Geels and Deuten, 2006;Hargreaves et al., 2013;
Seyfang et al., 2014;Fontes et al., 2016).
Van Lente et al. (2011) describe how the functions of systemic in-
termediary organizations differ in different transition phases. In pre-
development, systemic intermediaries can articulate societal needs,
make options visible and identify possible stakeholders to form an
arena for transition. In take-off, systemic intermediaries aim to engage a
critical mass of stakeholders for the new system and identify promising
niches. In acceleration, systemic intermediaries can organize strategic
workshops to align various perspectives and activities, and prevent
strategic games. Kanger and Schot (2016) refer to how user inter-
mediaries are important in aligning different elements of emerging
socio-technical systems (products, infrastructure, regulation) to accel-
eration. Hyysalo et al. (2018, p.872) examine how user intermediaries
accelerate transitions by “qualifying market information, articulating
demand and helping citizen users to reconfigure the standard tech-
nology”.
Disruption of the prevailing regime can be seen as a specific phase
occurring simultaneously or subsequently to niche development. It is
exemplified, for example, through transforming infrastructure systems,
generating demand for new forms of intermediation previously not
required or recognized (Backhaus, 2010;Moss, 2009;Rohracher,
2009). After disruption, intermediaries can help seize novel business
opportunities in a newly stabilized socio-technical configuration, si-
multaneously shaping or transforming it (Rohracher, 2009) to the
pursuit of their own and common objectives.
4.6. Building a typology of intermediaries
In Sections 4.2–4.5 we gained insights into how the articles describe
intermediaries with respect to their emergence, context of intermedia-
tion, goals of intermediation, normative position and development over
time. We combined these insights, and created, first, a longlist of in-
termediaries largely following the different labels given to these in the
literature (systemic, strategic, niche, grassroots, collaborative, process,
project, piecemeal and user[-side] intermediaries). Given a substantial
number of articles referring to MLP or SNM (see Section 4.1), we took
the approach of identifying the level at which an intermediary operates
as one determinant in our typology. The motivations or the degree of
neutrality and agency behind the intermediary additionally informed
our typology. By identifying similar characteristics between different
descriptions, we distilled five broader types of transition inter-
mediaries, illustrated in Table 1. The categories in the typology are not
mutually exclusive. Yet, in practice, many intermediaries are likely to
be profiled more as one type than equally portraying the characteristics
of several types:
(1) A systemic intermediary operating on all levels (niche, regime,
landscape), promoting an explicit transition agenda and taking the
lead in aiming for change on the whole system level.
(2) A regime-based transition intermediary that is tied through, for ex-
ample, institutional arrangements or interests to the prevailing
socio-technical regime but has a specific mandate or goal to pro-
mote transition and, thus, interacts (often) with a range of niches or
the whole system.
(3) A niche intermediary typically working to experiment and advance
P. Kivimaa et al. Research Policy 48 (2019) 1062–1075
1068

Table 1
Transition intermediary types arising from systematic review.
Category Context/level of action Emergence Goal of inter-mediation Normative position Examples Sources
Position vis-à-vis
niche
Neutrality/ interest
Systemic
intermediary
Intermediating on system
level between multiple actors
& interests
Typically established to
intermediate
Pursues given
(sustainability) goals on a
system level; ambitiousness
towards disruption to
existing system
Outsider to specific
niches, creating
space for multiple,
alternative niches
Typically regarded as a
position of neutral, unbiased
facilitator and broker,
despite having an interest in
stimulating transitions
Innovation Network
Rural Areas and
Agricultural Systems,
Netherlands
SITRA, Finnish
Independence Fund
Industrial Biotechnology
Innovation Centre
(IBioIC), Scotland
Van Lente et al. (2003), Medd and
Marvin (2008), Hodson and Marvin
(2009), Klerkx and Leeuwis, (2009),
Backhaus (2010), Kivimaa (2014),
Seyfang et al. (2014), Barrie et al.
(2017), Bush et al. (2017), Lukkarinen
et al. (2018), Rohracher (2009)
Regime-based
transition
intermediary
Intermediating on system
level between multiple
actors, within mandate given
by dominant regime actors
Existing actor subsuming
intermediary roles; or
established by dominant
regime actors to
intermediate for transition
Pursues given
(sustainability) goals through
typically more incremental
solutions or political aims
Outsider to specific
niches, creating
space for multiple,
alternative niches
Regarded as a player in the
dominant system but
pursuing or empowered for
change
Motiva, Finland
Forest Industries’Water
and Air Pollution
Research Foundation,
Sweden
Greater Manchester
Climate Change Agency
Religious congregations
(sometimes)
Kivimaa (2014), Hodson and Marvin
(2012), Hodson et al. (2013), Berkvist
and Söderholm (2011), Parag and
Janda (2014) (middle actor), Polzin
et al. (2016) (institutional
intermediary), Mattes et al. (2015)
Niche (or grassroots
or user)
intermediary
Intermediating between local
projects, and/or higher level
of aggregation
Often emerging to
intermediate when a niche
(or TIS) develops
Pursues given
(sustainability) goals and
solutions from a perspective
of a given niche (or TIS)
Insider to a specific
niche (or TIS)
Regarded as player
advancing a particular niche
(or TIS)
Community energy
initiatives, England
Wave Energy Association
WAVEC, Portugal
Living Community
Challenge,
Canada/US
Standardization
committees for new
technology
Geels and Deuten, (2006), Seyfang
et al. (2014), Hargreaves et al. (2013),
Hamann and April (2013), Fontes
et al. (2016), Holden et al. (2016),
Martiskainen, (2017), Smith et al.
(2016), Hyysalo et al. (2013), Judson
et al. (2015), Kanger and Schot
(2016), Grandclement et al. (2015)
Process
intermediary
Intermediating within
experimental projects or
specific processes
contributing to transitions
Typically established/
employed to intermediate
day-to-day action in
transition projects or
processes
Implementing context-
specific priorities, informed
by broader transition
trajectories
Typically outsider to
specific niche
Regarded as a neutral,
unbiased “networker”that
does not have specific
“agenda”in the process
Sustainability consultant
Project manager
Architect
Elzen et al., (2012), Hodson and
Marvin (2010), Hodson et al. (2013),
Kampelmann et al. (2016),
Martiskainen and Kivimaa (2018),
Parag and Janda (2014), Audet and
Gyonnaud, (2013)
User intermediary Intermediating between
technology (provided) and
use, and/or niche technology
and dominant configuration
Emerges from amidst users
and consumers
Acts as facilitator,
representative, or broker of
end-use or end-users.
Insider or outsider to
specificniche
Leans towards user interests
(in some cases even as
activists)
Internet discussion forum
for heat pumps
Car user clubs (in early
phases)
Advocacy groups
Building manager
(sometimes)
Hyysalo et al. (2013), Judson et al.
(2015), Kanger and Schot (2016),
Grandclement et al. (2015)
P. Kivimaa et al. Research Policy 48 (2019) 1062–1075
1069

activities of a particular niche, and trying to influence the pre-
vailing socio-technical system for that niche’s benefit.
(4) A process intermediary that facilitates a change process or a niche
project rather than broader niche (or TIS) level; often without ex-
plicit individual agency or agenda, but in support of context-spe-
cific (project-based or spatially located) and/or external (niche,
regime) priorities set by other actors.
(5) A user intermediary translating new niche technologies to users and
user preferences to developers and regime actors, qualifying the
value of technology offers available.
The first three types have a relatively strong change agency (and
mandate) to pursue sustainability transitions from either the whole
system or niche perspective. The fourth type, process intermediary, has
weak agency, functioning as a facilitator. The fifth type, user inter-
mediary, can have strong or weak agency.
4.6.1. Systemic intermediaries
Some transition intermediaries operate on a system level (e.g. Van
Lente et al., 2003:Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2009), and can be named as
systemic intermediaries.Hargreaves et al. (2013, p.879) argue, “inter-
mediation may be more about opening up space in different contexts
[…] for new and diverse kinds of activity, rather than about developing
a single successful approach or a strategic vision for its growth and
diffusion”. For example, Van Lente et al. (2003) illustrate a systemic
intermediary, Innovation Network Rural Areas and Agricultural Sys-
tems in the Netherlands, which created a forum assembling actors from
the government, knowledge institutions, societal organizations and
companies to identify and develop multiple innovations contributing to
sustainable development. This network has been important in transi-
tioning towards novel agricultural functions and more sustainable
production systems (Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2009).
Klerkx and Leeuwis (2009) regard systemic intermediaries as cata-
lysts of innovation, for example, in setting up experiments and articu-
lating demands for producers on a variety of solutions (see also
Rohracher, 2009;Hyysalo et al., 2013). Systemic intermediaries ar-
ticulate, negotiate and align multiple interests across niches –and
sometimes across regimes –to be more compatible with each other,
advancing standardization and preventing strategic games (Van Lente
et al., 2003;Rohracher, 2009). The Finnish Innovation Fund, Sitra, is an
example of a financially and politically independent systemic inter-
mediary that sets up a range of experiments in, for example, zero-
carbon building, renewable energy, land use planning and individual
capacity building, as well as aligning interests between companies, ci-
ties and the government to benefit transitions (Kivimaa, 2014).
Systemic intermediaries gain a certain level of trust from other ac-
tors, making them sometimes appear politically, technologically or fi-
nancially neutral (Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2009;Kivimaa, 2014), more so
than regime-based transition intermediaries or niche intermediaries.
The perceptions of their capabilities to operate in favour of system-level
change strategically may be due to their specific establishments to
pursue certain change goals or processes (Hodson and Marvin, 2009,
2010). While systemic intermediaries may gain funding from govern-
ments or private funders, they share a large degree of independence in
how they can use the funds to advance systemic change the way they
see as best, thus, enabling politically more radical opinions and actions.
Systemic intermediaries are also important in disrupting the pre-
vailing unsustainable socio-technical configurations, i.e. regimes
(something that is harder for regime-based transition intermediaries to
do). Kivimaa (2014, p.1372) argues that systemic “[i]ntermediaries
may attempt to destabilize dominant regimes…by aiming to decrease
public legitimacy for and endogenous commitment to an existing re-
gime, or unintentionally disrupt existing structures”. Their activities
can target the disruption of existing institutional frameworks or mar-
kets (Kivimaa, 2014; see also Nielsen, 2016) or entail replacing existing
networks with new ones, further disturbing existing structures (Klerkx
and Leeuwis, 2009;Hodson and Marvin, 2009). In such actions, sys-
temic transition intermediaries face other intermediaries acting as a
counterforce that may “thwart rather than promote potentially useful
but disruptive innovations”(Orstavik, 2014, p.857).
4.6.2. Regime-based transition intermediaries
There are also intermediary actors in transitions that are part of the
established institutions in the prevailing socio-technical regime but yet
inclined or mandated to work towards transformative change (Berkvist
and Söderholm, 2011;Hodson et al., 2013;Parag and Janda, 2014;
Polzin et al., 2016). We label them as regime-based transition inter-
mediaries. They differ from those non-transition oriented regime inter-
mediaries, such as trade bodies and labour unions, which try to pre-
serve status quo. Existing actors, such as government agencies, business
networks or building professionals, can take on roles of regime-based
transition intermediaries and form networks with newly set up systemic
or niche intermediaries (e.g. Parag and Janda, 2014;Mattes et al.,
2015;Polzin et al., 2016), thereby building a new ecology of inter-
mediaries. Sometimes, new intermediaries are established by regime
actors at national or regional levels to facilitate sustainability transi-
tions (e.g. Hodson and Marvin, 2012;Kivimaa, 2014).
While transition intermediaries in general may differ in whether
they wish to engage in radical political activism or more reformist and
incremental practical action (Hargreaves et al., 2013), regime-based
transition intermediaries are more likely to take on the latter role
(Kivimaa, 2014). Yet they can speed up radical innovation processes by
“supporting the design of a policy environment that is conducive to the
innovation process”(Polzin et al., 2016). When disruptive policy
measures are created, regime-based transition intermediaries can
translate such new forms of regulation into practice and make sense of a
complex and changing policy environment to innovators (Fischer and
Guy, 2009;Moss, 2009). For example, some architects have taken an
intermediary role in translating energy efficiency requirements in
building regulations to an understandable form to customers and other
building sector actors (Fischer and Guy, 2009), thereby facilitating low-
energy building transitions. Motiva, a government-owned energy and
resource efficiency company in Finland, has facilitated cooperation
between bioenergy advice and heat entrepreneurs, and between dif-
ferent renewable energy associations to benefit low-carbon energy
transitions (Kivimaa, 2014). Regime-based transition intermediaries
have also helped to find new sources of funding for basic and applied
research and development, characterized by high technological and
market uncertainty (Polzin et al., 2016).
The Greater Manchester Climate Change Agency, established with a
mandate from the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities and
the UK government to advance low-carbon transitions, was an inter-
mediary between national and sub-national interests. Drawing from
multiple streams of funding and, thus, differing strategic priorities, it
developed capacity for behavioural change work, supported businesses
in low-carbon issues, and developed critical infrastructure including
combined heat and power (CHP) and renewable energy installations.
While possessing some elements of a systemic intermediary, it can be
regarded as a regime-based transition intermediary, effectively inter-
mediating between the (dominant) interests of the national and the
city-region regimes. Despite the change agenda, pre-existing economic
interests dominated its actions. (Hodson and Marvin, 2012)
4.6.3. Niche intermediaries
Ample research has focused on intermediaries facilitating the de-
velopment of specific niches (Geels and Deuten, 2006;Hamann and
April, 2013;Hargreaves et al., 2013;Seyfang et al., 2014;Fontes et al.,
2016;Smith et al., 2016;Martiskainen, 2017). Intermediation within a
niche often centres between multiple projects and sometimes between
those projects and the broader regime.
Niche intermediaries develop shared institutional infrastructure
between similar projects. For example, UK community energy
P. Kivimaa et al. Research Policy 48 (2019) 1062–1075
1070

intermediaries have facilitated the sharing of financial models and de-
velopment of mentoring programmes between different initiatives
(Seyfang et al., 2014). New institutional actors such as professional
societies, industry associations and standardization organizations can
also act as niche intermediaries (Geels and Deuten, 2006;Hargreaves
et al., 2013). These actors perceive themselves as part of an emerging
community with collective interests to both aggregate knowledge and
guide local developments (Geels and Deuten, 2006). For example,
WAVEC, a Portuguese wave energy association established in 2003 and
the European Ocean Energy Association established in 2006 have cre-
ated an important voice and facilitated vision creation for the wave
energy niche, and helped to formalize the niche (Fontes et al., 2016).
Niche intermediaries make connections between particular and
often isolated local innovation projects and with the wider world (cf.
Howells, 2006). By doing “relational work”(Moss, 2009), inter-
mediaries “are able to identify common issues and problems en-
countered 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 ex-
perience”(Hargreaves et al., 2013, p.868). Campaigning and political
advocacy activities play a role in this (Smith et al., 2016). For example,
in the UK the Brighton and Hove Food Partnership lobbied for the re-
cognition of and resource allocation for “land for communal growing”
in the city strategy (White and Stirling, 2015).
Intermediaries aggregate not only new knowledge but also re-
sources helping to nurture the niche (which may suffer from lack of
resources and institutional support) through replication of projects and
influence regimes to adopt niche ideas and practices (Seyfang et al.,
2014). Organizations such as the Energy Saving Trust and Centre for
Sustainable Energy have acted as such intermediaries in the UK.
Not all niche intermediaries have the ambition to scale up niches
(Hargreaves et al., 2013). “Grassroots intermediaries”work bottom up
to develop novel ideas and engage in a range of experiments. Grassroots
intermediation can occur before an explicit niche has formed, or exists
at most at local scale with options to form global links. In the UK’s
community energy, grassroots intermediaries have coordinated local
projects existing in spaces where “the rules are different”from (and at
times oppositional to) the mainstream (Hargreaves et al., 2013), voi-
cing expectations and engaging in learning activities (Martiskainen,
2017).
4.6.4. Process intermediaries
Process intermediaries have facilitating and supporting functions in
projects and processes contributing to transitions. They are usually
established or employed to facilitate the realization of specific projects
within a niche or in broader transition processes (such as arenas for
networking or information exchange). They often work in tandem with
project managers with a day-to-day management responsibility and
connect to a “champion”with a more normative interest (Klerkx and
Aarts, 2013). Their role is sometimes to implement context-specific
priorities, informed by broader transition trajectories. They seldom
“personally”engage in shaping the visions or expectations associated
with the transition. In this vein, Parag and Janda (2014) interpret in-
termediaries as go-betweens without independent agency or capacity.
Process intermediaries are different from project managers present
in transition trajectories by being outsiders to both niches and the re-
gime (e.g. Elzen et al., 2012). Their key role, thus, revolves around
developing connections between different groups of actors as suppo-
sedly neutral actors (Elzen et al., 2012) and advancing day-to-day ac-
tivities or information exchange to benefit transitions. Martiskainen
and Kivimaa (2018) highlight how, for example, an eco open homes
event series, and an architect or a sustainability integrator in a building
project, can be non-championing intermediaries and facilitate the
progress of zero-carbon building. Kampelmann et al. (2016, p.83) de-
scribe management teams that were specifically employed to advance
urban renovation processes in Brussels to overcome “barriers to
cooperation on more sustainable approaches to environmental pro-
blems”. They observed such actors to be more detached than other
employees from the coordinating organization (in this case the muni-
cipal administration) and, thus, benefitting transitions.
Process intermediaries help to turn visions and expectations into
material actions, facilitate vertical and horizontal cooperation and
handle external relations of the projects (Kampelmann et al., 2016;
Martiskainen and Kivimaa, 2018). In larger projects, intermediaries
broker between different organizational or local–national priorities
(Hodson and Marvin, 2010;Hodson et al., 2013). We argue that process
intermediaries are important in the overall “ecology of intermediaries”
because they can carry out day-to-day work to concretely advance
transitions and gain trust from other actors by being regarded as neutral
and unbiased due to the lack of personal or institutional agenda.
4.6.5. User intermediaries
Finally, user intermediaries are important in two ways. First, user
intermediaries are peers, or user support organizations, who connect
new niche technologies and practices to citizens and everyday life. They
instruct users in novel technology by qualifying the characteristics and
suitability of new technological options for different contexts, and by
configuring technical and social elements of novelty (Hyysalo et al.,
2013;Judson et al., 2015;Hyysalo et al., 2018). This role can be tied to
a particular niche, such as heat pumps (Hyysalo et al., 2018) or auto-
mobility (Kanger and Schot, 2016), or cover multiple niches, for ex-
ample, through companies finding an optimal mix of renewable energy
and energy efficiency solutions for building renovations (Martiskainen
and Kivimaa, 2018). This function is crucial in making sure that tran-
sitions accelerate through actual adoption and the use of new solutions.
Second, user intermediaries operate between the niches and the
dominant socio-technical system, articulating (future) demands that
their user community has regarding emerging (sustainable) technolo-
gies and representing users at the interface of niches and regimes
(Hyysalo et al., 2013;Kanger and Schot, 2016). They act as a back
channel to claims and actions by vendors, assemblers and maintenance
technicians (Hyysalo et al., 2018). They have also been found to form
initial knowledge-sharing networks, which, given virtual communities
such as discussion forums, can grow into substantial information in-
frastructures (Hyysalo et al., 2013,2018) potentially increasing the size
and stability of the accelerating niche (Hyysalo et al., 2018;Kanger and
Schot, 2016). Once niches become mainstream, user intermediaries
may grow into regime-based intermediaries (Kanger and Schot, 2016).
5. Discussion and conclusion
5.1. Reflections on conceptualizations, origin and context of intermediaries
in transitions
This paper aimed to bring more clarity to the topic of intermediaries
in sustainability transitions, which resulted in constructing a typology
that connects to the levels of niches and regimes and is sensitive to the
processes intermediaries are engaged in, their normative orientation
and goals for intermediation. We will now reflect on the three questions
that guided our enquiry: (1) the theoretical and conceptual connections
made in studies focused on intermediaries in sustainability transitions,
(2) the origin of intermediaries in sustainability transitions, and (3) the
context in which intermediation is occurring in sustainability transi-
tions.
With regard to our first question, while an extensive background in
intermediary research in innovation and STS studies exists, it is clear
that much of the literature referring to intermediaries in transitions
emerges more from empirical observations than solid conceptualization
based on previous academic research. This is also our main critique of
parts of this literature, as it has led to significant ambiguity regarding
what “intermediaries”are in the context of sustainability transitions,
and what they intermediate between. Several conceptualizations of
P. Kivimaa et al. Research Policy 48 (2019) 1062–1075
1071

intermediaries can be found in the sustainability transitions literature.
The articles are frequently unconnected both with other articles that
address “intermediaries in transitions”and with the extensive inter-
mediary research that has been carried out in other academic domains.
In presenting the results of the systematic review, we have at-
tempted to bring clarity to this, while also demonstrating variety in the
types of intermediaries in transitions and the diversity of aims and
activities they pursue. This leads to our proposed definition of transi-
tion intermediaries as actors and platforms that positively influence sus-
tainability transition processes by linking actors and activities, and their
related skills and resources, or by connecting transition visions and demands
of networks of actors with existing regimes in order to create momentum for
socio-technical system change, to create new collaborations within and
across niche technologies, ideas and markets, and to disrupt dominant un-
sustainable socio-technical configurations.
The systematic review shows that, although transition inter-
mediaries are often also innovation intermediaries (see, e.g. Barrie
et al., 2017), the normative orientation to sustainability, the socio-
technical orientation and long-term temporal dynamics constitute a
much broader variety that is part of the ecology of intermediaries.
Transition intermediaries co-contribute to specific change processes
that are more diverse than what is at play in processes for inter-
mediating innovation (see Stewart and Hyysalo, 2008, for elaboration
of the latter), transcending facilitation of bilateral relations and
broadening the variety of actors and relations. Our typology, therefore,
complements earlier typologies (Van Lente et al., 2003;Klerkx and
Leeuwis, 2009;Hodson et al., 2013, Section 2.1), adding focus on
whether the intermediary works on a system or sub-system level and
whether it is tied to the interests of a specific innovation within a niche,
the dominant regime, or can work as a neutral actor. We argue that this
diversity in terms of origin, levels and connection to transition dynamics –
and its importance to transitions in practice –should be made more
explicit when addressing actors in transitions and the important roles
they play (cf. Fischer and Newig, 2016).
For our second question, the systematic review shows that, in terms
of origin, not many examples in empirical literature exist of establishing
and giving a mandate for specific transition intermediaries to operate.
Research that shows or assumes intermediary roles emerge gradually in
response to socio-institutional pressures and socio-technological de-
velopments is more prevalent. These can be either new intermediary
organizations or platforms, or already established actors taking up in-
termediary functions. In the latter case, actors are not always aware
that they are performing intermediary functions.
For our third research question, by looking at common denomi-
nators and differences in terms of context of action, emergence, and
normative position, we can distinguish five different types of transition
intermediaries: (1) systemic, (2) regime-based, (3) niche, (4) process,
and (5) user intermediaries. To existing literature we, thus, first, add
the notions of a regime-based transition intermediary and a process inter-
mediary and, second, clarify the different uses of the intermediary term
in sustainability transition studies through our typology. Regime-based
transition intermediaries have a mandate or mission to advance tran-
sitions but operate within their boundaries as players in the existing
regime. Yet they are in a position (partly) to work against those inter-
mediaries, such as many incumbent industry bodies, who wish to
maintain status quo in the prevailing socio-technical system config-
uration (i.e. non-transition intermediaries). Process intermediaries
focus mostly on making day-to-day work towards a transition more
effective by gaining trust from other actors as neutral and unbiased as a
result of lacking personal or institutional agenda. They do not press
clear normative interests over the direction in which the transition
process should be heading. Rather, as outsiders to niches and the re-
gime, they support other actors to articulate this direction, helping
them negotiate within localities of experimentation or with institutional
actors. They have the position and capability to be mediators, and fulfil
coordination roles in a way that avoids shaping the vision or expectation
of the transition along the way.
Transition-oriented activities have an inherently dynamic dimen-
sion. Thus, the emergence of disruptive sustainability innovations is
associated with creating and maintaining development pathways in
which actors (intermediaries and others) have different roles that
change over time. Yet, in the literature, too little attention has been
given to how transition intermediation changes over time as the tran-
sition progresses. In particular, systemic and niche intermediaries ap-
pear to be key actors in transitions, while support from regime-based
transition and process intermediaries is also relevant, as different in-
termediary roles and scales of activity are needed (a) in speeding up
necessary transitions, and (b) as part of new transformative governance
structures. Changes in the ecology of intermediary actors are also par-
tially related to battles within or between different intermediaries.
First, a specific intermediary initially emerges, is established or adopts
intermediary roles and –later –may cease to exist and let go all or some
of its intermediary functions. Second, the ecology of intermediaries that
contributes to the sustainability transition over time on different scales
and contexts also changes. The longevity of a specific intermediary can
exceed or be much more limited than the duration of a transition.
5.2. Conclusions and lines for future research
Following on from the reflections in Section 5.1, the systematic
review has given us more consolidated insights into the positioning and
dynamics of intermediaries in sustainability transitions, which allows
us to formulate a number of tentative conclusions regarding the nature
of intermediaries in transitions:
1 Many important intermediary functions in transitions have been
performed by emerging (rather than specifically established) inter-
mediaries or actors unaware of their intermediation. This creates
uncertainty regarding whether sufficient intermediary functions are
actually in place when needed to support processes advancing sus-
tainability transitions (or transformative change more broadly).
Thus, (political) strategies are needed to guarantee that from a
transitions perspective necessary intermediary functions will be
carried out.
2 Systemic intermediaries are crucial to guide transitions from a
whole system perspective, having the potential to disrupt existing
socio-technical configurations and to assess a range of viable alter-
natives across multiple niches, regimes and spatial scales. Their
importance lies in being unbiased towards selected socio-technical
alternatives, while having a strong normative orientation for
transformative change.
3 Niche intermediaries that connect different experimental projects
and aggregate the build-up of new solutions for future socio-tech-
nical configurations are crucial in the early stages of transition. The
key roles for such intermediaries include negotiating between dif-
ferent interests and priorities to create a consolidated vision and
facilitating between the emerging and dominant socio-technical
system configuration, normatively pursuing the realization of the
consolidated vision, e.g. through advocacy activities. They can op-
erate on different spatial scales (local, national, international).
4 Systemic intermediaries and niche intermediaries need the support
of an ecology of different intermediaries as the challenge of sus-
tainability transitions (and transformative change more broadly) is
huge. Regime-based transition intermediaries gradually work to
change the dominant (local, national or global) socio-technical
configuration from within; process intermediaries are needed to
facilitate day-to-day action benefitting transitions in different scales;
and user intermediaries are necessary to connect all this to citizens
and everyday life. The absence of one of these types in a given
change process (e.g. in food systems, mobility systems or energy
systems) can significantly hinder progress. Their importance seems
to be all the more vital in the acceleration phase of transitions.
P. Kivimaa et al. Research Policy 48 (2019) 1062–1075
1072

5 When a transition progresses it is likely that less intermediation will
be required and many actors performing such roles become re-
dundant. This expectation is likely to create battles within and be-
tween intermediaries, taking attention away from their inter-
mediation activities, with potential consequences on the speed of
the transition.
These tentative conclusions require further testing, and our sys-
tematic review shows areas where further empirical insight is needed.
Too little attention has been paid to in what processes and between
what elements in transitions intermediaries are crucial (cases where
things did not happen without them). In addition, analyses have been
insufficient to address the temporal dimension of transitions: what in-
termediaries do in different phases, how their roles and the ecology of
intermediaries in which they operate change over the course of tran-
sition, and what happens when a new system is stabilizing and these
intermediaries become redundant. These questions link to the need to
know more about the politics at play, the normative positioning of in-
termediary actors, and the battle between different intermediaries –in
terms of preferences regarding how the transition will unfold, but also
for survival when resources are diminished or when transition pro-
gresses so that intermediaries in certain areas become less important.
Many articles present a rather idealistic picture of intermediaries in
transition, and this calls for a “reality check”on the complexity of in-
termediation in the real world and regarding what the most useful
strategies are for supporting transformative change through inter-
mediary actors.
With regard to the gaps identified, future research avenues could,
thus, focus on (1) the processes of acquiring and losing intermediary
positions; (2) what kind of intermediation takes place and is required in
the acceleration and embedding phases of transitions; (3) what is the
importance of heterogeneous mixes of intermediaries in transformative
innovation policy and governance; and (4) how intermediaries, whe-
ther connected to niches or regimes, fulfil roles in crossing/connecting
geographical and administrative scales. The above issues provide ample
potential to connect future research on intermediaries to other emer-
ging and important topics in sustainability transitions studies, including
the politics (Avelino et al., 2016;Lockwood et al., 2016), geography
(Hansen and Coenen, 2015;Truffer et al., 2015), and actor roles in
transitions (Wittmayer et al., 2017;De Haan and Rotmans, 2018).
Furthermore, as our review has been biased towards the MLP with its
niche and regime levels as a structuring principle, future work should
explore whether intermediaries fulfil similar functions in similar con-
texts when taking another transitions lens (e.g. technological innova-
tion systems).
5.3. Policy implications and recommendations
From the policy perspective our concentrated look at intermediaries
offers both an encouraging and a challenging message. The encouraging
part is that many necessary intermediaries appear to emerge during the
transition, when different actors respond to knowledge, coordination
and service gaps regarding the alternative solutions in the market, or
pressing societal concerns. An ecology of intermediaries may, therefore,
come into being and evolve adequately, partly of its own accord. If it
does so sufficiently, it can make an important contribution to the
polycentric governance in transformative change. However, the emer-
ging ecology of intermediaries may also lack sufficient direction, will-
ingness or speed to grow to support the later phases of transitions,
during which old structures become destabilized and disruptive in-
novations become embedded. Or even when successful, it may not
cover all necessary intermediating functions or types.
The challenging part, thus, follows and calls for policy capacity to
(1) monitor the continuously evolving transition processes and asso-
ciated intermediary action. In many cases, policymakers may need to
(2) establish new or support existing intermediaries, and (3) make sure
that policies do not curtail excessively the operational space of already
existing transition intermediaries. Examples show that policy changes
can eradicate forms of intermediation directly (Kivimaa and
Martiskainen, 2018b) and as collateral damage of laws passed for other
purposes (Torrance and von Hippel, 2016). We further suggest that
innovation policy would benefit from having a versatile toolkit of ac-
tion for supporting, transforming, setting and disbanding temporary
and more permanent transition intermediaries. While such monitoring
capacity and toolkits are something that some systemic intermediaries
might already provide through their remit, such systemic competency
regarding intermediary activities is by no means easy to attain or retain,
or to communicate effectively into different policy-making arenas.
All in all, while we find that there are intermediaries that fit our
tentative definition of a “transition intermediary”, our systematic re-
view is inconclusive regarding, for example, how governments can
purposefully employ intermediaries to direct transitions. Yet we argue
that a well-functioning ecology of intermediaries, in which each type of
intermediary is deployed in the right way and at the right time, can
speed up diffusion, further improvement and institutional reform
needed for accelerating transitions. Supporting and establishing niche
intermediaries can speed up some developments over others. It is, thus,
a policy option for furthering transitions but also a dynamic that
transition policy needs to be vigilant about. Supporting and setting up
intermediaries that have a broader scope for creating space for a variety
of niches and simultaneously destabilize existing structures across re-
gimes, is an alternative policy option that takes a less selective ap-
proach on transformative change than the selection of specific niches
and supporting intermediaries in that area.
Data access statement
This article has used as sources academic journal articles that are
available through paid repositories of academic research.
Acknowledgements
This work has been equally funded by the UK EPSRC through the
Centre for Innovation and Energy Demand (grant number EP/
K011790/1) and by the Academy of Finland through the consortium
project “Intermediaries in the energy transition: The invisible work of
creating markets for sustainable energy solutions (TRIPOD)”(decision
numbers 288796 and 290288). We thank Johan Schot, Anna Bergek,
two reviewers of the SPRU working paper series, and the two reviewers
of Research Policy for their excellent comments. An earlier version was
presented at the SPRU 50th Anniversary Conference in Brighton, 7–9
September 2016, Brighton.
Appendix A. Codes used in systematic review
Theories used
Sector of empirical focus
Definition of “intermediary”
Conceptual foundation used for “intermediary”
Key focus on intermediaries (intentional, yes/no)
Use the term intermediary explicitly (yes/no)
Origin of intermediaries
Established to intermediate (yes/no/uncertain)
Assuming intermediary roles over time (yes/no/uncertain)
Changing intermediary roles over time (yes/no/uncertain)
Unaware they are intermediating (yes/no/uncertain)
Identity/emergence/position
Bridging what
Temporal observations
Scope of action (in time/in space or place)
Synergies/tensions and incoherence
Key observations regarding intermediaries
P. Kivimaa et al. Research Policy 48 (2019) 1062–1075
1073

Insiders vs outsiders
Neutrality vs own gain
Appendix B. List of source articles in the systematic review
1 Audet, R., Gyonnaud, M.-F., 2013. See reference list for details.
2 Backhaus, J., 2010. See reference list for details.
3 Barrie, J., Zawdie, G., Joao, E., 2017. See reference list for details.
4 Berkvist, A.-K., Söderholm, K., 2011. See reference list for details.
5 Bush, R., Bale, C., Powell, M., Gouldson, A., Taylor, P., Gale, W.,
2017. See reference list for details.
6 Cerf, M., Bail, L., Lusson, J.M., Omon, B., 2017. Contrasting inter-
mediation practices in various advisory service networks in the case
of the French Ecophyto plan. Journal of Agricultural Education and
Extension 23(3).
7 Elzen, B., van Mierlo, B., Leeuwis, C., 2012. See reference list for
details.
8 Fischer, J., Guy, S., 2009. See reference list for details.
9 Fischer, L.-B., Newig, J., 2016. See reference list for details.
10 Fontes, M., Sousa, C., Ferreira, J., 2016. See reference list for details.
11 Geels, F., Deuten, J., 2006. See reference list for details.
12 Grandclement, C., Karvonen, A., Guy, S., 2015. See reference list for
details.
13 Hamann, R., April, K., 2013. See reference list for details.
14 Hamilton, J., Mayne, R., Parag, Y., Bergman, N., 2015. See reference
list for details.
15 Hansen, T., Coenen, L., 2015. See reference list for details.
16 Hargreaves, T., Hielscher, S., Seyfang, G., Smith, A., 2013. See re-
ference list for details.
17 Hodson, M., Marvin, S., 2009. See reference list for details.
18 Hodson, M., Marvin, S., 2010. See reference list for details.
19 Hodson, M., Marvin, S., 2012. See reference list for details.
20 Hodson, M., Marvin, S., Bulkeley, H., 2013. See reference list for
details.
21 Holden, M., Li, C., Molina, A., Sturgeon, D., 2016. See reference list
for details.
22 Horne, R., Dalton, T., 2014. See reference list for details.
23 Hyysalo, S., Juntunen, J., Freeman, S., 2013. See reference list for
details.
24 Hyysalo, S., Johnson, J., Juntunen, J., 2017. See reference list for
details.
25 Judson, E., Bell, S., Bulkeley, H., Powells, G., Lyon, S., 2015. See
reference list for details.
26 Kampelmann, S., Van Hollebeke, S., Vandergert, P., 2016. See re-
ference list for details.
27 Kanger, L., Schot, J., 2016. See reference list for details.
28 Kivimaa, P. 2014. See reference list for details.
29 Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., 2009. See reference list for details.
30 Lukkarinen, J., Berg, A., Salo, M., Tainio, P., Alhola, K., Antikainen,
R., 2018. See reference list for details.
31 Martiskainen, M., 2017. See reference list for details.
32 Martiskainen, M., Kivimaa, P., 2018. See reference list for details.
33 Mattes, J., Huber, A., Koersen, J., 2015. See reference list for details.
34 McCauley, S., Stephens, J., 2012. Green energy clusters and socio-
technical transitions: Analysis of a sustainable energy cluster for
regional economic development in Central Massachusetts, USA.
Sustainability Science 7(2), 213–225.
35 Medd., T., Marvin, S., 2008. See reference list for details.
36 Moore, M.-L., Westley, F., Broadhead, T., 2012. See reference list for
details.
37 Moss, T., 2009. See reference list for details.
38 Normann, H.E., Hanson, J., 2018. See reference list for details.
39 Ockwell, D., Byrne, R., 2016. Improving technology transfer
through national systems of innovation: climate relevant innova-
tion-system builders (CRIBs). Climate Policy 16(7): 836–854.
40 Orstavik, F., 2014. See reference list for details.
41 Parag, Y., Janda, K., 2014. See reference list for details.
42 Polzin, F., von Flotow, P., Klerkx, L., 2016. See reference list for
details.
43 Rohracher, H., 2009. See reference list for details.
44 Schot, J., Kanger, L., Verbong, G., 2016. See reference list for de-
tails.
45 Schreuer, A., Ornetzeder, M., Rohracher, H., 2010. See reference list
for details.
46 Seyfang, J., Hielscher, S., Hargrieves, T, Martiskainen, M., Smith, A.,
2014. See reference list for details.
47 Seyfang, G., Longhurst, N., 2016. What influences the diffusion of
grassroots innovations for sustainability? Investigating community
currency niches. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management
28(1), 1–23.
48 Silver, J., Marvin S., 2017. Powering sub-Saharan Africa’s urban
revolution: An energy transitions approach. Urban Studies 54(4),
847–861.
49 Smink, M., Negro, S.O., Niesten, E., Hekkert, M., 2015. See re-
ference list for details.
50 Smith, A., Hargrieves, T., Hielscher, S., Martiskainen, M., Seyfang,
G., 2016. See reference list for details.
51 Van Lente, H., Hekkert, M., Smits, R., van Waveren, B., 2003. See
reference list for details.
52 White, R., Stirling, A., 2015. See reference list for details.
53 Wihlborg, E., Söderholm, K., 2013. See reference list for details.
References
Audet, R., Gyonnaud, M.-F., 2013. Transition in practice and action in research. A French
case study in piloting eco-innovations. Innov.: Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 26 (4), 398–415.
Avelino, F., Grin, J., Pel, B., Jhagroe, S., 2016. The politics of sustainability transitions. J.
Environ. Policy Plann. 18 (5), 557–567.
Backhaus, J., 2010. Intermediaries as innovating actors in the transition to a sustainable
energy system. Cent. Eur. J. Public Policy 4 (1), 86–109.
Barrie, J., Zawdie, G., Joao, E., 2017. Leveraging triple helix and system intermediaries to
enhance effectiveness of protected spaces and strategic niche management for tran-
sitioning to circular economy. Int. J. Technol. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 16 (1), 25–47.
Baum, J.A., Calabrese, T., Silverman, B.S., 2000. Don’t go it alone: Alliance network
composition and startups’performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strat. Manag. J.
21 (3), 267–294.
Berkvist, A.-K., Söderholm, K., 2011. Green innovation systems in Swedish industry,
1960–1989. Bus. Hist. Rev. 85, 677–698.
Bessant, J., Rush, H., 1995. Building bridges for innovation: the role of consultants in
technology transfer. Res. Policy 24, 97–114.
Boon, W., Moors, E., Kuhlmann, S., Smits, R., 2011. Demand articulation in emerging
technologies: intermediary user organisations as co-producers? Res. Policy 40,
242–252.
Bourdieu, P., 1984. Distinction. Routledge, London.
Bush, R., Bale, C., Powell, M., Gouldson, A., Taylor, P., Gale, W., 2017. The role of in-
termediaries in low carbon transitions: empowering innovations to unlock district
heating in the UK. J. Clean. Prod. 148, 137–147.
Callon, M., 1986. Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the
scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In: Law, J. (Ed.), Power, Action, Belief: A
New Sociology of Knowledge? Routledge, London, pp. 196–233.
de Haan, F.J., Rotmans, J., 2018. A proposed theoretical framework for actors in trans-
formative change. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 128, 275–286.
Diaz, M., Darnhofer, I., Darrot, C., Beuret, J.-E., 2013. Green tides in brittany: what can
we learn about niche–regime interactions? Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 8, 62–75.
Edquist, C. (Ed.), 1997. Systems of Innovation. Technologies, Institutions and
Organization. Pinter, London.
Elzen, B., van Mierlo, B., Leeuwis, C., 2012. Anchoring of innovations: assessing Dutch
efforts to harvest energy from glasshouses. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 5, 1–18.
Fischer, J., Guy, S., 2009. Re-interpreting regulations: architects as intermediaries for
low-carbon buildings. Urban Stud. 46 (12), 2577–2594.
Fischer, L.-B., Newig, J., 2016. Importance of actors and agency in sustainability transi-
tions: a systematic exploration of the literature. Sustainability 8 (5), 476.
Fontes, M., Sousa, C., Ferreira, J., 2016. the spatial dynamics of niche trajectory: the case
of wave energy. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 19, 66–84.
Franks, J., 2010. Boundary organizations for sustainable land management: the example
of Dutch environmental co-operatives. Ecol. Econ. 70, 283–295.
Geels, F., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a
multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy 31, 1257–1274.
Geels, F., Deuten, J., 2006. Local and global dynamics in technological development: a
socio-cognitive perspective on knowledge flows and lessons from reinforced concrete.
Sci. Public Policy 33, 265–275.
Geels, F., Raven, R., 2006. Non-linearity and expectations in niche-development trajec-
tories: ups and downs in Dutch biogas development (1973–2003). Technol. Anal.
Strat. Manag. 18, 375–392.
Gliedt, T., Hoicka, C.E., Jackson, N., 2018. Innovation intermediaries accelerating en-
vironmental sustainability transitions. J. Clean. Prod. 174, 1247–1261.
P. Kivimaa et al. Research Policy 48 (2019) 1062–1075
1074

Grandclement, C., Karvonen, A., Guy, S., 2015. Negotiating comfort in low energy
housing: the politics of intermediation. Energy Policy 84, 213–222.
Guston, D.H., 1999. Stabilizing the boundary between US politics and science: the role of
the office of technology transfer as a boundary organization. Soc. Stud. Sci. 29,
87–111.
Guy, S., Marvin, S., Medd, W., Moss, T. (Eds.), 2011. Shaping Urban Infrastructures:
Intermediaries and the Governance of Socio-Technical Networks. Earthscan,
Abingdon, UK.
Hamann, R., April, K., 2013. On the role and capabilities of collaborative intermediary
organisations in urban sustainability transitions. J. Clean. Prod. 50, 12–21.
Hamilton, J., Mayne, R., Parag, Y., Bergman, N., 2015. Scaling up local carbon action: the
role of partnerships, networks and policy. Carbon Manag. 5 (4), 463–476.
Hansen, T., Coenen, L., 2015. The geography of sustainability transitions: review,
synthesis and reflections on an emergent research field. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans.
17, 92–109.
Hargadon, A.B., 2002. Brokering knowledge: linking learning and innovation. Res. Org.
Behav. 24, 41–85.
Hargreaves, T., Hielscher, S., Seyfang, G., Smith, A., 2013. Grassroots innovations in
community energy: the role of intermediaries in niche development. Global Environ.
Change 23, 868–880.
Hermans, F., Roep, D., Klerkx, L., 2016. Scale dynamics of grassroots innovations through
parallel pathways of transformative change. Ecol. Econ. 130, 285–295.
Hess, D., 2016. The politics of niche-regime conflicts: distributed solar energy in the
United States. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 19, 42–50.
Hodson, M., Marvin, S., 2009. Cities mediating technological transitions: understanding
visions, intermediation and consequences. Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag. 21 (4),
515–534.
Hodson, M., Marvin, S., 2010. Can cities shape socio-technical transitions and how would
we know if they were? Res. Policy 39, 477–485.
Hodson, M., Marvin, S., 2012. Mediating low-carbon urban transitions? Forms of orga-
nization, knowledge and action. Eur. Plann. Stud. 30 (3), 421–439.
Hodson, M., Marvin, S., Bulkeley, H., 2013. The intermediary organisation of low carbon
cities: a comparative analysis of transitions in Greater London and Greater
Manchester. Urban Stud. 50 (7), 1403–1422.
Holden, M., Li, C., Molina, A., Sturgeon, D., 2016. Crafting new urban assemblages and
steering neighborhood transition: actors and roles in ecourban neighborhood devel-
opment. Articulao –J. Urban Res. 14. http://articulo.revues.org/3114#text.
Horne, R., Dalton, T., 2014. Transition to low carbon? An analysis of socio-technical
change in housing renovation. Urban Stud. 51, 3445–3458.
Howells, J., 2006. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Res. Policy
35, 715–728.
Hyysalo, S., Usenyuk, S., 2015. User dominated technology era: dynamics of dispersed
peer innovation. Res. Policy 44 (3), 560–576.
Hyysalo, S., Juntunen, J., Freeman, S., 2013. Internet forums and the rise of the inventive
energy user. Sci. Technol. Stud. 26 (1), 25–51.
Hyysalo, S., Johnson, J., Juntunen, J., 2017. The diffusion of consumer innovation in
sustainable energy technologies. J. Clean. Prod. 162, S70–S82.
Hyysalo, S., Juntunen, J., Martiskainen, M., 2018. Energy internet forums as acceleration
phase transition intermediaries. Res. Policy 47 (5) 872–855.
Iles, P., Yolles, M., 2002. Across the great divide: HRD, technology translation, and
knowledge migration in bridging the knowledge gap between SMEs and universities.
HRDI 5 (1), 23–53.
Ingram, J., 2015. Framing niche-regime linkage as adaptation: an analysis of learning and
innovation networks for sustainable agriculture across Europe. J. Rural Stud. 40,
59–75.
Judson, E., Bell, S., Bulkeley, H., Powells, G., Lyon, S., 2015. The co-construction of
energy provision and everyday practice: integrating heat pumps in social housing.
Sci. Technol. Stud. 28, 26–53.
Kampelmann, S., Van Hollebeke, S., Vandergert, P., 2016. Stuck in the middle with you:
the role of bridging organisations in urban regeneration. Ecol. Econ. 129, 82–93.
Kanger, L., Schot, J., 2016. User-made immobilities: a transitions perspective. Mobilities
11 (4), 598–613.
Kivimaa, P., 2014. Government-affiliated intermediary organisations as actors in system-
level transitions. Res. Policy 43 (8), 1370–1380.
Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., 2018a. Innovation, low-energy buildings and inter-
mediaries in Europe: systematic case study review. Energy Effic. 11 (1), 31–51.
Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., 2018b. Dynamics of policy change and intermediation: the
arduous transition towards low-energy homes in the United Kingdom. Energy Res.
Soc. Sci. 44, 83–99.
Klerkx, L., Aarts, N., 2013. The interaction of multiple champions in orchestrating in-
novation networks: conflicts and complementarities. Technovation 33, 193–210.
Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., 2009. The emergence and embedding of innovation brokers at
different innovation system levels: insights from the Dutch agricultural sector.
Technol. Forecast. Soci. Change 76, 849–860.
Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the Social. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Lockwood, M., Kuzemco, C., Mitchell, C., Hoggert, R., 2016. Historical institutionalism
and the politics of sustainable energy transitions: a research agenda. Environ. Plann.
C: Politics Space 35 (2), 312–333.
Lukkarinen, J., Berg, A., Salo, M., Tainio, P., Alhola, K., Antikainen, R., 2018. An inter-
mediary approach to technological innovation systems (TIS): the case of the clean-
tech sector in Finland. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 26, 136–146.
Lundvall, B.A. (Ed.), 1992. National Systems of Innovation. Towards a Theory of
Innovation and Interactive Learning. Pinter, London.
Markard, J., Raven, R., Truffer, B., 2012. Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of
research and its prospects. Res. Policy 41, 955–967.
Martiskainen, M., 2017. The role of community leadership in the development of grass-
roots innovations. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 22, 78–89.
Martiskainen, M., Kivimaa, P., 2018. Creating innovative zero carbon homes in the United
Kingdom: intermediaries and champions in building projects. Environ. Innov.
Soc.Trans. 26, 15–31.
Mattes, J., Huber, A., Koersen, J., 2015. Energy transitions in small-scale regions: what we
can learn from a regional innovation systems perspective. Energy Policy 78, 255–264.
Medd, T., Marvin, S., 2008. Making water work: intermediating between regional strategy
and local practice. Environ. Plann. D: Soc. Space 26, 280–299.
Meyer, M., 2010. The rise of the knowledge broker. Sci. Commun. 32, 118–127.
Moore, M.-L., Westley, F., Broadhead, T., 2012. Social finance intermediaries and social
innovation. J. Soc. Entrepreneurship 3 (2), 185–205.
Moss, T., 2009. Intermediaries and the governance of sociotechnical networks in transi-
tion. Environ. Plann. A 41, 1480–1495.
Nelson, R.R. (Ed.), 1993. National Systems of Innovation. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Nielsen, K.H., 2016. How user assemblage matters: constructing learning by using in the
case of wind turbine technology in Denmark, 1973–1990. In: Hyysalo, S., Elgaard
Jenssen, T., Oudshoorn, N. (Eds.), The New Production of Users: Changing Innovation
Collectives and Involvement Strategies. Routledge, New York, pp. 101–125.
Normann, H.E., Hanson, J., 2018. The role of domestic markets in international tech-
nological innovation systems. Ind. Innov. 25 (5), 482–504.
Orstavik, F., 2014. Innovation as re-institutionalization: a case study of technological
change in housebuilding in Norway. Constr. Manag. Econ. 32 (9), 857–873.
Parag, Y., Janda, K., 2014. More than filler: middle actors and socio-technical change in
the energy system from the “middle-out”. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 3, 102–112.
Petticrew, M., Roberts, H., 2006. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical
Guide. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA.
Pielke Jr., R.A., 2007. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Piore, M., 2001. The emergent role of social intermediaries in the new economy. Ann.
Public Cooperative Econ. 72 (3), 339–350.
Pollock, N., Williams, R., 2016. How Industry Analysts Shape the Digital Future. Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Polzin, F., von Flotow, P., Klerkx, L., 2016. Addressing barriers to eco-innovation: ex-
ploring the finance mobilisation functions of institutional innovation intermediaries.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 103, 34–46.
Raven, R., Verbong, G., Schilpzand, W., Witkamp, M., 2011. Translation mechanisms in
socio-technical niches: a case study of Dutch river management. Technol. Anal. Strat.
Manag. 26, 1063–1078.
Rip, A., Kemp, R., 1998. Technological change. In: In: Rayner, S., Malone, E.L. (Eds.),
Human Choice and Climate Change, vol 2. Resources and Technology. Battelle Press,
Columbus, Ohio, pp. 327–399.
Rohracher, H., 2009. Intermediaries and the governance of choice: the case of green
electricity labelling. Environ. Plann. A 41, 2014–2028.
Schot, J., Kanger, L., Verbong, G., 2016. The roles of users in shaping transitions to new
energy systems. Nat. Energy 1, 16054.
Schreuer, A., Ornetzeder, M., Rohracher, H., 2010. Negotiating the local embedding of
socio-technical experiments: a case study in fuel cell technology. Technol. Anal. Strat.
Manag. 22, 729–743.
Seyfang, J., Hielscher, S., Hargreaves, T., Martiskainen, M., Smith, A., 2014. A grassroots
sustainable energy niche? Reflections on community energy in the UK. Environ.
Innov. Soc. Trans. 13, 21–44.
Smink, M., Negro, S.O., Niesten, E., Hekkert, M., 2015. How mismatching institutional
logics hinder niche–regime interaction and how boundary spanners intervene.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 100, 225–237.
Smith, A., Voss, J., Grin, J., 2010. Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: the
allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenge. Res. Policy 39 (4), 435–448.
Smith, A., Hargreaves, T., Hielscher, S., Martiskainen, M., Seyfang, G., 2016. Making the
most of community energies: three perspectives on grassroots innovation. Environ.
Plann. A 48 (2), 407–432.
Stewart, J., Hyysalo, S., 2008. Intermediaries, users and social learning in technological
innovation. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 12, 295–325.
Tisenkopfs, T., Kunda, I., šūmane, S., Brunori, G., Klerkx, L., Moschitz, H., 2015. Learning
and innovation in agriculture and rural development: the use of the concepts of
boundary work and boundary objects. J. Agric. Educ. Extension 21, 13–33.
Torrance, A.W., Von Hippel, E., 2016. Protecting the right to innovate: our innovation
wetlands. In: Hyysalo, S., Jensen, T.E., Oudshoorn, N. (Eds.), New Production of
Users: Changing Innovation Collectives and Involvement. Routledge, New York, pp.
45–74.
Truffer, B., Murphy, J.T., Raven, R., 2015. The geography of sustainability transitions:
contours of an emerging theme. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 17, 63–72.
Van Lente, H., Hekkert, M., Smits, R., van Waveren, B., 2003. Roles of systemic inter-
mediaries in transition processes. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 7, 247–279.
Van Lente, H., Hekkert, M., Smits, R., van Waveren, B., 2011. Systemic intermediaries and
transition processes. In: Guy, S., Marvin, S., Medd, W., Moss, T. (Eds.), Shaping Urban
Infrastructures: Intermediaries and the Governance of Socio-Technical Networks.
Earthscan, London, pp. 36–52.
White, R., Stirling, A., 2015. Sustaining trajectories towards sustainability: dynamics and
diversity in UK communal growing activities. Global Environ. Change 23 (5),
838–846.
Wieczorek, A., Hekkert, M., 2012. Systemic instruments for systemic innovation pro-
blems: a framework for policy makers and innovation scholars. Sci. Public Policy 39,
74–87.
Wihlborg, E., Söderholm, K., 2013. Mediators in action: organizing sociotechnical system
change. Technol. Soc. 35 (4), 267–275.
Wittmayer, J.M., Avelino, F., van Steenbergen, F., Loorbach, D., 2017. Actor roles in
transition: insights from sociological perspectives. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 24,
45–56.
P. Kivimaa et al. Research Policy 48 (2019) 1062–1075
1075