Transition work: analysing transition processes as interplay of actors, institutions and technologies - evidence from the German wind sector

Abstract

Despite a vivid debate, we still only partly understand what actually happens in regional energy transitions. This contribution introduces transition work as a tool to analyse transition processes in more detail. Taking an actor-oriented perspective, we draw on the concept of institutional work and adapt it to transitions, therefore arriving at the question how actors 'create', 'maintain' and 'disrupt' sub-processes of transitions. By comparing the constellations of actors, institutions and technologies that determine the concrete transition processes around organisations, networks and technological installations, we draw conclusions on the manifold sources of heterogeneity of energy transitions across regions.

Full text

1
Transition work: analysing transition processes as interplay of actors,
institutions and technologies – evidence from the German wind sector
Meike Löhr, Camilla Chlebna, Jannika Mattes
University of Oldenburg
Abstract
Despite a vivid debate, we still only partly understand what actually happens in regional energy
transitions. This contribution introduces transition work as a tool to analyse transition
processes in more detail. Taking an actor-oriented perspective, we draw on the concept of
institutional work and adapt it to transitions, therefore arriving at the question how actors
‘create’, ‘maintain’ and ‘disrupt’ sub-processes of transitions. By comparing the constellations
of actors, institutions and technologies that determine the concrete transition processes around
organisations, networks and technological installations, we draw conclusions on the manifold
sources of heterogeneity of energy transitions across regions.
1. Introduction
There is a widely accepted need to transform fundamentally the way we produce, distribute
and consume energy based on the global challenge of climate change. Evidently, this process
unfolds in different ways in different regions. We observe variegated patterns of transitions but
have only limited capacity to understand how they come about. This means we lack
frameworks to understand why energy transitions unfold heterogeneously in different places,
i.e. at different speed, driven by different actors, and benefitting different parts of society.
Whilst the technological, legal and environmental ramifications of energy transitions are
relatively well-known, the social and actor dynamics involved prove to be difficult to
conceptualise. Earlier publications in transition research have been criticised for mainly
considering technologies and institutions while neglecting the actor perspective (Meadowcroft,
2009; Smith et al., 2005; Geels, 2002); recent contributions address the interdependence and
interactions between agents and institutions on different levels and the role of technology: “The
transformation of a sector is always a result of the specific interplay of institutions, actors and
technologies” (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2016, p. 310). Similarly, the role of geography and
in particular that of regional specificity has been acknowledged (Hansen and Coenen, 2015;
Coenen and Truffer, 2012). However, despite a vivid debate, we still only partly understand
what actually happens in these transition processes, how they accelerate or slow down and

2
how these dynamics result in heterogeneous regional constellations. We thus ask: How do
actors, institutions and technology constellations influence transition processes? Through
which activities does this show?
This contribution argues that energy transitions can be explained by looking more closely at
the inherent processes of institutionalisation and the role that actors and technology play in
these processes. We start from the concept of ‘institutional work’ that enlightens the interaction
between actors and institutionalisation processes in creating, maintaining and disrupting
institutions (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006). We use this as the theoretical starting point and
expand it to a framework of ‘transition work’ by acknowledging specificities of transition
processes. We apply the framework empirically to two case studies of regional energy
transition processes in Germany in which we investigate three specific sub-processes of
transition: the establishment of a new organisation, the creation of a network and the
installation of a technological artefact.
This paper hence builds on existing concepts of institutional work to derive that of transition
work. We suggest a proceeding that takes a nuanced focus on actors without neglecting
institutions and, likewise, acknowledging the importance of technologies. It thereby provides a
new perspective onto the regional heterogeneity of transition processes.
The paper proceeds as follows: In the following, we give an overview of institutional work and
existing applications to energy transition processes. On this basis, we build a heuristic
framework of transition work. After briefly outlining the methodological approach, we turn to
the empirical sub-processes in two German regions and analyse the involved processes of
creation, maintenance and disruption in detail. We briefly discuss the results and conclude.
2. State of the art: Institutional work in the context of sustainability transitions
Institutional work is an established concept but its connection to sustainability transitions
remains vague. We re-visit both debates in this section to outline connections in the following
section.
2.1. Actors and institutions in transition research
The transition debate has recently increased its focus on both actors and institutions, thus
answering calls for acknowledging the role actors (Markard et al., 2016; Schmid et al., 2016;
Farla et al., 2012) and institutions (Fuenfschilling, 2019) play in transitions processes.
With regard to actors, recent contributions introduce a typology of different actors influencing
the transition process (Fischer and Newig, 2016), focus on (changing) actor roles (Wittmayer
et al., 2017) and argue that, in order to get a better idea of the role of actors in shaping
transitions, we need to analyse and understand their strategies, resources and capabilities

3
(Farla et al., 2012). A new strand of research recognises the importance of actor coalitions
(Weible et al., 2009) as crucial for influencing transitions, thereby highlighting the political
dimension of transitions (Hess, 2019; Roberts et al., 2018; Markard et al., 2016). Coalitions
supporting the energy transition are generally referred to as ’challengers‘ or lately also as
energy transition coalition; opposing coalitions are typically incumbents (Löhr, 2020; Hess,
2019, 2014). Their composition is expected to vary from case to case and will consequently
be analysed in order to detect differences and similarities between regions.
Research on socio-technical transitions has further taken an ‘institutional turn’ resulting in an
interpretation of transition as a process of institutional change (Fuenfschilling and Truffer,
2016). Furthermore, scholars have drawn on the well-known framework of ‘institutional work’
(Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006) in order to grasp better the concrete activities that actors
pursue in relation to institutions in the course of the transition process (Zvolska et al., 2019;
Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2016; Binz et al., 2016). The key contribution of this concept has
been to offer an approach which enables to overcome a rather static understanding of
institutions as constraints to the actions of agents and to redefine them as influential but also
as susceptible to human agency (Giezen, 2018).
Hence, there is wide-ranging evidence that both actors and institutions matter in the transition
process. We argue, however, that the implications of the respective actions for transitions
remain much less explored. A view of transition work, therefore, is useful to better understand
both the activities and their implications regarding the emergence of institutions and
technological development.
2.2. Institutional work
In line with recent approaches we build our contribution on Lawrence and Suddaby’s (2006)
concept as they offer a clear and detailed perspective on both actors and institutions. Lawrence
and Suddaby (2006) introduce the concept of institutional work to highlight that
institutionalisation is a process of “intelligent, situated institutional action” in which astutely
aware, skilled and reflexive, individual and collective actors take an active part (p. 219). They
suggest that this applies not only to the creation of institutions, but also to their maintenance
and disruption.
The authors distinguish between three main forms of institutional work covering several sub-
forms (see annex, Table 3 for a definition of each form). For the creation of institutions, they
differentiate between a) political work (advocacy, defining, vesting – rules), b) reconfiguration
of belief systems (constructing identities, changing normative associations and constructing
normative networks – beliefs and values) and c) altering abstract categorisations in which
boundaries of meaning systems are altered (mimicry, theorising, educating – cognitive work).

4
Institutions are being maintained a) ensuring the adherence to rule systems (enabling,
policing and deterring), or b) reproducing existing norms and belief systems
(valorising/demonizing, mythologizing and embedding and routinizing). Institutional work that
aims at disrupting institutions undermines the mechanisms through which members comply
with institutions (disconnecting sanctions/rewards, disassociating moral foundations and
undermining assumptions and beliefs) (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006).
2.3. Applications and extensions of institutional work
Whilst institutional work offers a profound starting point, a better understanding of the activities
or ‘work’ by agents involved in transition processes requires a broader perspective which also
considers the role of technologies and technological development. Furthermore, the concept
of institutional work is originally not linked to transition and therefore does not give much detail
on actors’ intentionality. Rather, it has originated from practice theory and organisation studies
and has therefore mostly been applied in this context (Beunen and Patterson, 2019). As the
concept of institutional work provides great detail on particular sub-forms, this limits its
applicability to other fields such as sustainability transitions (Giezen, 2018). Nevertheless,
researchers have applied institutional work in the context of transitions and have variably
adjusted and extended the framework. To identify these contributions, we carried out a
systematic literature search in the ‘Web of Science’ database1. We introduce relevant
contributions below and summarise the identified papers in Table 1.
A seminal contribution in the adoption of the concept of institutional work in transition studies
is Fuenfschilling and Truffer (2016). They underline its high relevance for the study of
transitions without suggesting adaptations. In their view, transitions are processes of
institutionalisation and can be conceptualised and analysed as processes of the creation,
maintenance and disruption of existing regimes. The authors also outline a need to include
material artefacts/technology in the analysis when applying the concept to transitions.
Similarly, in a recent contribution Sjøtun (2019) adds ‘materiality‘ as a cause of institutional
change beyond core activities of ‘lobbying’, ‘framing’ and ‘organizing’. The article describes a
demonstration project and the important influence its existence has on institutional
development. Binz et al. (2016) also draw on the concept with a focus on forms of institutional
work that relate to the creation and maintenance of legitimacy in a technological innovation
system. They adopt some of the forms of institutional work from Lawrence and Suddaby
(2006), but also amend and extend the concept (cf. Table 1). They add ‘political work’ (creation)
1 Search terms: 1) TS="institutional work" AND TS=("transition" AND sustainab*), Indexes=SCI-
EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, ESCI Timespan=All years, search results: 10; 2) TS="institutional work"
AND TS=energ*, Indexes=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, ESCI Timespan=All years, search results:
11; selected for relevance and similarity of approach by the authors.

5
and ‘imagery’ (maintenance) as further forms. Munck af Rosenschöld et al. (2014) draw on
institutional work when they suggest ways of overcoming inertia in the context of climate
change. They add the categories of ‘bargaining for legitimacy’, a form of advocacy, and
‘coalition building amongst powerful actors‘/‘brokerage‘. This idea of coalitions or ‘work to
expand or deepen networks’ (see also Elzen et al., 2012) in order to maintain them is also
expressed in a contribution on the institutionalisation of sustainable practices by Barnes et al.
(2018). The authors understand the forms of work as actor tactics. They argue “that networking
and narrative work (…) is central to understanding agency for change” (p. 3).
Further contributions make reference to institutional work but apply somewhat different
typologies. Sørensen et al. (2018) apply the term ‘transition work’ which subsumes ‘sustainable
technological problem solving’, ‘persuasion’, ‘mediation’ and ‘institutional work’. The latter is
being used without any sub-form. We share the understanding that institutional work is part of
transition work but propose adaptations to cover broader actor activities as well as
technologies for the analysis of transition processes.
While most of the contributions either apply institutional work or a small number of its sub-
forms, some authors amend particular forms as shown above (cf. Table 1). Empirically, most
of the articles largely apply sub-forms of ‘create’, some those of ‘maintain’. With regard to the
current debate on disruption (Geels, 2018; Johnstone and Kivimaa, 2018), it is noticeable that
very few authors apply ‘disruption’ and basically no amendments have been made to this form.
Table 1: Applications and extensions of institutional work
Institutional work
(Lawrence and Suddaby 2006; cf. also
Fuenfschilling and Truffer 2016)
Extensions of IW in transition studies
Create
- Advocacy (Binz et al, 2016)
- Defining
- Vesting
- Constructing identities, self-
identification (Zvolska et al,
2019; Giezen, 2018)
-
Changing normative
associations (Giezen, 2018;
Elzen et al, 2012)
- Constructing normative networks
[intra- and interorganisationally]
(Zvolska et al, 2019; Giezen,
2018)
- Mimicry (Barnes et al, 2018; Binz
et al, 2016)
- Theorizing (Barnes et al, 2018)
- Educating (Zvolska et al, 2019)
- Political work, regulatory advocacy
(Barnes et al, 2018; Binz et al, 2016)
- Lobbying [litigation] (Sjøtun, 2020;
Zvolska et al, 2019)
- Framing [for consensus building] (Sjøtun,
2020; Munck af Rosenschöld et al, 2014)
- Organizing (Sjøtun, 2020)
-
Coalition building amongst powerful
actors, brokerage (Munck af Rosenschöld
et al, 2014)
- Work to expand network of actors (Barnes
et al, 2018; Elzen et al, 2012)
- Creation of incentive systems (Munck af
Rosenschöld et al, 2014)
- Bargaining to create legitimacy (Munck af
Rosenschöld et al, 2014)
-
Mobilizing for new institutional path
creation (Munck af Rosenschöld et al,
2014)
- Creating new norms (Zvolska et al, 2019)

6
- changing traditional meanings/
constr
ucting new meaning systems
(Zvolska et al, 2019)
- imitation and isomorphic mimicry (Zvolska
et al, 2019)
- Narrative work (Barnes et al, 2018)
- Persuasion work (Sørensen et al, 2018)
Maintain
- Enabling work
- Policing
- Deterring
- Valorizing and demonizing (Binz
et al, 2016)
- Mythologizing (Binz et al, 2016)
- Embedding and routinizing
- Imagery (Binz et al, 2016)
- Delimiting organizational fields (Zvolska
et al, 2019)
Disrupt
- Disconnecting sanctions
- Disassociating/Undermining
moral foundations (Zvolska et al,
2019)
-
Undermining assumptions and
beliefs (Zvolska et al, 2019;
Barnes et al 2018)
- Lobbying to remove privileges (Zvolska et
al, 2019)
Having introduced the concept of institutional work and how it has been applied in the context
of sustainability transitions, we now turn to explaining the analytical framework which we
employ in order to derive our concept of transition work.
3. From institutional work to transition work
Among the key variables analysed in transition theory figure institutions and technologies –
and increasingly also actors. These are the core elements of socio-technical systems
consisting of (networks of) actors, institutions, as well as material artefacts and knowledge
(Markard et al., 2012): “In this regard, socio-technical transitions are explicitly conceptualized
as an interplay between institutions, actors and technologies. Whereas actors and
technologies are embedded within and shaped by institutions, they both also highly contribute
to the change or maintenance of these institutions” (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2016, p. 302).
These core elements are partly reflected in the main theoretical strands of transition research.
Technological innovation systems analyse the interplay of actors, institutions and networks
(Bergek et al., 2008; Hekkert et al., 2007). Recent advances in this field emphasise dynamics
through functional dimensions such as knowledge development, diffusion and market
formation and, at the same time, keep technological development in focus. An approach that
mirrors this is the multi-level perspective that explains technological transitions through an
interplay of the three levels niche, regime and landscape (Geels, 2002), thereby focusing on
the inherent conflict of challenging niche actors against the regime dominating incumbents.
For a long time, research on socio-technical transitions has emphasised the role of institutions
and technologies while neglecting that of actors (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2016). In order to

7
acknowledge this interplay and equally complement it with insights from transition studies, we
aggregate and extend the concept of institutional work and arrive at a new typology for
transition work. Reframing core activities as transition work allows us to grasp better the social
dynamics of energy transition processes in order to highlight regional heterogeneity. We will
outline creation, maintenance and disruption in transition work in the following.
Creation covers the idea of introducing an institution (rule system), an idea which transition
work broadens to include the introduction of technologies and groups of actors. For creation,
we keep ‘defining’ rules and ‘advocacy’ largely in their original form as they are useful to trace
transition processes. We broaden the meaning of ‘advocacy’ to ‘political and lobbying work’,
also including ‘persuasion’ (Sørensen et al., 2018) and ‘bargaining’ (Munck af Rosenschöld et
al., 2014). We also expand the idea of ‘constructing normative networks’ to a more general
‘creation of networks, coalitions and organisations’ in order to capture the full depth of transition
activities. We aggregate some of the very specific forms of institutional work such as
‘constructing identities’ and ‘changing normative associations’, expand them by ‘framing’
(Sjøtun, 2019; Munck af Rosenschöld et al., 2014) and capture this as ‘narrative work’ (Barnes
et al., 2018). Narrative work, therefore, covers the discursive work of actors. Conversely, we
enlarge ‘educating’ to include ‘learning’ and the transfer of skills and knowledge, thus
recognising their relevance in transition studies (Hekkert et al., 2007). This amendment allows
us to apply ‘educating and learning’ to technologies as well as to actors. Finally, we broaden
the concept of ‘creation’ to include ‘inventing and experimenting’ as well as ‘implementing’.
These forms explicitly refer to the invention of technologies as well as to their implementation
(enabling their use) (Sengers et al., 2016; Fleck and Howells, 2001). We hereby make sure to
reinforce the technological focus of institutional work. Having adapted and developed different
forms of create that capture actors, institutions and technologies, we forego the very specific
forms of ‘vesting’, ‘mimicry’ and ‘theorising’.
Maintain refers to the stabilisation of institutions. We keep ‘mythologising’, ‘embedding and
routinising’ as well as ‘valorising and demonising’. While these forms originally refer to
institutions, we clearly see potential applications to actors in the first and to technologies in the
latter two. Whist we largely adopt the original definition by Lawrence and Suddaby (2006) for
‘valorising and demonising’ and for ‘mythologising’, we have simplified and adapted that for
‘embedding and routinising’. Although originally introduced as a form of creation, we subsume
the stabilisation and growth of networks as ‘expanding or deepening’ under maintain (Barnes
et al., 2018; Elzen et al., 2012). In the context of transitions, the creation of networks, their
persistence and their adaptability are particularly crucial. Inspired by TIS functions (market
formation; Bergek et al., 2008) as well as the idea of promoting a novel solution out of a niche
which stems from MLP (Geels, 2002), we add the form ‘bring to market (upscaling)’, again

8
reinforcing the technological aspect in transition work. Finally, we understand maintenance as
a form of keeping a new status quo in which a new technology, actor group or institution is
‘preserved’ in this new status and/or further grows based on this. ‘Sustaining’ is thus a form of
transition work that can be applied to actors, institutions and technologies. The very detailed
forms of ‘enabling work’, ‘policing’, and ‘deterring’, again have a strong institutional, regulatory
and micro-level focus and we therefore drop them.
The least applied and amended category is disruption. Its careful consideration bears
interesting potential also with a view to the disruption debate (Johnstone and Kivimaa, 2018).
Maguire and Hardy (2009) introduce a useful distinction between ‘disruptive work’ which aims
at disrupting existing institutions and ‘defensive work’ which aims at countering (i.e. ‘resisting’)
disruptive institutional work. We follow their lead and likewise distinguish between these two
aspects within our forms of transition work. The definition of the former is aligned closely with
the original definition of ‘undermining existing assumptions and beliefs’ with a small addendum
(“bypassing established networks”) taken from Kivimaa and Kern (2016, p. 210). So far,
disruption in transition studies is typically understood as the disassociation from a central,
fossil-based, incumbent-led (energy) system (Johnstone and Kivimaa, 2018; Geels, 2018).
However, the new, decentral, renewable alternative is not being appreciated by all. Therefore,
we have adopted the definition of ‘defensive work’ from Smink et al. (2015) but slightly
amended it so as to open the concept to incumbent actors as well as to resisting citizen
initiatives. Including such resistance allows for a more comprehensive analysis of transition
processes.
We have thus traced in detail the development of the transition work framework based on a
systematic research on existing contributions (cf. Table 2). The table shows how the interplay
of actors (A), institutions (I) and technologies (T) is recognised within different sub-forms of
creation, maintenance and disruption and how the original concept is being adapted to
transition processes. While actors, institutions and technologies remain deeply intertwined, the
table states the element that is mainly targeted by the respective transition work process.
Table 2: Transition work
Transition work
Definition
A, I, T
create
inventing &
experimenting
Innovating or experimenting with technological solutions
or recombination of existing solutions into new, more
sustainable approaches.
T
implementing
The implementation of a technological artefact, thus
enabling its use.
T

9
advocacy/political
work, lobbying
The mobilisation of political and regulatory support
through direct and deliberate techniques of social suasion,
in favour of transitions.
A
narrative work,
framing,
constructing of
identities
The discursive activity of building visions and scenarios
about the future and constructing shared identities
amongst actors.
A, I
defining rules
The construction of rule systems that confer status or
identity, define boundaries of membership or create status
hierarchies within a field.
I
creating networks,
coalitions and
organisations
Constructing connections between actors and/or
organisations which form the relevant peergroup and may
be of a formal or more informal nature and of a higher or
lower degree of stability.
A, I
educating &
learning
The activities concerning the transfer and adoption of the
skills and knowledge necessary to support the new
institution or technology.
A, T
maintain
valorising and
demonising
Discussing in public particular positive or negative
characteristics of an institution or technology.
I, T
mythologising
Preserving the moral underpinnings of the ongoing
transition and the associated actors by
romanticising/glorifying the past.
A
embedding and
routinising
(institutionalisation)
Institutionalising loose practices by making them a regular
occurrence and further reinforcing newly established
structures.
I
expanding or
deepening the
network of actors
(actors, networks)
Intensifying contact and exchange among actors within
the peer group involved, increasing interdependence
and/or strengthening of the coalition.
A, I
bring to market
(upscaling)
Bringing innovations to the market or to the next level.
T
sustaining
(preserving &
extending)
Preserving a network, an organisation or a technology
within and/or beyond its initial scope to keep up the
transition process.
A, I, T
disrupt
defensive work
Strategic behaviour to safeguard existing interests
resisting change towards sustainable technologies and
practices.
A, I, T
disruptive work:
undermining
existing
assumptions and
beliefs
Actively working against existing assumptions and beliefs
and/or bypassing established networks and/or
organisations in support of sustainable technologies and
practices.
A, I, T

10
4. Methods and case selection
We follow a qualitative research design based on 55 semi-structured face-to-face expert
interviews2 as interviews are particularly suitable for exploratory and explanatory research
endeavours aiming at understanding and tracing processes (Bryman, 2016). We selected our
interview partners based on a preliminary desktop research as well as on recommendations
from interviewed experts (snowball technique), covering the highly diverse field of actors
involved. Our sample thus includes interviewees from the fields of industry, economy and
services, civil society, politics and administration, science and intermediaries. It also
acknowledges diverse actor groups such as manufacturers, utilities and developers, as well
as citizen initiatives, politicians and researchers (see annex, Table 4). An expert selected was
either responsible for wind energy within an organisation or a close observer of the process in
the respective region.
We carried out the interviews between summer 2018 and spring 2020. The interviews lasted
on average 75 minutes. We recorded them, wrote a summarising memo and transcribed them.
Our coding scheme developed in a deductive-inductive manner, covering e.g. actor activities,
thought patterns and frames, routines, (negotiation) processes, technology development. We
discussed the coding scheme and used co-coding procedures to assure a high coding
consistency and transparency of the coding process. To complement our interview data and
further enrich our case studies, we triangulated with secondary data (press articles, media
reports, annual reports and statistical data), thus ensuring a comprehensive understanding of
our cases.
The case selection is based on the transition process currently taking place in the German
energy sector. In 2019, over 40% of electricity has been produced by renewable sources.
Among these, the wind energy share is the highest (ca. 50%). Wind energy thus represents a
core pillar of the German energy transition project. By now, it is acknowledged as a mature
energy carrier. Hamburg and Uckermark represent two heterogeneous regions in Northern
Germany and are therefore suitable for a most-different case study design which allows to
draw out typical patterns from a set of heterogeneous units (Seawright and Gerring, 2008).
Table 5 in the annex summarises core aspects of this heterogeneity. Interviews in each region
started at NUTS3 level and gradually expanded spatially in accordance with local actors’
understanding of the boundaries of their region. We thereby recognise that agency cannot be
reduced to territories but follow the actors’ own perception of their region instead. A short
description of the regional transition process will introduce each case in the following chapter
before we break them down into sub-processes of transition work.
2 This research was conducted in the context of [blinded project information].

11
We suggest looking at three sub-processes in each region. First, we examine the emergence
of an organisation, defined as a collective actor with defined members that have working
contracts, a specific set of rules applicable within the organisation, a clear aim (mostly financial
profit) and boundaries allowing to distinguish between insiders and outsiders (Scott and Davis,
2015). Typical examples are firms. Second, we investigate the creation of a network. Networks
are looser than organisations and have a more informal character. They are relatively stable,
reciprocal exchange relations of heterogeneous, autonomous and strategic actors. By linking
their actions, they aim at gaining a surplus effect without giving up their independence (Powell,
1990). An empirical example are associations, clusters and topic-related exchange platforms.
Third, we look at the installation of technologies. These technological artefacts are often
organised in the form of projects and result in visible manifestations of the transition process.
Empirical examples include wind parks. Taken together, they provide an array for investigating
facets of transition work empirically.
5. Transition work in the German wind energy sector
Having introduced the concept of transition work, we illustrate the elaborated sub-forms below
and provide an example for an organisation, a network and a technological installation in both
regions.
5.1. Energy transition in Hamburg
The first wind turbines that were built in 1991 in the east of Hamburg, Bergedorf, by two
pioneers marked decisive steps in Hamburg’s wind energy transition process. These visionary
actors “had to do political work at district level to get this [their turbine projects] approved”
(HH01). While Hamburg’s first land use plan (1998) allowed only for a limited number of turbine
installations and an installed capacity of 25 MW until 2000, this first phase was followed by a
“deep sleep like in Sleeping Beauty” (HH03). In the mid-2000s, municipal actors like the city’s
water company, its energy company, a planning office and industry partners realised a few
flagship projects in the industrial harbour area. As this area belongs to the Port Authority, wind
turbine planning could be realised independently of the city’s land use plan. A second wave of
increased wind build-out started around 2008 when the Green party came into power as
coalition partner of the Conservatives (HH03). The political objective of 120 MW installed wind
capacity led to revising Hamburg’s land use plan (2011-2013) and decisively drove further
build-out and repowering activities. Around 2010, renewable energy cluster activities started
off, numerous smaller as well as bigger onshore and especially offshore actors and
manufacturers settled in Hamburg and the international wind energy fair took place (2014) (see
annex, Table 5). While Hamburg remains a big energy consumer with energy intense industry
producing steel, copper and aluminium, the renewable energy actors grew in numbers and
importance and contributed to Hamburg becoming an internationally renowned wind energy

12
hub. In order to better understand how the transition process in a size-wise limited but actor-
dense city state unfolded we trace the three introduced sub-processes applying the proposed
framework of transition work.
5.1.1. Organisation: disruption in order to sustain the wind fair
Hamburg’s wind fair is nowadays the international leading trade fair on the topic, its story one
of creative disruption. In 1989, the German Association for Wind Energy organised the first fair
in a livestock auction hall in the small town of Husum (ca. 150 km north of Hamburg) at a time
when only few took wind seriously (create organisation). Since then it took place regularly and
grew from initially 4.000 visitors to over 35.000 (embedding and routinising). It became a well-
known platform to present innovations and to network, which has since reached its limits in
terms of exhibitor and hotel capacities (inventing, networking, extending, bring to market;
HH23, SH14, SH18).
Out of a pioneering industry in Husum […] the industry has developed into
a mature and technologically strong industry. That’s why they eventually
said that Husum is not the right platform anymore and that they had to
internationalise. (HH23)
Its success story is impressive but not without conflict. From 2002-06, Hamburg started its
own, however less successful, wind fair. For 2014, it announced a competing fair at the same
time as Husum. The Hamburg-based wind industry preferred the relocation to infrastructure-
wise favourable Hamburg while the wind association highlighted the advantages of the
“authentic” (SH14) Husum, often mythologised as “Woodstock in Husum” (HH23), within
proximity to wind parks and test fields. A conflict-laden period “with hardened fronts” (SH14)
(valorising and demonising) and resistance to relocation (defensive work) ended, upon
“political pressure” (HH23), in a mediated cooperation agreement: the German wind fair in
Husum and the international one in Hamburg alternate and thus hold their own internationally.
Out of competition arose a compromise that turned “from forced marriage to good partnership”
(SH10).
This benefits both. You can see from the trade fair that it didn't work in
Husum in these dimensions. You’ve got to say, the revolution devours its
children. (HH25)
This example shows how, in order to sustain the fair, a disruption (relocation) from the original
location was necessary.

13
5.1.2. Network: various networks and coalitions drive disruption
In 2001, a wind pioneer created the wind group of regulars, a local platform of the wind energy
association. It started as a loose meeting between wind energy professionals in a bar, grew in
numbers, moved to ever larger locations and attracted sponsors. Some mythologise the
pioneer’s engagement for Hamburg’s wind sector by praising his merits (HH25). The pioneer
actively networked and invited diverse actors such as manufacturers, service and finance
actors and thus “created a basis for the sector through networking” (create and expand
network; HH25). This shared platform helped to exchange and construct a common identity of
a young industry that “grew up” (HH19), gained in visibility and meanwhile became a
“recognised economic sector” (HH15).
This (the networking) is actually what really woke up the industry. They
said: "There's really something going on here" and: "We want to present
ourselves better". (HH25)
Nowadays the wind group is supra-regionally known and hosts about 250 visitors during its
quarterly meetings (routinising). The wind group engages in narrative and advocacy work not
least by holding panel discussions with politicians and experts. For some it is a meeting of
professionals demonstrating the knowledge and expertise in the city (educating & learning;
HH07). Others see it is as one “mosaic piece amongst many others” (HH12) – such as the
renewable energy cluster. Both networks along with others compete for attention (HH05) in
Hamburg’s dense wind actor landscape but also cooperate for specific events (HH08). Today,
the established networks (routinising) try to attract new members in order to sustain in a
changing environment. Therefore, both have and keep on engaging in disruptive work, e.g. by
undermining existing assumptions about hydrogen’s riskiness.
5.1.3. Technology: Research wind park – opposing coalitions valorise and demonise
In 2013, after a lengthy process, Hamburg’s amended land use plan became effective,
designating Curslack as a wind priority area and thus allowing for the construction of
Hamburg’s “most controversial and contested” (HH02) wind park (define).
In line with and backed by the political objective of 120 MW installed wind capacity (define),
Hamburg’s University of Applied Sciences wanted to construct a wind park for research
purposes (experimenting). It cooperated with the planner who had secured the site and the
municipal utility (create coalition).
Resistance arose rather late and despite efforts to include citizens in the plan making process:
The only site that was never seen critically was Curslack. […] The further
development puzzled me. All of a sudden, they [citizens] said: "Oh, they're

14
building in Curslack now, and so high." That's when people went on
warpath. (HH03)
A citizen initiative formed (create network) based on fears about noise, infrasound and the
exceptional turbine height of 180 meters (instead of typically 150 meters in outer area) (HH02).
They successfully organised a local referendum (defensive work, demonising). However, its
result was politically not binding and eventually, after public debates, the city’s environmental
committee decided to allow the turbine construction, promising to regularly check concerns
(HH25). Still, resistance continued. An environmental organisation’s complaint to protect the
sighted eagle owl necessitated new planning and entailed operating restrictions (HH03). Based
on a formal error, citizens filed a lawsuit against the approval authorities (defensive work).
While opponents engaged in defensive work by resisting the turbine installation, the operating
coalition valorised e.g. the use of the wind park’s green electricity for local mobility; the
municipal utility administered a public participation model (disruptive work).
Curslack was not allowed to run under the summary proceedings. But it
was not prevented either. (HH02)
Eventually, the research wind park was officially inaugurated in 2018 (implementing) and
hence provides an example for politically backed technology installations despite protests.
Summarising the insights from Hamburg, we find a close interaction of a dense and diverse
actor landscape in each sub-process and that creation, maintenance and disruption are part
of all of them.
5.2. Energy transition in Uckermark
Historically, the Uckermark region had not been an energy region but has excellent natural
conditions for energy generation from renewable sources including wind, solar, geothermal,
and even carbon capture (UC08). Just after the German re-unification in 1990 the incoming
minister for the environment in Brandenburg founded a unit to gather knowledge and expertise
and to test possibilities for onshore wind development. The unit gave advice to and provided
stable financial support for previously loosely organised associations and firms. Several wind
firms in the wider region, many of which are now well-established in the sector, benefitted of
this support. Due to a target set at the Federal state level in 2004 a land use plan designated
2 % of the region as preferential zones for wind. As a result, the region was discovered for its
ideal conditions and a veritable wind boom started. Given its relatively low energy consumption
(see annex, Table 5) the region became a net exporter of renewable energy. Firms and
investors from other regions remain keen to develop wind parks in the area and increasingly
encroach on the regional market. They appear to benefit of the relatively weak socio-economic
status of local landowners, luring them with very attractive lease offers (UC22, UC24). The

15
perceived disturbance and the fact that mainly outsiders seem to benefit of the good wind
conditions has provoked considerable resistance from locals (UC09, UC20, UC22).
5.2.1. Organisation: Regionally rooted coalition of convenience
Under the impression of the nuclear accident in Chernobyl in 1986 an Eastern German nuclear
engineer decided to learn about potential energy alternatives. He founded a firm (create
organisation) acting on the vision of transforming the Uckermark into an energy region, based
on wind, solar, and hydrogen (UC18). He is a known personality in the region, his role
commonly mythologised:
I remember him [founder] from my early days. He’s a nuclear physicist and
sat in my office with long hair, smelling from garlic and barefoot in sandals–
fitting all the stereotypes. (UC08)
He took advantage of the aforementioned government unit and in 1993 brought to the regional
market the concept of building wind parks rather than single turbines (implementing; UC13).
Out of these early activities formed in 1998 what is now the leading wind firm of the Uckermark.
It dominates in terms of installed turbines and is the second-largest employer (the largest being
an oil refinery). Together with a small regional competitor, the wind firm defends the territory
against external project developers (create a coalition; UC05, UC18). Overall, both are well-
respected companies (UC23) and cooperate with local stakeholders where possible, including
municipal utilities and citizens (creating coalitions; UC02, UC08, UC14). Apprehensive of
resistance from citizens’ initiatives against wind energy (defensive work), they introduced
participatory business models early-on (valorising).
Throughout, the firm has been “highly innovative” (UC09): In 2011 it realised a hybrid power
station transforming wind generated energy into hydrogen (experimenting, implementing,
disruptive work) and, more recently, it brought to market a technology to enable on-demand
night-time marking. This shows how this organisation has been instrumental in the disruption
of the regional trajectory and remains an important innovator.
5.2.2. Network: the non-existent boundary organisation
With regards to networks, be it a formal cluster organisation or more informal associations, the
Uckermark is a true counter-case compared to Hamburg. Reasons for this are commonly
stated to be the small number of wind actors in the region and therefore no perceived
necessity. This is evidence of a tendency to preserve a comfortable status quo in this regional
market (preserve, defensive work; UC03, UC05, UC07). They even recognise that a better
coordinated process might lead to better outcomes in the region, but also find that “individual
business interests get in the way so far, but this will have to change” (UC10). When asked
about networking activities, respondents either refer to specific, single events around

16
renewable energy or climate change (UC08, UC23) or point towards collaborations and
meetings on the national level (UC06, UC07).
In contrast to the relatively loosely organised wind firms stand the strongly networked wind
opponents. Here, we find a range of activities to resist against the disruptive work of the wind
proponents: Citizen initiatives against wind energy create networks, have joined a national
body (embedding, create coalitions), and take opportunities to shape the discourse in regional
media outlets (narrative work), thus achieving the perception of relatively high resistance
against wind in the region.
There are about 1000 citizen initiatives [against wind power] in Germany,
we align our work, we exchange information and support each other.
(UC22)
Recently the business development agency for this region has installed an energy manager
whose explicit goal is to improve the networks not just amongst wind actors but also with other
sectors and across the public/private sector divide in the region.
5.2.3. Technology: Citizen wind park – disruption ‘on the ground’
When a farmer and landowner in a small village in the Uckermark realised in the early 2010s
that some of his land and that of his neighbours had been designated a preferential zone for
wind energy development, he persuaded the others to initiate the installation of a citizen-built
wind park by framing the development as such as unavoidable. He organised local meetings
and created a network amongst interested parties.
The group even drew the attention of national newspapers who mythologise the role of the
initiating farmer. The landowner knew of similar cooperative business models from other
regions in Germany, which he sought to transfer to the local situation. He and his colleagues
educated themselves, learned about wind energy and the range of possible business models,
which put them into a better position to negotiate and bargain (advocate) with wind developers
both regarding the financial gains and the actual shape of the wind park.
That means you can make them play by your rules. […] Here, the farmers
make sure that the existing paths are used rather than cutting new ones
right through the crop fields. (UC09)
The farmer intends to show that wind development can be done in a manner which benefits
the local community, thereby undermining existing contrary assumptions and beliefs. He
believes that if you can directly improve people’s quality of life through the income from wind
development, they are more likely to tolerate it.

17
Taken together, the three sub-processes from the Uckermark indicate how a lack of
‘maintaining’ activities can lead to insufficient stabilisation and therefore endanger the further
progress of the regional energy transition.
5.3. Comparing transition work across cases
Applying transition work in different regional settings highlights the heterogeneity of our case
studies. While this is not surprising, it is notable, that the differences are directly mirrored in
the frequency of transition work forms we find: Hamburg with its diverse actor landscape and
a broad range of networks and organisations shows incidents of almost all forms of transition
work. Contrarily, in the Uckermark, fewer activities and structures result in a limited number of
forms of transition work. Likewise, the occurrence of forms of transition work differs: overall,
we have identified examples of creation, maintenance and disruption in both regions which
shows their constant interplay throughout transition. Yet, while we find a balanced combination
of the three forms in Hamburg, indicating the stabilisation of activities and the ongoing
disruption process, we observe an imbalance in this regard in the Uckermark: activities here
centre on creation and disruption but less on maintenance. For the investigated sub-
processes, this difference indicates a weak stabilisation of the transition process in the
Uckermark. Further, we observe the full spectrum of activities of both sub-forms of disruption
in our cases: disruptive and defensive work. This underlines the relevance of this distinction.
Therefore, despite the heterogeneity of the two cases, we have identified the same forms of
transition work in both. This highlights the applicability of the framework and its transferability
to other cases. Transition work thus serves as a tool to identify differences and commonalities
between regional transition processes in a more nuanced and encompassing fashion.
6. Discussion and conclusion
This article introduces the framework of transition work and applies it to two regional case
studies. This leads to several general observations and conclusions.
The main contribution of this paper is the systematic adaptation and extension of institutional
work to transition work – covering not only institutions but also actors and technologies.
Hereby, we develop a toolkit that may help to gain a better analytical grip of the transition
process. Whilst institutional work naturally provides a strong focus on the change of institutions,
we have widened the scope to include ‘work’ focused on technologies – the introduction,
promotion and development of technologies is a key component of transition. Moreover, we
strengthen the focus on actors and their transition activities (Markard et al., 2016; Farla et al.,
2012) as nearly all sub-forms of transition work specify not just the activity, but also refer to the
intention regarding transition by the respective actor. This acknowledges the argument on

18
‘directionality’ from the transitions debate (Weber and Truffer, 2017; Weber and Rohracher,
2012).
Based on the transition work framework, we can show that creation, maintenance and
disruption should not be seen as independent and unconnected activities. On the contrary,
they are an integral part of diverse transition sub-processes, albeit to different degrees. It is
this difference in degree which explains the regional heterogeneity, as the limited stabilisation
(maintenance) in the Uckermark shows. The almost entire lack of formalised (wind) networks
or clusters in the Uckermark is even problematised by the interview partners themselves. While
missing stabilisation activities hamper a steady and coherent, regionally embedded transition
process, maintenance activities of wind opponents (e.g. well-organised citizen initiatives)
increase the intra-regional disparity and may slow down the transition process. Analysing the
sub-forms of creation, we found that creating networks and organisations is more dominant in
Hamburg compared to creating coalitions in the Uckermark. While both are important
components of the transition process, the former entail more formalised and stable structures
(reinforcing maintenance) while the latter may be the result of a loosely connected and sparse
actor landscape.
A further contribution refers to the definition of disruption which we have extended in order to
cover disruptive as well as defensive activities. Disruption in the institutional work framework
is occupied with disrupting existing institutions in order to support new ones. In the transition
literature, disruption tends to concern the move away from a central, fossil-based, incumbent-
led energy system to one that is more de-centralised and based on renewable energy
(Johnstone and Kivimaa, 2018). Our extension allows for a perspective that both includes the
aspect of disrupting what is already there and the defensive work against this very disruption.
We therefore recognise the inherent tensions and resistance which, in turn, may result in a
disruption or deferral of the transition process.
By applying the framework to three distinct typical sub-processes of transitions – organisations,
networks and technological installations –, we are able to take a very nuanced perspective on
transition processes. This acknowledges the historical development and specificity of each
regional transition in a manageable manner whilst also drawing more generalisable
conclusions about the reasons for their differences. The framework may also help to identify
specific regional bottlenecks as well as those of transition processes in general. The illustration
of the limited stabilisation of the Uckermark transition process serves as one core example.
The limitations of this paper point directly at need for further research. Our analysis draws upon
two cases only, which instantly highlights the need of further empirical work. The empirical
setting is limited to regional cases while the definitions of transition work are not. Future
contributions might test the framework’s transferability to other cases, territorial units or

19
different transition fields. Moreover, although we explicitly take an actor-oriented perspective,
future applications might want to disentangle the role and strategies of different actor groups
involved in distinct forms of transition work. Differentiating between networks and coalitions
(Hess, 2014) might be a fruitful starting point. This would allow drawing more specific
conclusions about the stabilising, slowing down or accelerating forces in transition processes.
In conclusion, this paper proposes a framework of transition work which contributes to a more
nuanced analysis of the important but somewhat fuzzy social dynamics that impede or advance
transition processes. It enables us to consider how different constellations of actors, institutions
and technologies condition regional heterogeneity. In further sharpening our understanding,
transition work could provide a helpful toolkit to identify tensions, actor coalitions, territorial
specificities and bottlenecks. It serves to highlight the interplay of actors, institutions and
technologies and underlines how creation, maintenance and disruption are inherent parts of
transition processes.

20
7. References
Barnes, J., Durrant, R., Kern, F. and MacKerron, G. (2018), “The institutionalisation of
sustainable practices in cities: how initiatives shape local selection environments”,
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions.
Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S. and Rickne, A. (2008), “Analyzing the
functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis”, Research
Policy, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 407–429.
Beunen, R. and Patterson, J.J. (2019), “Analysing institutional change in environmental
governance: exploring the concept of ‘institutional work’”, Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 12–29.
Binz, C., Harris-Lovett, S., Kiparsky, M., Sedlak, D.L. and Truffer, B. (2016), “The thorny road
to technology legitimation — Institutional work for potable water reuse in California”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 103, pp. 249–263.
Bryman, A. (2016), Social research methods, Fifth edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Coenen, L. and Truffer, B. (2012), “Places and spaces of sustainability transitions:
Geographical contributions to an emerging research and policy field. Introduction”,
European Planning Studies, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 367–374.
Elzen, B., van Mierlo, B. and Leeuwis, C. (2012), “Anchoring of innovations: Assessing Dutch
efforts to harvest energy from glasshouses”, Environmental Innovation and Societal
Transitions, Vol. 5, pp. 1–18.
Farla, J., Markard, J., Raven, R. and Coenen, L. (2012), “Sustainability transitions in the
making: A closer look at actors, strategies and resources”, Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, Vol. 79 No. 6, pp. 991–998.
Fischer, L.-B. and Newig, J. (2016), “Importance of actors and agency in sustainability
transitions: A systematic exploration of the literature”, Sustainability, Vol. 8 No. 5, p. 476.
Fleck, J. and Howells, J. (2001), “Technology, the technology complex and the paradox of
technological determinism”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 523–531.
Fuenfschilling, L. (2019), “An institutional perspective on sustainability transitions”, in Boons,
F. and McMeekin, A. (Eds.), Handbook of sustainable innovation, pp. 219–236.
Fuenfschilling, L. and Truffer, B. (2016), “The interplay of institutions, actors and technologies
in socio-technical systems — An analysis of transformations in the Australian urban water
sector”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 103, pp. 298–312.
Geels, F.W. (2002), “Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a
multi-level perspective and a case-study”, Research Policy, Vol. 31 No. 8-9, pp. 1257–
1274.

21
Geels, F.W. (2018), “Disruption and low-carbon system transformation: Progress and new
challenges in socio-technical transitions research and the Multi-Level Perspective”, Energy
Research & Social Science, Vol. 37, pp. 224–231.
Giezen, M. (2018), “Shifting infrastructure landscapes in a circular economy: An institutional
work wnalysis of the water and energy sector”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 10, p. 3487.
Hansen, T. and Coenen, L. (2015), “The geography of sustainability transitions. Review,
synthesis and reflections on an emergent research field”, Environmental Innovation and
Societal Transitions, Vol. 17, pp. 92–109.
Hekkert, M.P., Suurs, R.A.A., Negro, S.O., Kuhlmann, S. and Smits, R.E.H.M. (2007),
“Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 413–432.
Hess, D.J. (2014), “Sustainability transitions: A political coalition perspective”, Research
Policy, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 278–283.
Hess, D.J. (2019), “Cooler coalitions for a warmer planet: A review of political strategies for
accelerating energy transitions”, Energy Research & Social Science, Vol. 57, p. 101246.
Johnstone, P. and Kivimaa, P. (2018), “Multiple dimensions of disruption, energy transitions
and industrial policy”, Energy Research & Social Science, Vol. 37, pp. 260–265.
Kivimaa, P. and Kern, F. (2016), “Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy
mixes for sustainability transitions”, Research Policy, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 205–217.
Lawrence, T.B. and Suddaby, R. (2006), “Institutions and Institutional Work”, in Clegg, S.R.
(Ed.), Handbook of organization studies, 2. edition, Sage, London, pp. 215–254.
Löhr, M. (2020), Energietransitionen: Eine Analyse der Phasen und Akteurskoalitionen in
Dänemark, Deutschland und Frankreich, 1st ed. 2020, Springer VS, Wiesbaden.
Maguire, S. and Hardy, C. (2009), “Discourse and deinstitutionalization: The decline of DDT”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 148–178.
Markard, J., Raven, R. and Truffer, B. (2012), “Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of
research and its prospects”, Research Policy, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 955–967.
Markard, J., Suter, M. and Ingold, K. (2016), “Socio-technical transitions and policy change –
Advocacy coalitions in Swiss energy policy”, Environmental Innovation and Societal
Transitions, Vol. 18, pp. 215–237.
Meadowcroft, J. (2009), “What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition
management, and long term energy transitions”, Policy Sciences, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 323–
340.
Munck af Rosenschöld, J., Rozema, J.G. and Frye-Levine, L.A. (2014), “Institutional inertia
and climate change: a review of the new institutionalist literature”, Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews: Climate Change, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 639–648.

22
Powell, W. (1990), “Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization”, Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12, pp. 295–336.
Roberts, C., Geels, F.W., Lockwood, M., Newell, P., Schmitz, H., Turnheim, B. and Jordan, A.
(2018), “The politics of accelerating low-carbon transitions: Towards a new research
agenda”, Energy Research & Social Science, Vol. 44, pp. 304–311.
Schmid, E., Knopf, B. and Pechan, A. (2016), “Putting an energy system transformation into
practice: The case of the German Energiewende”, Energy Research & Social Science,
Vol. 11, pp. 263–275.
Scott, W.R. and Davis, G.F. (2015), Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open
systems perspectives, Routledge.
Seawright, J. and Gerring, J. (2008), “Case selection techniques in case study research”,
Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 294–308.
Sengers, F., Wieczorek, A.J. and Raven, R. (2016), “Experimenting for sustainability
transitions: A systematic literature review”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change.
Sjøtun, S.G. (2019), “A ferry making waves: A demonstration project ‘doing’ institutional work
in a greening maritime industry”, Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal of
Geography, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 16–28.
Smink, M.M., Hekkert, M.P. and Negro, S.O. (2015), “Keeping sustainable innovation on a
leash? Exploring incumbents’ institutional strategies”, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 86–101.
Smith, A., Stirling, A. and Berkhout, F. (2005), “The governance of sustainable socio-technical
transitions”, Research Policy, Vol. 34 No. 10, pp. 1491–1510.
Sørensen, K.H., Lagesen, V.A. and Hojem, T.S.M. (2018), “Articulations of mundane transition
work among consulting engineers”, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,
Vol. 28, pp. 70–78.
Weber, K.M. and Rohracher, H. (2012), “Legitimizing research, technology and innovation
policies for transformative change”, Research Policy, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 1037–1047.
Weber, K.M. and Truffer, B. (2017), “Moving innovation systems research to the next level.
Towards an integrative agenda”, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp.
101–121.
Weible, C.M., Sabatier, P.A. and McQueen, K. (2009), “Themes and variations: Taking stock
of the advocacy coalition framework”, Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 121–140.
Wittmayer, J.M., Avelino, F., van Steenbergen, F. and Loorbach, D. (2017), “Actor roles in
transition: Insights from sociological perspectives”, Environmental Innovation and Societal
Transitions, Vol. 24, pp. 45–56.

23
Zvolska, L., Voytenko Palgan, Y. and Mont, O. (2019), “How do sharing organisations create
and disrupt institutions? Towards a framework for institutional work in the sharing
economy”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 219, pp. 667–676.

24
Annex
Table 3: Definitions of create, maintain and disrupt as developed by Lawrence and Suddaby (2006)
Create
Definition
Advocacy
The mobilization of political and regulatory support through direct and deliberate
techniques of social suasion
Defining
The construction of rule systems that confer status or identity, define boundaries of
membership or create status hierarchies within a field
Vesting
The creation of rule structures that confer property rights
Constructing identities
Defining the relationship between an actor and the field in which that actor operates
Changing normative
associations
Remaking the connections between sets of practices and the moral and cultural
foundations for those practices
Constructing normative
networks
Constructing of interorganizational connections through which practices become
normatively sanctioned and which form the relevant peergroup with respect to
compliance, monitoring and evaluation
Mimicry
Associating new practices with existing sets of taken-for-granted practices,
technologies and rules in order to ease adoption
Theorizing
The development and specification of abstract categories and the elaboration of
chains of cause and effect
Educating
The educating of actors in skills and knowledge necessary to support the new
institution
Maintain
Enabling work
The creation of rules that facilitate, supplement and support institutions, such as the
creation of authorizing agents or diverting resources
Policing
Ensuring compliance through enforcement, auditing and monitoring
Deterring
Establishing coercive barriers to institutional change
Valourizing and
demonizing
Providing for public consumption positive and negative examples that illustrates the
normative foundations of an institution
Mythologizing
Preserving the normative underpinnings of an institution by creating and sustaining
myths regarding its history
Embedding and
routinizing
Actively infusing the normative foundations of an institution into the participants' day
to day routines and organizational practices
Disrupt
Disconnecting
sanctions
Working through state apparatus to disconnect rewards and sanctions from some
set of practices, technologies or rules
Disassociating moral
foundations
Disassociating the practice, rule or technology from its moral foundation as
appropriate within a specific cultural context
Undermining
assumptions
and beliefs
Decreasing the perceived risks of innovation and differentiation by undermining core
assumptions and beliefs

25
Table 4: Interview overview
1
HH01
project developer, owners, operators, service
2
HH02
politics & administration
3
HH03
project developer, owners, operators, service
4
HH04
civil society, interest organisation
5
HH05
network
6
HH06
politics & administration
7
HH07
energy utilities, project developer, owners, operators, service
8
HH08
trade associations & unions, interest organisation
9
HH09
finance, service
10
HH10
industry
11
HH11
project developer, owners, operators, energy utilities
12
HH12
industry
13
HH13
science & education
14
HH14
politics & administration, owners, operators, energy utilities
15
HH15
politics & administration
16
HH16
finance, owners, operators, energy utilities
17
HH17
politics & administration
18
HH18
industry
19
HH19
industry
20
HH20
finance
21
HH21
industry
22
HH22
industry
23
HH23
service
24
HH24
service, industry
25
HH25
politics & administration
26
HH26
politics & administration
27
UC01
service, industry
28
UC02
politics & administration
29
UC03
politics & administration
30
UC04
energy utilities
31
UC05
project developer, owners, operators, energy utilities
32
UC06
civil society
33
UC07
project developer, owners, operators
34
UC08
politics & administration
35
UC09
civil society
36
UC10
project developer
37
UC11
politics & administration, interest organisation
38
UC12
civil society, interest organisation
39
UC13
politics & administration
40
UC14
politics & administration
41
UC15
service
42
UC16
politics & administration
43
UC17
politics & administration, civil society, interest organisation
44
UC18
project developer, owners, operators, energy utilities, interest organisation

26
45
UC19
trade associations & unions, interest organisation
46
UC20
politics & administration
47
UC21
trade associations & unions, interest organisation
48
UC22
civil society, interest organisation
49
UC23
politics & administration
50
UC24
project developer
51
UC25
politics & administration
52
UC26
service
53
SH10
service
54
SH14
service
55
SH18
project developer, owners, operators
Table 5: Characteristics contrasting the regions Hamburg and Uckermark
Characteristics
Hamburg
Uckermark
Federal state
Hamburg
Brandenburg
Population density (inhabitant /km²)
2,438 (2018)
39 (2018)
Wind turbines
63 (2019)
634 (2018)
Installed capacity
122 MW (2019)
1,061 MW (2018)
GDP/person
66,879 (2019)
30,598 (2017)
Total electricity consumption
11.9 TWh (2018)
0.4 TWh (2017)
Actor landscape (actors, networks,
organisations)
Diverse & dense: many
headquarters of industry firms
(manufacturers), rather few project
developers, many
banks and
investors, numerous networks,
several utilities; in general: white-
collar and little production
Sparse and loosely connected: two
locally based developers, no banks
or investors;
no functioning wind
networks; some manufacturing in
the early years which has since
been relocated; build-out region
Beginning of transition and
technology installation
Early build-out (1990s) and later
intensification (2010s)
Early pioneers (1990s),
intensification of build-out (2000s)