The global landscape for sustainability has shifted since the Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium (TIPC) was founded a decade ago. While the urgency of the climate crisis and societal needs remains, the political and economic environment has grown increasingly complex. We are moving through a period of “great fragmentation” where sustainability budgets are shrinking, geopolitical tensions are rising and public discourse is often paralysed by polarisation.
In this new reality, traditional “linear” policy models, which remain dominant and are arguably even more prevalent in the current context of political polarisation, rely on top-down, rational problem-solving processes, fail to account for rapid shifts and unforeseen consequences.
Drawing on a decade of participatory action research, this article reflects on what we have learned from putting Transformative Innovation Policy (TIP) into practice, how these lessons remain relevant in an increasingly fragmented world and what they mean for the next phase of TIPC.
2016: Formalising a response to a world in transition
When TIPC first launched in 2016, the global momentum felt distinct. It was the year the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) officially came into force, signalling a global consensus that radical transformation was required to keep the planet liveable for future generations. For researchers and policymakers alike, there was an omnipresent urge to direct their work toward the greater good and tackle the twin challenges of climate change and growing inequalities.
During the TIPC inaugural speech, founder and academic director Professor Johan Schot posed a pivotal question regarding the future of Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) policy and how to respond to a world in transition: should we continue to focus on the consequences of innovation, or should we begin to address the causes of systemic failure?
This period marked the rise of “Frame 3” – the Transformative Change frame. While previous models focused on R&D (Frame 1) or National Systems of Innovation (Frame 2), TIP focused on systemic change, looking beyond product or process innovation to science and technology, policy and regulations, financial and industrial setting, markets and users, and cultural preferences that define socio-technical systems. This broader scope also invited a more diverse set of actors into the process, including those often excluded from knowledge production and policy design, such as users, civil society, grassroots organisations and social movements.
A decade of learning through practice
TIPC’s ambition was to move this “Frame 3” theory into real-world experimentation. Through Experimental Policy Engagements (EPEs) with partners like the Colombian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (at the time Colciencias), Sweden’s Innovation Agency Vinnova, South Africa’s Department of Science and Innovation, and the EIT Climate-KIC, the consortium explored the co-creation, mobilisation and evaluation of policy interventions addressing urgent societal needs.
This decade of experimentation was analysed in the TIPC Transformative Learning History and afterwards in a 2025 publication by Bernal-Hernández, Boni, Schot and Velasco in Science and Public Policy. Using a “Learning History” (LH) methodology, the authors distilled nearly 200 insights from EPEs and collaborative workshops into seven core themes (L1–L7):
- The human element (L1 & L2): Transformation requires “safe spaces” to build trust and equalise interactions between researchers and practitioners. These spaces allow friction, often caused by the disconnect between academic theory and the practical reality of policymaking, to become a vital source of “second-order learning” rather than a failure. For this to work, TIP researchers must cultivate specific capabilities: humility, flexibility, and the empathy required to “leave behind” past assumptions and adapt to uncertain environments.
- Institutional evolution (L3 & L4): STI agencies need to evolve from passive funders into active “transformative agents” capable of facilitating complex, multi-level interventions. However, unstable institutional environments, short-term delivery pressures and limited incentives for transdisciplinary research can hinder the long-term engagement required for systemic change.
- The inclusion challenge (L5): Although TIP is designed to be inclusive, early experiments were often limited to an “inner circle” of researchers and policymakers. Systemic change requires broader participation, while navigating the “ideal level” of inclusion: balancing grassroots input with expert knowledge to support legitimate decision-making.
- Contextual adaptation (L6): A significant organisational challenge involves translating macro-level TIP concepts into the microeconomic realities of local firms and existing organisational routines. Bridging this gap requires developing a shared language and tools that make high-level systemic transformation actionable for diverse actors without losing theoretical rigor.
- The power of reflexivity (L7): Success depends on “deep learning” ––the ability to question underlying assumptions, values, and routines rather than just performing box-ticking evaluations. Formative evaluation in TIPC encourages participants to “stretch” their understanding of policy, moving from tracking single innovations to visualising how interventions can affect entire socio-technical systems.
These lessons take on renewed relevance in today’s more fragmented political and economic context, where governments are balancing sustainability ambitions with competing priorities including national security, industrial policy, economic competitiveness, migration control or response to climate change aftermath, among others.
Learning through the lens of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI)
In the aforementioned 2025 publication, Transformative Innovation Policy meets Responsible Research and Innovation: a critical reflection, Bernal-Hernández et al., make a critical reflection on TIPC’s work through the lens of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) and its four dimensions: reflexivity, anticipation, inclusion and responsiveness.
Several lessons emerge from the Learning History. These include the importance of critically examining underlying assumptions, widening participation, and maintaining the capacity to adapt as new knowledge and challenges arise. The analysis further suggests that anticipation deserves greater attention. While evaluation has been a central feature of early EPEs, strengthening anticipatory practices would enable practitioners to consider a broader range of possible futures, identify potential unintended consequences, and better prepare for emerging challenges.
Combined with the strong reflexive capacity evident across the EPEs, stronger anticipatory practices would support deeper learning and more effective transformative action.
Looking ahead: The path to just transitions
Since societies face profound inequalities and social divisions, environmental sustainability cannot be separated from social justice. Concluding their Learning History paper, Bernal-Hernández et al. (2025) advocate integrating the “Human Capability Approach”, as proposed by Boni, Velasco and Ghosh (2025), into TIPC’s core principles, prioritising citizens’ agency to contribute to decisions made on their behalf and helping ensure transitions are not only “green”, but just and democratic.
As TIPC enters its third phase, this learning points towards three areas for continued development:
- Broaden the circle: Move beyond the “inner circle” of experts to strengthen the involvement of grassroots organisations and the private sector.
- Deepen anticipation: Strengthen forward-looking inquiry and scenario mapping to prepare for uncertainty, rebound effects and unintended consequences.
- Support institutional resilience: Build practical, in-house capabilities and networks that can sustain long-term transformative ambitions despite short-term political and institutional pressures.
A decade of putting TIP into practice has shown that systemic change is not a smooth, linear process, but a challenging and often friction-filled journey of co-creation. In an increasingly polarised and fragmented landscape, the lessons emerging from this work provide a basis for continuing to learn and adapt while maintaining a focus on systemic transformation and social justice.