In 2022, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established that global greenhouse gas emissions trajectories are not on track to limiting warming to less than 2 degrees C above pre-industrial averages (IPCC 2022a). Given that broader progress towards ambitious climate change and sustainability goals remains incremental, a whole-of-society approach, including transformative innovation in the private sector, is required to trigger the necessary changes within deeply unsustainable social and technical systems. This paper develops and illustrates an evidence-based process to enable organizations to foster sustainability transformations beyond a firm's traditional boundaries. Based on 42 rich qualitative cases studies, a range of transdisciplinary capacity-building events in 7 countries, and 13 co-produced experiments, we develop the logic behind, and empirically test, an iterative process that maps the sustainability pathways of small firms, builds capacity for transformations among them, triggers new experiments, and reflects upon how these actions can and are influencing broader transformations towards sustainability. We find that small businesses have the potential to facilitate sustainability transformations, both within their organizational boundaries, and within the broader ecosystem of which they are a part. We find that transformative sustainability practices are relational (in that they rely on a web of relationships among many 'ecosystem' actors rather than a single organization) and may be fundamentally altered by transdisciplinary co-production methodologies. Ultimately, we found an iterative relationship between capacity and experimentation: capacity was built through experimentation, which then revealed potential capacity gaps or needs that could be remedied through iteration.

Transdisciplinary research (TDR) aims to co-produce knowledge to address the complex challenges of unsustainability. Despite progress in articulating principles for successful co-production, Indigenous researchers have pointed out ongoing power imbalances. These disparities, partly stemming from unacknowledged ontological-epistemological inequalities, often perpetuate hidden hierarchies between researchers and participants. At the core of these power imbalances is the dominance in academia of certain ways of knowing (e.g., categorical, experimental, noun-based, substantialist) over others (e.g., relational, experiential, verb-based, idealist). This bias is formalized and reinforced by academic institutions and cultures, passed down and internalized through education and professionalization. Inclusive TDR needs to break this self-reinforcing cycle, but this requires making inner room for multiple perspectives on reality and existence. To explore how inner work may foster ontological pluralism and inclusive TDR, we held a workshop drawing lessons from three case studies of TDR from Malaysia, Botswana, and Ecuador. Participants’ experiences were synthesized into a reflexive cycle of five inner shifts toward inclusive TDR. These shifts enhance the ability of researchers to engage with different ontologies beyond scientific materialism, and recognize their embeddedness in various kinds of relationships, extending their relational awareness to other beings, human and non-human, living and non-living. The proposed reflexive cycle seeks to cultivate capacities for co-production in TDR that are grounded in horizontally inclusive research practices that allow for more contextually relevant and impactful solutions to complex real-world problems.

Transdisciplinary research (TDR) integrates academic and non-academic expertise to co-produce actionable knowledge that contributes to societal impact in addressing sustainability challenges. While context is widely acknowledged as important, the role and definition of context factors shaping TDR remain underexplored. This study develops an integrative understanding of context by synthesising theoretical literature and analysing 17 semi-structured interviews from international TDR case studies. We identify nine key context factors across three categories: outer factors (outside projects), inner factors (within projects), and temporal/ spatial dimensions (project boundaries). These context factors influence collaborative research processes in different ways across projects, requiring ongoing reflexivity and adaptation. Positionality awareness and ethics are central in shaping power dynamics, stakeholder engagement, and knowledge-co-production, highlighting the need for context-sensitive approaches. To support this in a structured way, we present a framework linking context with research design, process, methods and outcomes. Additionally, we provide a set of reflective questions for researchers and practitioners to identify, assess, and respond to contextual influences that shape stainability transformations. By advancing a more systematic understanding of context, this study contributes to building reflexive and inclusive approaches to transdisciplinary collaboration.

This paper proposes an approach to capture mutual learning within transdisciplinary research to develop future-oriented sustainability solutions to land use conflicts. While quality criteria for transdisciplinary research projects are increasingly discussed, there is still ample methodological potential to enable and better understand mutual learning as a key component of transdisciplinarity. Changes in the specific developments of perceptions of the participants are difficult to be tamed and tracked. To address this shortcoming we propose to apply the Delphi method for longitudinal tracking of mutual learning within transdisciplinary research.We present the application of the methodological approach as part of a transdisciplinary project on sustainable land use in the district of Lüneburg (Lower-Saxony, Germany). Evaluation of semi-structured interviews with seven participants translated into a three-round Delphi survey. A concluding round of semi-structured interviews was performed to validate and deepen the findings. The results showcase that the Delphi method can facilitate the operationalization of the convergence of understandings as a relevant outcome of mutual learning within transdisciplinary projects.

Im Reallabordiskurs der letzten zehn Jahre werden ,,Reallabor“ und ,,Realexperiment“ häufig nicht klar unterschieden. Dies führt zu Missverständnissen, wissenschaftlichen Ungenauigkeiten, methodischen Fehlern. Es liefert der Kritik Vorschub, Reallabore seien nichts wirklich Neues, und verhindert letztlich, dass Reallabore als echte Labore ihr Potenzial voll ausschöpfen können. Eine Unterscheidung tut somit not.Over the past decade, the distinction between “real-world laboratory” and “real-world experiment” has frequently been blurred, leading to misunderstandings, scientific inaccuracies, and methodological errors. This confusion fuels criticism that real-world laboratories lack novelty, preventing them from realizing their full potential. Hence, a clear distinction between these terms is crucial.

Real-world laboratories (RwLs) provide research settings to develop and test sustainability solution options and have gained considerable attention in the field of sustainability research since the early 2010s. RwLs, especially those in which urban municipalities are involved as partners, have been linked to promises for fostering sustainable urban development, but they are also critically discussed, e.g., for being used as proof for already doing 'enough' in terms of sustainability and citizen participation. However, these assumptions are rarely empirically investigated. This paper applies a traceable methodological approach. We focus on long-term RwL processes in eight German cities, that were all part of the Cities of the Future funding program (2015-2022/23). Based on policy documents provided in city council information systems, we conducted a qualitative content analysis. By applying deductively and inductively developed codes, we capture the ways in which the RwL processes were a) linked to changes in urban polity, politics and policy, and b) strategically used by city officials. Our findings suggest that most of the RwLs had political impacts in several ways. Further, attempts of strategic use were particularly visible for politically highly impactful RwLs.

Real -world laboratories have become a recognised research format for addressing sustainability challenges. In these transdisciplinary settings, actors from civil society, local government, and academia work together using a transdisciplinary research approach to jointly experiment and learn about sustainability transformations. While these labs are considered to have potential, their impact has not yet been fully measured. Therefore, in our paper we explore the case of the Zukunftsstadt L & uuml;neburg 2030+ process to uncover the impacts that this long-term effort has generated over the past eight years. By examining the process and its design features from three analytical perspectives, we identify emergent impacts in three dimensions: education, governance, and the lab as an actor for sustainability. Based on our case study, we suggest that real -world labs contribute to sustainability on a local level, beyond the intentional experiments, through impacts that emerge over the course of the joint operation of the lab.

Ways of evaluating the societal impact of real -world labs as a trans disciplinary and transformative research format are under discussion. We present an evaluation approach rooted in structuration theory, with a focus on structure -agency dynamics at the sciencesociety interface. We applied the theory with its four modalities (interpretation schemes, norms, allocative and authoritative resources) to the case of the Mirke neighbourhood in Wuppertal, Germany. Six projects promoted the capacity for co -productive city -making. The effects of the projects were jointly analysed in a co -evaluation process. Previously proposed subcategories of the modalities as an empirical operationalisation were tested and confirmed as being applicable. Five new subcategories were generated. The use of the modalities seems appropriate for co -evaluation processes. The tool is practical, focused on real -world effects, and suitable for transdisciplinary interpretation processes. We encourage further empirical testing of the tool, as well as development of the subcategories.

To address the evaluation of the societal impact of real-world labs, we present a framework developed for the analysis of structure-agency dynamics: structuration theory. Using this tool on a neighbourhood level, we assess the outcomes of six projects on co-productive city-making.Ways of evaluating the societal impact of real-world labs as a transdisciplinary and transformative research format are under discussion. We present an evaluation approach rooted in structuration theory, with a focus on structure-agency dynamics at the science-society interface. We applied the theory with its four modalities (interpretation schemes, norms, allocative and authoritative resources) to the case of the Mirke neighbourhood in Wuppertal, Germany. Six projects promoted the capacity for co-productive city-making. The effects of the projects were jointly analysed in a co-evaluation process. Previously proposed subcategories of the modalities as an empirical operationalisation were tested and confirmed as being applicable. Five new subcategories were generated. The use of the modalities seems appropriate for co-evaluation processes. The tool is practical, focused on real-world effects, and suitable for transdisciplinary interpretation processes. We encourage further empirical testing of the tool, as well as development of the subcategories.

Over the past decade, the distinction between "real-world laboratory" and "real-world experiment" has frequently been blurred, leading to misunderstandings, scientific inaccuracies, and methodological errors. This confusion fuels criticism that real-world laboratories lack novelty, preventing them from realizing their full potential. Hence, a clear distinction between these terms is crucial.

Transformative transdisciplinary research settings such as real-word laboratories (RwLs) provide infrastructures for collaboratively testing sustainability solutions in cities. Existing evaluations have focused on learning through experimentation and the tested interventions. Here, we provide an additional focus on the collaboration mechanisms established in real-world experiments. Through the involvement of political-administrative actors, university actors, and civil society actors, real-world experiments can function as initiators for governance networks that drive urban sustainable development, potentially beyond the formal end of real-world experiments. We therefore propose a framework that encompasses governance and transdisciplinary approaches, which can be used to evaluate real-world experiments as new modes of urban governance. The framework was applied to retrospectively evaluate a real-world experiment conducted within a RwL in a German city. We argue that while the framework serves as an evaluative scheme for assessing and comparing real-world experiments, it could also be used to evaluate RwLs as well as transdisciplinary research projects, by emphasizing the governance arrangements formed in those settings. Including this governance perspective expands the debate surrounding the impacts of transdisciplinary sustainability projects.

Technical summary The question of how science can become a lever in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals permeates most recent sustainability research. Wide-ranging literature calling for a transformative approach has emerged in recent years. This 'transformative turn' is fueled by publications from fields such as sustainability science, social-ecological research, conservation science, sustainability transitions, or sustainability governance studies. However, there is a lack of a shared understanding specifically of what is meant for research to be transformative in this developing discourse around doing science differently to tackle sustainability problems. We aim to advance transformative research for sustainability. We define transformative research and outline six of its characteristics: (1) interventional nature and a theory of change focus; (2) collaborative modes of knowledge production, experimentation and learning; (3) systems thinking literacy and contextualization; (4) reflexivity, normative and inner dimensions; (5) local agency, decolonization, and reshaping power; (6) new quality criteria and rethinking impact. We highlight three tensions between transformative research and traditional paradigms of academic research: (1) process- and output-orientation; (2) accountability toward society and toward science; (3) methodologies rooted in scientific traditions and post-normal methodologies. We conclude with future directions on how academia could reconcile these tensions to support and promote transformative research.Non-technical summary Dominant ways of doing research are not enough to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The typical response of science to dealing with the current local and global sustainability crises is to produce and accumulate more knowledge. Transformative research seeks to couple knowledge production with co-creating change. This paper defines the transformative way of doing research to pro-actively support society's fight against pressing societal and environmental problems. We present six characteristics of transformative research. We reflect on the challenges related to implementing these characteristics in scientific practice and on how academia can play its part.Social media summary Sustainability transformation needs to be reflected in science, but what makes sustainability research transformative?

Um den Herausforderungen der Gegenwart nachhaltig begegnen zu können, ist transdisziplinär und partizipativ ausgerichtete Forschung zentral. Diese Art der Forschung erfordert verstärkten Austausch und verstärkte Vernetzung zwischen den Forschenden. Auf Initiative der Plattform tdAcademy wurde dazu die Gesellschaft für transdisziplinäre und partizipative Forschung (GTPF) gegründet, die sich als Anlaufstelle und unabhängige Interessenvertretung der transdisziplinären und partizipativen Forschung versteht ‐ auch gegenüber Politik und Förderinstitutionen. Die Mitglieder engagieren sich in Vernetzung, Aus- und Weiterbildung sowie bei der Konsolidierung dieser Forschungsansätze und der Qualitätsstandards.

Since antiquity, philosophers in the Western tradition of virtue ethics have declared practical wisdom to be the central virtue of citizens involved in public and social life. Practical wisdom is of particular importance when values are conflicting, power is unequal and knowledge uncertain. We propose that practical wisdom and virtue ethics can inform the practice of sustainability researchers by strengthening their capacity to engage with the normative complexities of knowledge co-production when aspiring to contribute to transformative change.

PurposeThis study aims to illuminate the limited understanding of viable social business among corporate actors in developing countries. It addresses pressing environmental and societal problems, emphasizing the need for corporate participation in sustainable solutions. Additionally, the study explores the transformational business notion linking company achievement with social progress, an increasingly studied concept in management. Design/methodology/approachBased on a transdisciplinary case study (i.e. a university-industry collaboration [UIC]), this study proposed a structural framework and guiding principles to integrate the academic and practitioners' different but complementary resources and expertise. FindingsThe outcomes could provide insights for social entrepreneurs to perform highly optimal decisions on their organisational strategies, in which the financial-then-social pathway could be an effective social business success mechanism. Originality/valueBesides, the case study also generates each five learning lessons and challenges coping strategies that provide practical guidance on operationalising an effective UIC. The empirical findings contribute to social entrepreneurship and sustainability science literature.

Learning and transdisciplinary research are widely acknowledged as key components for achieving sustainability; however, the links between these concepts remain vague in the sustainability literature. Recently, emphasis has been given to transdisciplinary learning, highlighting its potential as an approach that contributes to solving real-world problems. To better understand and foster transdisciplinary learning for sustainability transformations, it is relevant to pay attention to two dimensions that define transdisciplinary learning: social interaction (individual learning in a social setting, as a group, or beyond the group), and learning forms (single-, double-, or triple-loop learning). This article introduces a conceptual framework built upon these two dimensions to understand three specific forms of transdisciplinary learning as a) individual competence development, b) experience-based collaboration, and c) societal interaction. This framework helps to clarify the design of learning processes as well as their interactions in transdisciplinary processes to support transformative change.

LinkLab is a newly established working group under the umbrella of German Committee Future Earth (DKN Future Earth). It opens up a space to discuss relevant connections and interfaces between real-world lab research and various scientific disciplines, exploring fruitful connections and pathways for mutual learning for future sustainability-oriented research.

Um den Herausforderungen der Gegenwart nachhaltig begegnen zu konnen, ist transdisziplinar und partizipativ ausgerichtete Forschung zentral. Diese Art der Forschung erfordert verstarkten Austausch und verstarkte Vernetzung zwischen den Forschenden. Auf Initiative der Plattform tdAcademy wurde dazu die Gesellschaft fur transdisziplinare und partizipative Forschung (GTPF) gegrundet, die sich als Anlaufstelle und unabhangige Interessenvertretung der transdisziplinaren und partizipativen Forschung versteht - auch gegenuber Politik und Forderinstitutionen. Die Mitglieder engagieren sich in Vernetzung, Aus-und Weiterbildung sowie bei der Konsolidierung dieser Forschungsansatze und der Qualitatsstandards.