# Trajectories and turning points: Objects of intermediation for generalisation

Allison Loconto, K.M. Weber, R. van Dis, E. Lhoste, L. Bundgaard, M. Matt

► To cite this version:

Allison Loconto, K.M. Weber, R. van Dis, E. Lhoste, L. Bundgaard, et al. Trajectories and turning points: Objects of intermediation for generalisation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2026, 224, pp.124469. 10.1016/j.techfore.2025.124469. hal-05428139

HAL Id: hal-05428139

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05428139v1

Submitted on 21 Dec 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Trajectories and turning points: Objects of intermediation for generalisation☆

A. Loconto<sup>a,b,*</sup>, K.M. Weber<sup>a,c</sup>, R. van Dis<sup>a,b</sup>, E. Lhoste<sup>a,b</sup>, L. Bundgaard<sup>a,c</sup>, M. Matt<sup>a,b</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

**Keywords:**
Generalisation
Intermediation
Food systems
Turning points
Transformation
Knowledge

## ABSTRACT

We introduce generalisation as an intermediated trajectory to explain how system innovations, like alternative food systems, diffuse. While existing literature on diffusion and scaling focuses on human agency and steady progression, we propose a relational, object-oriented approach that highlights the role of situated intermediation punctuating/disrupting trajectories of generalisation. We identify four key objects of intermediation—knowledge, value(s), infrastructures, and rules—and demonstrate their role in reconfiguring actor networks and redirecting transformative trajectories. Through three empirical cases (natural wine, sustainable apiculture, and participatory research in France), we demonstrate how intermediation around these objects resolves challenges (interdependencies, uncertainties, complexities, controversies) and creates turning points that redirect transformative pathways. Our framework integrates the trajectory-turning point model to identify four conditions for transformative change: stability, resistance, identity transformation, and role commitment. Findings reveal that generalisation is dynamic and intermediated, whereby objects and actors collaboratively reconfigure networks, institutional contexts, and innovation objectives. The original contribution of this meso-level perspective lies in theorising generalisation as an intermediated trajectory, emphasising the material and relational work of objects alongside human agency. This reframing advances transition studies and innovation policy research by shifting focus from diffusion mechanisms to the situated, iterative processes that enable systems transformation.

## 1. Introduction

On 23 September 2021, Secretary General António Guterres closed the first United Nations Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) by claiming that “the journey has profoundly affirmed that our food systems hold the power to realise our shared vision for a better world.”<fnref n="1" /> Guterres added that transformative action requires the engagement and close participation of the people who drive our food systems. He mentioned specifically the need to draw expertise from scientific, traditional and indigenous knowledge; to value food as more than a mere commodity; “to shift and scale public and private financing for food, including for science and research” and to encourage “open, non-discriminatory, transparent, rules-based trade [..] for building more inclusive and resilient food systems.”

This ambition to transform our food systems is a tall order. Sociologists of agriculture and food have demonstrated that the world is not fed in the aggregate, but rather by people, animals and plants living, working and eating in very specific contexts (cf. *Fouilleux et al.*, 2017). Moreover, we know that there is no institutionalised ‘we’ that collectively feeds this world (Wise, 2013), but networks of actors who transform various types of knowledge about nature into food (Ericksen *et al.*, 2010). These networks include, but are not limited to: agricultural production, ecosystems services, storage, transport and logistics systems, food processing, food service, waste and recycling systems, energy and water systems, human and animal health, political systems, community rituals, arts, religions and lifestyles that transect specific places (Sonnino and Milbourne, 2022; Allen and Prosperi, 2016). Finally, to achieve values like inclusivity, equity and resilience in a food system, it

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Université Gustave Eiffel, LISIS, CNRS, INRAE, F 77454 Champs-sur-Marne, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> INRAE, UMR 1326, F 77454 Champs-sur-Marne, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> Austrian Institute of Technology, Center for Innovation Systems and Policy, Vienna, Austria</footnote>

<footnote>* This article is part of a Special issue entitled: ‘Generalisation’ published in Technological Forecasting & Social Change.</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail address: allison-marie.loconto@inrae.fr (A. Loconto).</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ The Chair’s Summary of the United Nations Food System Summit, New York, 23 September 2021. https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/news/making-food-systems-work-people-planet-and-prosperity</footnote>
matters who does the transforming as they come from different socio-cultural and economic situations (Bodenheimer, 2021; Kaljonen et al., 2023) and rely upon different ways of knowing (Haraway, 1988).<fnref n="2" /> As a result, there is a need to better understand the interplay of knowledge, value(s), infrastructures and rules of food systems, and to act upon them, in order to enable system-level transformations.

This interdependent complex web of knowledge, value(s), infrastructures and rules between systems indicates that food systems transformations must operate at multiple scales of action. New knowledge, techniques, rules, finance and actors must be able to circulate and anchor in many different locales around the world (Kropp et al., 2020; Wigboldus et al., 2016; Schot and Steinmueller, 2018; Leeuwis et al., 2021). Food systems transformations, particularly those that seek alternative values such as justice and inclusion of marginal actors (Kaljonen et al., 2023), have not been sufficiently addressed in the transitions literature, which is still largely focused on food technology novelties and non-food systems (see: Hebinck et al., 2021). Instead, we need to understand how alternative food system innovations emerge and evolve, which is a far more complex process than the diffusion of discrete products (Geels and Johnson, 2018).

Alternative Food Networks (AFN) have been studied using Polanyi's embeddedness framework for more than 30 years (cf. Stephens and Barbier, 2021; Śpiewak and Goszczyński, 2023; Goodman et al., 2012). These networks connect food producers and consumers through short value chains. The AFN research program has sought to understand the extent to which such alternative food systems are different from the dominant systems, and whether they are able to maintain their alternative values if they become mainstreamed. Results consistently show that unanticipated challenges either halt the spread or co-opt the alterity of these system innovations (Duncan and Pascucci, 2017; Laforge et al., 2017). However, these studies on AFN are often relying upon classic theories of diffusion and they largely ignore the intermediation<fnref n="3" /> processes that are at work in the networking of producers and consumers (Loconto et al., 2018a). It is indeed this networking of producers, consumers and intermediaries that create system innovations. Robinson et al. (2024) argue that if system transformation is the objective, and the diffusion of system innovations are the means, then we should be examining “the routes and processes that shape, normalise, and embed the outcomes of innovation” (p. 2). This is what we subsequently call ‘generalisation’. In other words, in order to understand food systems transformations, we need to identify and analyse the specific routes of generalisation. We thus ask:

*How do system innovations generalise in the face of unanticipated challenges so to create transformative changes in food systems?*

To answer this research question, we examine three cases of food system innovations in France and analyse their transformative trajectories, highlighting changes in knowledge, value(s), infrastructures and rules to conceptualise generalisation routes. The article is divided in six sections. In Section 2, we revisit the recent literature on transformative change, generalisation and intermediation. The gaps in these literatures show that a meso-level understanding of how actors interact pragmatically to transform their systems is under-theorised. We introduce the metaphor of “situated” intermediation as a means to conceptualise an object-oriented approach to analysing the effects of intermediation in these situations. These objects can take the form of knowledge, value(s), infrastructures and rules. Their analysis allows us to identify ‘turning points’ in transformative trajectories. In Section 3, we explain the methods used to analyse three illustrative case studies where situated knowledge is prioritised. Section 4 presents the socio-historical narratives of the three cases where turning points in transformative trajectories resulted from intermediation around the aforementioned four types of objects. We discuss the importance of these findings in Section 5, and conclude with reflections about what an understanding of generalisation as an intermediated trajectory might bring to the discussion of innovation diffusion that is the topic of this special issue, as well as to transformative (system) innovations more generally.

## 2. Towards ‘situated intermediation’: a metaphor for understanding transformative change as the generalisation of system innovations

The purpose of this section is to position the metaphor of ‘situated intermediation’ within recent advances in innovation studies to analyse system innovations and transformative change. We follow the practice theorists who have defined system innovations as the “co-evolution of innovations in material artefacts, socioeconomic conditions, organisational and institutional re-configurations, while simultaneously accounting for evolutions in collective and individual values, moral interpretations, lifestyles, social capital, body activities, emotions, or knowledge” (Rauschmayer et al., 2015: 216). Drawing on the work by Henderson and Clark (1990), the multiple dimensions included in this definition can be interpreted in terms of the components and the (institutional) architecture of innovations, both of which need to change radically in the case of system innovations. This radical change is carried out by human actors interacting with material objects, in specific situations, as they expand the influence of their innovations – this is what we refer to as intermediation. The next sections build on existing literature to clarify how our research will fill the gaps.

### 2.1. Transformative trajectories: generalisation as a way to amplify beyond scaling

In order to operationalise the concept of generalisation as proposed by Robinson et al. (2024), we turn to some recent advances in the debates around theories of diffusion, which aim to differentiate different mechanisms underpinning processes of diffusion and/or generalisation.

For instance, different forms of scaling (*up, out and deep*) have been introduced as a means to understand how technologies move from inventors to first users to more mainstream use (Breaugh et al., 2021). Since the 1990s, innovation scholars agree that the changing of scale of “meaningful innovation depends primarily on the spreading of a collective process from one network context to another” (Leeuwis and Aarts, 2011: 24). Wigboldus et al. (2016: 45) argue that most of the work to date using the concept of scale consists of “find[ing] out what works in one place and do[ing] more of the same, in another place.” They argue that these frameworks ignore the complex realities of innovation processes that require ethical, value and rule adjustments that go beyond the technology itself. This is why many technologies and practices, perceived as sustainable and inclusive when introduced in one specific place or scale, (e.g., niche, project, farm) often challenge those same values when they move to different places and scales of application (Lawhon and Patel, 2013).

While Wigboldus et al.'s (2016) 'scaling' framework captures system dynamics that can create lock-ins, this approach does not offer an operationalisation of how generalisation (i.e., transformative diffusion) occurs. This critique is based on two main arguments. First, intermediation in that case is conceptualised to be operated by a professional who analyses and assesses challenges and the associated needs for intermediation, and is outside of the network of actors innovating and applying new technologies and/or practices. Second, Wigboldus et al. (2016) adopt the multi-level perspective, which artificially separates the ways

<footnote n="2">² “Ways of knowing” is how Donna Haraway describes ‘situated knowledge’, which problematises both the subject and object of ‘knowing’ and is conceived of as a process. It privileges the partiality and hybridity of knowledge. This means that knowledge is always produced from a partial perspective that is shaped by social, historical and cultural contexts. Knowledge can thus never be fully objective nor detached from the situation in which it has been produced.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ In this article, we use Steyaert et al.'s (2017) definition of intermediation in sustainability transitions, which claims that intermediation is the “interactive work [by human and non-human actors] of problem framing, goals definition, means setting and solution finding within a dynamic set of relations” (p. 259). We expand this concept in section 2.3.</footnote>
in which actors across systems, such as food systems, work together (or against each other) outside of protected spaces (Loconto et al., 2016).<fnref n="4" /> The word 'level' suggests that there are hierarchies, which excludes the softer forms of influence involved when innovations spread and change society (Lam et al., 2020).

Partly in response to this need for empirical grounding, transition studies introduced the notion of “generalisation pathways” of experiments by focusing on what they call “embeddedness” (Sengers et al., 2019: 161). Sengers et al. (2021) identify four embedding mechanisms enabling the mobility and generalisation of key outputs of experiments: 1) Replication-proliferation, 2) Expansion-consolidation, 3) Challenging-reframing, and 4) Circulation-anchoring. While the first mechanism is what has been typically called scaling out, the second one is very much the classic notion of scaling up. These first two mechanisms are well researched, but do not fully explain how system innovations, such as food system innovations, generalise. This is particularly the case since alternative food systems are based on system innovations already embedded within communities and in the global food system (cf. Goodman et al., 2012; Chiffoleau and Loconto, 2018; van der Ploeg et al., 2012). In other words, there is a conflation between generalisation and embeddedness in these first two mechanisms that confuses both the direction and the object of change by still focusing on scale. However, we do note two material aspects of these mechanisms that are important for generalisation: 1) rules are fundamental, replication only works when rules and other framework conditions are similar or easily adapted; and 2) physical infrastructures are often a pre-condition for expansion and consolidation of innovations.

Sengers et al.'s third and fourth mechanisms are more relevant to our conceptualisation since food system innovations require renegotiating knowledge and rules within initiatives, while also extending the networks both horizontally across geographic space and vertically through hierarchies of authority. Thus, the knowledge and values that provide justifications for the challenging and reframing of innovations as they circulate and eventually anchor into new situations are important to pay attention to when trying to identify generalisation routes. Indeed, Roysen et al. (2024) demonstrate that the four mechanisms are actually interconnected processes across scales that are significantly shaped by shifting materialities. By using Robinson et al. (2024)'s definition of generalisation – and the identification of these four material aspects of Sengers et al.'s (2021) mechanisms – we can shift our focus to the objects. We no longer need to speak of a technological artefact, as in Wigboldus et al. (2016) and the two first mechanisms presented by Sengers et al. (2021), but can now focus on a system innovation that carries its own objects (i.e., knowledge, value(s), infrastructure, and rules) and begins circulating, carving a path towards other situations of interaction. In other words, rather than focusing on changing scale, we might better look at the trajectories of system innovations for insights into how they have been transformed.

## 2.2. Turning points and trajectories: recognising transformative change

As we focus on trajectories, rather than scales, we are required to ask: what and who intervene and disturb these trajectories so that the system innovation itself changes direction? What pushes a system innovation away from its initial path, what puts it back on a prior path or a new path? In transition studies, scholars have adapted the political science notion of ‘small wins’ (Termeer and Dewulf, 2018). They argue that small events accumulate over time to create the incremental change that eventually results in an identification of system-level leverage points and more deeply, a transformation of the underlying rules (Huntjens and

Kemp, 2022). Another stream of scholarship recognises the role of ‘critical moments’ in situations of conflict that create an enabling environment for change to occur (Yuana et al., 2020). Avelino et al. (2017) include significant and symbolic events in their conceptualisation of ‘game changers’. To join these scholars, and to connect their arguments with generalisation trajectories, we introduce the trajectory-turning point (TTP) model of change.

Developed in the 1970s in the sociology of life course, the TTP model conceptualises trajectories and turning points as being mutually constituted (Abbott, 2001). A trajectory is the continuation of a direction, while a turning point is a disruption in a trajectory. A turning point cannot be understood without a trajectory (i.e., the norm), which in turn cannot be understood without turning points that (re)define its normative direction. A turning point is a ‘narrative concept’, which means that it has reference to two points in time. These instances – the momentary steps of confrontation among immediate past, present, and immediate future – are what constitute the narrative (Hernes, 2022). Thus, turning points have two defining features: 1) they are more than a temporary glitch; and 2) they cannot be predicted (Gotlib and Wheaton, 1997). In other words, turning points allow the analyst to recognise when a food system takes a new normative direction (like sustainability, justice, or inclusion) that should guide the reconfiguration of the system components around the innovation.

To analyse turning points in transformative trajectories we build upon the work of Gotlib and Wheaton (1997). Perceiving a trajectory as “the continuation of a direction”, the authors suggest four conditions for identifying turning points: 1) stability of the new direction; 2) resistance to efforts to re-establish a former trajectory; 3) transformation of identity to accommodate a new trajectory; and 4) evidence of a role commitment implied by a new direction. If we look at actions in situations, we can identify whether the outcomes of these actions constitute turning points. Thus, analysing the trajectory-turning points allows us to fill the gap in Sengers et al.'s (2021) framework as it enables us to look into situations along a trajectory and to see if materialities have shifted. Finally, the next section will bring all these elements together into a cohesive conceptual framework.

## 2.3. Situated intermediation: recognising objects and turning points

In this section, we introduce the metaphor of “situated” intermediation to conceptualise the first truly object-oriented approach to intermediation (see Howells, 2006; Archibugi and Michie, 1995) as a way to understand the generalisation of system innovations. We propose that there are three components of situated intermediation.

First, situations of change are triggered. Three types of triggers are applicable to food system transformations: 1) crises (Grin et al., 2010); 2) ‘bottom up’ emergence of new approaches, techniques or practices that put into question prevailing ways of doing in food systems (e.g., post-growth paradigms and real utopias) (McGreevy et al., 2022); and 3) ‘top-down’ impulses such as environmental regulations (e.g. glyphosate bans) or major reforms (e.g. privatisation, divestiture of monopolies) that address the architectural or institutional dimensions of systems before follow-up innovations are initiated. All three types of triggers introduce *interdependencies*, *uncertainties*, *complexities* or *controversies* into systems that challenge system stability and create “situations of change” (Steyaert et al., 2007). Hence, in situations of change, we argue that these four challenges can be distinguished and that intermediation can reconfigure the connections among actors around a new object, which in turn works to create new normative directions that shift the trajectory.

Second, objects enable intermediations. The vast literature on intermedieties (e.g., van Lente et al., 2020; Howells, 2006; Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2008; Bergek, 2020; Kivimaa et al., 2019) tends to depict this work as a form of brokerage among stakeholders (often users and policy-makers) so that technologies or services can be adopted. The tendency has been to focus on the intermediating actor, either as a professional

<footnote n="4">⁴ Leeuwis et al., 2021 also rely upon the MLP to identify different levels of intervention for policy makers and researchers. Their critique of focusing on 'protected spaces' only is underpinned by our empirical examples, which demonstrate that generalisation works more in the sense of 'discursive spaces' and less in 'protected spaces'.</footnote>
activity in a market context, or as a public and systemic intermediation activity (Kivimaa et al., 2019). Intermediaries are thus portrayed as either professional third-parties (e.g., brokers) who have no economic stake in the spread of an innovation, or as actors who have other responsibilities in an innovation system, but who can acquire the skill of intermediating (e.g., champions) and apply it in a situation when there is a need (Scharnigg and Sareen, 2023). Recent work on behavioural change in the context of climate change suggests that the power of individual actors extends across the different roles people occupy, from community members to citizens (Whitmarsh et al., 2021). However, intermediary functions do not necessarily need to be performed by humans; nor is the change necessarily the result of only human action (Callon, 1991). It is the latter insight that we feel has been neglected in the literature; too much focus has been placed on the work of the humans and organisations who intermediate and not upon the objects that enable actors to find a way out of the situation through material and embodied work (Marres, 2023). Four objects emerged in the literature cited in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 as important for understanding both the generalisation of system innovations and transformative change: knowledge, value(s), infrastructure, and rules. Following De la Loconto (2021), we posit that these four are ‘objects of intermediation’ since they both create the connections between heterogeneous and distributed actors in food systems and define their meaning.

Third, turning points are identified. To recognise whether or not intermediation resulted in a turning point in a food system trajectory, we need to recognise the material shifts and the new normative direction. As explained in Section 2.2, we can analyse situations of change by recognising 1) stability; 2) resistance; 3) transformation of identity; and 4) evidence of a role commitment. By examining how situations of change are intermediated, to move out of a challenging situation and redirect a transformative trajectory, we will be able to understand how system innovations generalise in the face of unanticipated challenges creating transformative changes in food systems.

Situated intermediation is thus a way to study turning points by identifying the challenges that triggered situations of change and analysing how objects enabled actors to move out of a challenging situation into a new one, which stabilised a new normative direction for their food system. Table 1 synthesises our approach that uses the four conditions of turning points as an analytical tool for determining if a given situated intermediation was successful. We explain below the analytical insights this metaphor provides.

We propose to analyse the four objects – knowledge, value(s), infrastructure and rules – in order to better understand intermediation. First, the practices that actors use to intermediate knowledge concern how food system actors access and communicate knowledge about sustainable production, distribution and consumption. Being able to differentiate how knowledge works differently as information, skills, judgement and wisdom (Gorman, 2002) offers us an analytical lens to explore how knowledge can become the object of intermediation in situations where uncertainties are minimised and complexity becomes the means to articulate action (Loconto, 2023). Thus, to recognise the stability represented by a turning point, we should pay attention to when and how actionable knowledge emerges from interactions (cf. Janssen et al., 2023). Second, value(s) intermediation deals with the desire of food system actors to produce both worth and social values through the generalisation of their system innovation. Empirically, we

<table><caption>**Table 1**
Four conditions of turning points as indicators that a 'situated intermediation' was successful.</caption><tr><td>Stability</td><td>When and how does actionable knowledge emerge?</td></tr><tr><td>Transformation of identity</td><td>When and how does a new term and meaning emerge?</td></tr><tr><td>Resistance</td><td>When and how do new infrastructures physically connect actors?</td></tr><tr><td>Evidence of a role commitment</td><td>When and how do actors codify their rules for network interactions?</td></tr></table>

see that value(s) become(s) objects of intermediation as actors begin to link the evaluation of worth with the valorisation of the results of their work (Vatin, 2013). Often this occurs when actors create new standards that define their system innovation (Loconto, 2020). The turning point representing a transformation of identity might then be recognised when a new term emerges that can reduce uncertainty by increasing interdependencies among actors in a network and limiting controversies by federating them behind a label. Third, the physical and knowledge infrastructures limit the technical and organisational changes introduced by system innovations (Kornberger et al., 2019; Larkin, 2013). They are often among the first concerns that emerge from interactions. These infrastructures physically connect actors in networks, and a turning point can materialise through the use of new linking devices that can reduce network complexity, calm controversy or build bridges to other networks. These infrastructures can indicate that the resistance condition of a turning point has been met. Fourth, social innovations in food systems have always created their own rules to regulate internal interactions. The understanding that indicators and specialised organisations can change the interdependencies between actors is characteristic of regulatory intermediation (Abbott et al., 2017; Loconto, 2017). This form of intermediation resolves controversies around the legitimacy and trust of actors experimenting with innovative rules for working and exchanging. The evidence of role commitment for a turning point is thus found in the codification of rules for network interactions.

We thus operationalise the study of generalisation by focusing our analysis on identifying patterns of situated intermediation where change is triggered by the emergence of interdependencies, uncertainties, complexities or controversies. As we apply the above framework to the analysis of three empirical cases, we pay particular attention to the work of new actors in the expanding networks so to recognise these objects of intermediation and their work in creating turning points.

### 3. Methods

We adopt an abductive approach (Atkinson et al., 2003) “as a method of coming to know” (Adams et al., 2009). Beginning in 2021, a group of 10 researchers launched a series of collective reflections about the work of intermediation in generalisation processes. A core theoretical piece on intermediation published by the first author, a seminar with intermediaries organised by the fifth author, and the call for participation in the workshop that led to this special issue were the catalysts for this collaboration. Each researcher brought a case that focused on systems innovations for sustainability that they had been studying and we analysed the cases by looking at the intersections of the challenges that required intermediation and the objects that enabled intermediation in specific situations. Following this first conceptual advance about the nature of the situations, we explored how challenges and objects interacted in three cases: market innovations for natural wine, new protocols for testing pesticide toxicity, and new funding instruments for participatory research.

The data collected for these three cases are based on mixed qualitative methods (including document analysis, participant observations during ‘industry’ events, semi-structured and informal interviews) by the third, fourth, fifth and sixth authors in ongoing participatory research projects. The three research projects were focused on evaluating innovations linked to food systems that prioritised ways of knowing that were deeply situated. The publications of the original data from each of these projects, which also explain the data collection methods in detail, can be found in Annex 1. Specifically:

1. Between 2013 and 2021, the first author led a participatory research project with innovators in more than 20 countries, which focused on institutional innovations and the reconfiguration of value chains towards the creation of local food systems. Twenty-five cases were explored in this project and it inspired the writing of the natural wine
case by the third and fifth authors, used in this article to represent an
alternative way of knowing the value of nature.

2. From 2011 to 2022, the sixth author led a large-scale project of participatory and formative evaluation of the impact of research for agroecological transitions. Of the sixty cases analysed, the sustainable apiculture case was selected as representative of innovations that prioritise an alternative way of knowing complexity.

3. Since 2013, the fourth author has led research projects on the third sector of research, which prioritise non-institutionalised knowledge production in food, agriculture, health and education. She followed 35 specific projects during the 2019–2021 period and the case presented in this article represents a way to include alternative knowledge infrastructures in food systems.

As a group, we redrew the transformative trajectories for these three
cases. We identified a series of situations that exhibited the character-
istics of turning points, as described above. Through facilitated discuss-
sion we conducted a transversal analysis that enabled us to characterise
the intermediation that had occurred and its role in the generalisation
process.

4. Situated processes of intermediation

In this section, we use three cases of system innovations for sus-
tainability in French food systems to illustrate how situations of change
were intermediated so to move out of a challenging situation and redi-
rect a transformative trajectory. Each case describes a series of situations
of change where intermediation resulted in opening the network to
include new actors and progressively built the conditions of a turning
point and thus of generalisation of the system innovation.

4.1. *Networking naturalness within wine production systems*

As the demand from consumers of sustainably grown, pesticide- and additive-free food products soars, various associations form between consumers and producers to enable widespread access and create (alternative) markets for what used to be niche products. Even though standards and certifications have been established, conventional wine production remains one of the most pesticides-intensive food systems in the world. Thus, this case describes the intermediation process of generalising system innovations for natural wine. This case provides an example of the symbiosis of direct interactions and learning between producers and consumers. Natural wine has grown exponentially in terms of reputation and the number of actors participating in its network. This food system is based on values and marketing infrastructures that are different from the conventional wine system. As natural wine has generalised from an artisanal production niche in Bourgogne to a labelled product found in all major cities in the world, actors have intermediated the value of natural wine as the first point of entry to resolve the challenges that emerged in three situations of change.

Situation 1 – Since 1960s: De-facto and informal natural wine pioneers

Natural wine is a concept whereby production is based on traditional
methods, typically without chemical inputs or additives like sulphites
that contain, control and sanitize the wine. The movement started
informally among a small group of French producers who did not want
to apply pesticides and additives when these grew popular in the 1960s.
Natural wine has never been protected as a niche against market
competition. Instead, small-scale independent producers have been
using traditional production methods unnoticed for most of the 20th
century. As natural wine is not based on institutionalised standards, it is
subject to enduring controversy over the mutual learning between
producers and consumers of its values.

The natural wine system has relied on peer-to-peer certification,
learning, networks, transparency and collaboration to accelerate and

develop into a thriving sustainable production system for consumers and
producers with a shared belief-system. For natural wine, controversies
emerged when natural producers needed to comply with industry or
politically defined norms that value “conventional” qualities. Conven-
tional wine producers have aimed for specific notes and traits in their
wine, in contrast, natural producers use an alternative approach
whereby they let the natural fermentation process give the wine its taste
without (too much) interference. In some cases, natural wine develops
novel notes as compared to conventional wine, which makes it hard to
evaluate. Beyond the coordination work that needed to generalise,
producing wine without chemical additives while keeping homogeneous
quality is a complex technical challenge. This problem has been present
since natural wine emerged and only informal value intermediation
among various actors within the sector has responded to this challenge.

Situation 2 – Since 1999: Movement consolidation through natural wine tasting events

The shared belief system among consumers and producers has been more regularly nurtured since 1999, where La Dive Bouteille hosted its first annual natural wine tasting with 15 producers and 100 attendees. This situation marks the beginning of the natural wine movement, providing a space for interaction and value sharing among consumers and producers. Since generalisation of the natural wine is not policy-driven, an increased interdependency among actors in the entire natural wine value chain is required. Thus, interdependencies among producers, with retailers/wholesalers (e.g., natural wine bars) and consumers emerged along with the formation of a new market. Whereas conventional wine quality and trends are often decided by appellations or designations of origin, there is less static and hierarchical direction-setting in the natural wine movement, which relies more on experimentation, both in terms of production and geographical origins (Bach Petersen, 2021). At the time, quality standards and labels for ‘what is’ and ‘what is not’ natural wine did not yet exist. Even today, actors must create consensus among themselves or identify a gatekeeper to ‘set the boundaries’ of natural wine. Informal events such as tastings and festivals play a key role in increasing knowledge and value sharing of natural wine both among producers and consumers.

The production and consumption of natural wine has rapidly
developed in the past decade. For the movement, the core challenge
revolved around the definition and quality of natural wine (rules
intermediated outside of public or official standards). While certified
organic wine has policy-driven standards to comply with in the pro-
duction from vine to wine, natural wine is not based on such predefined
standardization (Alonso González and Parga-Dans, 2020). There has
thus been a high level of uncertainty over the definition of natural wine
and this left consumers uncertain of how to obtain a product that
matched their expectations. Numerous associations exist and these have
dissimilar definitions of what constitutes natural wine with some even
allowing a limited use of sulphites (see Alonso González and Parga-Dans,
2020). Importantly, conventional wine lacks regulation as wine remains
one of few consumable goods in supermarkets that are not required to
list nutritional information. Simultaneously, labelling the grape or
geographical origin is too expensive for natural wine producers since
these are protected by associations, which means that mostly large-scale
conventional producers can afford to list this information. Other label-
ling issues include the *quality* of the wine and the actual production
methods, e.g., the Vin de France label can bar natural producers from
stating both the larger geographical area and even the specific vineyard,
if the taste is “atypical” (Zecevic, 2023).

Situation 3 – Since 2016: Increased popularity of natural wine: digitalisation and sustainability

While natural wine is not the dominant model of wine production, it
has grown rapidly, promoting sustainable practices and influencing even
conventional producers (Alonso González and Parga-Dans, 2020). This
has been assisted by digital organising through the application Raisin
since 2016, which has more than a quarter million downloads and 2300 producers listed and mapped, while a separate map guides consumers to shops, bars and restaurants selling natural wine. According to Raisin, in 2010 there were slightly over 100 natural wine retailers in Paris (e.g., bars, shops, restaurants), which grew to 280 in 2017, 400 in 2022 and over 750 in 2023.<fnref n="5" /> The tasting festival *La Dive Bouteille* went from 15 producers and 100 participants in 1999, and in 2015 the number of attendees had grown to 3000 and over 5000 in 2020 with around 250 producers.

The rise of natural wine is highly linked to consumers who are conscious about environmental and health impacts of consumption (Galati et al., 2019). Particularly the removal of pesticides and additives like sulphites in the production and processing of natural wine, reflect a 'new' type of consumer. This aspect increases the complexity of the natural wine system, particularly in relation to how it is valued. Consumers have a large role to play in intermediation, particularly in valuing of natural wine. However, the unique tastes of natural wine bring complexity to the generalisation, especially since organic wine – which makes similar claims to sustainability in its production and processing practices – can replicate the taste of conventional wine. This is achieved using "approved" additives and sulphites.

Gatekeepers for generalisation are the direct consumer-retailer/ wholesaler-producer networks and distribution channels, who set the boundaries of what is considered natural wine. Thus, as natural wine began generalising across France, the physical infrastructures that give form to the natural wine sector became objects of intermediation. The current mode of intermediation is highly collaborative, but there remain uncertainties on whether or not this will continue as natural wine further generalises and grows. For example, traditional wine distributors rely on expert judgements, prizes or most famously “Parker scores.” Initiated by Robert Parker, a small elite of wine tasters score wines between 50 and 100 points. Considering the history of their *taste*, it is difficult to meritocratically reward the best natural wines. Furthermore, there has been a tendency for the best natural winemakers not to brand themselves as such for fear of stigmatisation.

## 4.2. Knowing sustainability in pollination

Like other countries, France has been facing a general decline in bee colonies since the 1990s, the causes of which are still largely unknown. Sorting out the causes of bee mortality and assessing the potential responsibility of pesticides are two major issues for apiculture and the food system more generally. This case concerns the transition of a food system based on the extensive use of pesticides that are destroying bee colonies, to a more sustainable food system in which crop yields and quality are improved through bee pollinisation. The generalisation of a space for bees in pollinated agriculture – by removing pesticides – is explained by four situations of intermediation where alternative knowledge was advanced so to change the process of evaluation of the toxicity of pesticides.

### Situation 1 - First test on toxicity of pesticides on larvae (1990–2006)

Gaucho®, a neonicotinoid produced by Bayer, began to be used in France in 1994 as a seed dressing for sunflowers. Some beekeepers mentioned the possible link between the pesticide and certain behavioural disorders in bees leading to colony dieback and asked for its ban. To raise awareness of the problem, the beekeeping unions organised a series of visible media events, which reach the general public quite quickly. The message was clear: the bees must be saved! At the beginning, Bayer was rather confident as it had a French marketing authorisation (MA), based on the results of experimental tests. A series of studies conducted between 1998 and 2000 could not provide direct

evidence of the negative effect of the imidaclopride on the changes in bee behaviour, mortality, hive development and honey harvests. In 1999, the French government, raised the precautionary principle and decided to suspend the use of Gaucho® for the treatment of sunflower seeds. Bayer and seed companies contested these administrative decisions. The French government also banned its use on maize in 2004. A legal battle arose between the company, the beekeepers, the professional associations and the French State. The ban was confirmed in 2006 (Albouy and Le Conte, 2020). The Gaucho® promoters stated that the general decline in bee colonies since the 1990s had a multifactorial origin, including the emergence of new uncontrolled diseases and pests (varroa), the decrease of food resources and quality available to bees, and the presence of toxic substances in the environment. These multiple causes of bee mortality – and determining the potential responsibility of pesticides among these causes – rendered this situation quite controversial. Some actors in the food system began to intermediate the understanding of the complex toxicological effects of pesticides.

As part of this intermediation, the French Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment (INRAE) started its research on bees and pesticides in the 1990s. The French research community developed a test on bee larvae where exposure to the pesticide was controlled. This test on larvae made it possible to establish, for a given product, the dose at which this product was toxic, including on adults, after larval exposure. This test was approved by France in 2007 and OECD in 2013. It has since become a standard reference test for the registration of new plant protection molecules. Two knowledge intermediaries – Testapi in France and Ibacon in Germany – use this test to help companies prepare their paperwork for homologation approval of their plant protection products. Here, intermediation around knowledge is important for registering and regulating pesticides in order to protect the bees who are key intermediaries in pollinated food systems.

Despite the scientific progress, and the stabilisation of some of the relationships within the food system that enabled the spread of innovative testing methods, one particular challenge remained: the ability to study the effects of different molecules with tools that could monitor bee activity under field conditions, thus creating another situation ripe for intermediation.

### Situation 2 – Restructuring the bee and public research sectors (2006–2010)

The fragmented bee sector acts in very different contexts (very small number of apiaries, multitude of beekeepers' practices, etc.). This fragmentation constituted serious blockages to change as it made raising a unified voice against the harmful effects of pesticides on bees extremely complex to manage. This resulted in further complexities that worked against the simple translation of scientific discoveries into public policy (i.e., a ban on specific molecules used in pesticides). The response from public actors (respectively the French government and public research organisations) was to restructure the bee and research sectors through infrastructure intermediation.

In 2008, a member of the French Parliament designed a plan for apiculture. He recommended, among other things the creation of the Technical and Scientific Institute for Bees and Pollination (ITSAP) to group the main actors of the bee sector and enable them to be better represented in public debates and to participate in research projects. In 2010, a Mixed Technology Unit grouping INRAE, CNRS, ITSAP, technical institutes and regional associations of beekeeping development was created to translate scientific knowledge into useful solutions for the beekeeping sector.

The creation of ITSAP and the reorganisation of the French research competencies have been determining factors in bringing together complementary skills and facilitating the setting up of collaborative projects.

### Situation 3 – Isolating the toxicity of pesticides and new bans (2010–2013)

Around 2010, an interdisciplinary French research consortium developed an innovative tool based on the installation of RFID microchips on the backs of bees. The development of the RFID technology

<footnote n="5">⁵ Raisin lists those establishments where at least 30 % of the wines are natural. Accessed, 28 October 2023, https://www.raisin.digital/fr/.</footnote>
made it possible to control the entry and exit of each individual bee from the hive. This work showed that exposure to a dose well below the lethal dose of thiaethoxam led to a much higher disappearance of bees than in the control lot. The combination of scientific knowledge with technological engineering and beekeepers' skills in successive collaborative projects enabled the actors to separate the responsibility of the environmental factors affecting bees' behaviour from other factors.

These results, published in *Science* (Henry et al., 2012), along with another English study, had a major media impact and led to the banning of Cruiser® in France in 2012. In 2013, a European Commission moratorium-imposed restrictions on the use of three neonicotinoids deemed harmful to bees: clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam. The intermediation among the different knowledge, including journalism, produced conclusive evidence to effect a change in the rules that finally banned these molecules. In 2018, France banned neonicotinoid-based products (derogations could be granted until July 2020). Likewise, the European Commission banned the use of clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam at the European level.

### Situation 4 – The hive return test and changing the rules about pesticides use (2018 -...)

Since very recently, one of the difficulties in studying the effects of these different molecules has been the inability of tools that could monitor bee activity under real-life field conditions. Even if the toxic effects of pesticides on bees, especially on their behaviour, could be shown it was often difficult to transpose them to the behaviour of an entire colony living in a field. The evaluation methods had to evolve and incorporate novel knowledge. Based on the RFID method, French scientists developed “the hive return test”. After 5 years of circular testing conducted by a network of public and private laboratories, “the hive return test” was finally deemed sufficient to be homologated as the standard rule by OECD in 2021. The development of the ‘hive return test’ was possible thanks to existing public research infrastructures (especially at INRAE) and long-term investments in this research field (RFID devices). It is the first method, validated within the set of regulatory tests, where the parameter studied (return success) is measured on bees in free flight, in real conditions. This test is a step towards understanding the complex toxicological effects that can affect the functioning of the colony. The continuous development of hybrid knowledge about how pesticides harm bees enabled a generalisation of this particular configuration of a pollination-based food system beyond France. This in turn enabled a wider range of actors to know how to create new rules that are used to determine when particular molecules could be banned.

### 4.3. Including marginal actors in research and innovation on food systems

This third case recounts essential events leading to changes in the rules and infrastructures of the research and innovation system that are necessary for inclusiveness. The dominant system of research and innovation is often referred to as a triple helix where State, academics and firms are allied in processes and policies. Analysts hypothesize that a more effective system for transitioning to sustainability may be generalised, if a fourth helix is opened to civil society actors (Robinson et al., 2020). Among those actors are third sector organisations (TSO), including associations. <fnref n="6" /> TSOs are considered key actors in grassroots innovation for sustainability. In the food system, they facilitate the inclusion of concerned groups (consumers, small-scale farmers, and environmental groups) in agroecological innovations. We describe four situations of intermediation, and explain how different actors contributed to networking and advocacy, the legitimation of TSOs, and the recognition of knowledge that was previously ignored. This trajectory

also brings in elements of the broader context of science with/for society policies that are central to current policy approaches that support agroecological transitions (Barbier et al., 2023) and closes the narrative with the experimentation of policies that finance research and innovation by TSOs (Lhoste and Sardin, 2024).

### Situation 1 – The triple helix and third sector organisations in research and innovation (before 2010)

In 2010, TSOs were not considered as full-fledged actors in agricultural innovation systems (AIS) despite the fact that the concept of science with/for society had appeared in the European framework research programmes quite early in the 2000s. This concept refers to the idea that research and innovation should be conducted in a way that is responsive to the needs and interests of society. Adopting this approach involves engaging with various stakeholders, including the third sector and citizens, throughout the entire innovation process. Engagement refers to shared values among the actors. Major research and innovation policies excluded TSOs. This was reflected in the French National Research Agency (ANR) financing rules (i.e., only research organisations and small enterprises could be co-funded) and the pre-eminence of the ideology of the (knowledge) deficit model (of citizens). In addition to being excluded from the research and innovation networks (and food systems more broadly), the research and innovation activities of the third sector was fragmented and invisible. The challenge was therefore to transform public policies to obtain funding for TSOs. This required state and regional lobbying efforts.

### Situation 2 – Building the epistemic community (2010–2017)

In order to intermediate the rules governing research and innovation, a core group of science and technology studies (STS) scholars and pioneers in the TSOs began organising themselves. They began to build an epistemic community of interested actors who were researching and innovating around sustainability transitions. Their idea was to create an organisation that could represent TSOs in discussions with the public research institutes. First, the core group raised the visibility of their knowledge with public research organisations by pulling together existing evidence about food systems that are inclusive of alternative ways of knowing (e.g., farmer-driven research). For instance, a member of the core group (and of the authors’ research team) contributed to the report on participatory research written by the president and director general of INRAE. <fnref n="7" /> The report calls for opening up spaces for knowledge production outside of the institutions of research in order to ensure that future food systems are sustainable (Houllier and Merilhou-Goudard, 2016). Because of this recognised importance of TSOs in food system transformations, INRAE became a founding member of the Alliss platform (an alternative and participatory think tank) in 2014.

The secretariat of Alliss extended the network included in the platform through events and collective projects that brought together science and society actors, particularly around innovations in food, agriculture, housing, poverty and health. However, the fragmentation of a dizzying array of TSOs challenged the capacity of Alliss to find a common voice for advocacy. Thus, the writing of a white paper was introduced to intermediate this challenge.

### Situation 3 – Intermediating to legitimate the third sector and experiential knowledge (2017–2019)

In January 2017, the white paper entitled “Taking knowledge society seriously” (Akrich et al., 2017) was presented to the French National Assembly under the auspices of members of parliament and via the invitation of several representatives of the research organisations. This report was inspired by the eponymous report published for the Directorate General for European Research and Innovation (Felt et al., 2007), to which some of the founding members of Alliss had contributed. Over

<footnote n="6">⁶ In France, associations are a proxy for the third sector since they represent 80 % of this sector’s organisations (Barré, 2020)</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ National research institute for agriculture, food and environment</footnote>
100 organisations had been involved in the collective writing of the white paper, whose publication was sponsored by three public research organisations. The white paper was subsequently used for advocacy work to turn recommendations into formalised rules and to structure the fragmented sector. The aim was to provide recommendations to create knowledge infrastructures that included TSOs, and thus to legitimate the research and innovation conducted by civil society actors working outside of the dominant institutions.

In June 2018, Le Mouvement Associatif (speaking for a network gathering over 50 % of the registered associations in France), included the Alliss white paper recommendations in a report entitled “For an ambitious associative life policy and the development of a society of commitment.” They presented it to the Prime Minister, the Minister in charge of Associative Life, and the High Commissioner for the Social and Solidarity Economy. Their objective was to “have the resources to understand more finely the realities of associative life and its contributions to sustainability, but also the issues and changes with which associations must deal.” One of the recommendations referred to the need for subsidising research and innovation activities conducted by TSOs.

In January 20, 2020, other strategic actors of the dominant order pleaded for the institutional recognition of TSOs during a vigil of arms organised at the National Assembly prior to the parliamentary debates on the pluriannual law that governs research and higher education. Even though CNRS<fnref n="8" /> and the MESRI<fnref n="9" /> resisted this form of interference from civil society in research, both were represented at the vigil. In preparation, Alliss organised three symposia, one in Paris (2015) and two in other regions of France (Occitanie 2017 and Bretagne 2020) to bring together TSOs and academics. This allowed the generalising of normative concepts such as participatory research, third sector (TSO) and research intermediation. These activities produced common knowledge and values. The result of this intermediation was a new rule for TSO who was considered to be a legitimate actor (deserving of state funds) in innovation processes.

## Situation 4 – Experimenting changes in rules and infrastructures (2019–2021)

In 2019, a new policy was first experimented to subsidise associations involved in knowledge brokering. This experimentation is the first implementation of the recommendations put forward in the 2017 white paper. It was thus the first infrastructural change that included experimental knowledge in innovation promotion. It was funded by the Ministry of Education as the adaptation of an existing policy instrument dedicated to associations granted the State label “youth and popular education” (JEP) named Fonjep.<fnref n="10" /> This aid supports the employment of a qualified employee for 3 years, renewable twice. Three calls were published from 2019 to 2021 resulting in the selection of 60 grant winners working on sustainability transitions.

Ten of the grant winners worked on sustainable food systems. For example, an agroecology and organic network in Occitanie received financing for a living lab in urban agriculture and local food provisioning. Also, several nature conservation societies contributing to biodiversity observatories were financed. The grant provided economic stability and time necessary to co-produce knowledge, infrastructures, and legitimacy within their food systems. This could induce changes in the skills, organisation, and activities of the other actors in their network. That is, they created (or developed pre-existing) learning tools and intermediation devices (depending on the phase of the associations' project): surveys and databases, virtual platforms and living labs, training programs and observatories, books and journals. They started new research projects, expanded pre-existing networks, created new

ones and participated in other actors’ projects. This intermediation work by the funding instrument facilitated knowledge exchange among projects, within the associations and between organisations. The result has been organisational and methodological changes in INRAE and the TSOs themselves, with the creation of new hybrid infrastructures that connect them (e.g., living labs and observatories).

Since 2019, grassroots actors involved in projects and institutional entrepreneurs within the Alliss platform have intermediated additional challenges. These challenges emerged and were intermediated in local and international situations such as in the hybrid steering board of Fonjep financing, and the selection board of grant winners. INRAE was represented at both boards. The boards developed criteria of eligibility for the selection of projects and ensured that the public policy was not diverted from its objective of valuing alternative knowledge for innovation. Criteria were negotiated between the historical beneficiaries of Fonjep financing and Alliss. We observed how the members of Alliss not only worked to reframe the call, but also intervened during the selection process. Meanwhile, the Alliss secretariat pursued its advocacy work. It was successful in expanding the epistemic community and maintaining its influence in institutional circles. The intermediation in this regulatory space was a partial success. While the new Research and innovation act passed in 2020 had not included TSOs as full-fledged stakeholders, they became eligible to receive ANR financing in 2022.

Today, TSOs still remain largely invisible in research and innovations in comparison to the recognition given to universities and public authorities. However, the first call for research proposals by the ANR focused on science with/for society, received 200 proposals from a very wide range of TSOs and research organisations working on sustainability transitions beyond Alliss. This demonstrates a generalisation beyond food systems of the efforts initiated by food system actors to be inclusive of alternative ways of knowing.

# 5. Situated intermediation for generalisation

We now turn to look across the three series of situations of change in order to identify which objects of intermediation enabled actors to move out of a challenging situation and into a new one. We then examine the turning points that we observed and we discuss what this means for understanding the generalisation of systems innovation.

## 5.1. The four objects of intermediation

The natural wine case is rather straightforward. In a first situation, de facto and informal wine producers needed to construct a series of interdependencies to survive – without a protected niche – in a very competitive food system. They negotiated these interdependencies by developing a networked approach to generalisation. They intermediated knowledge (i.e., knowing natural fermentation), and then infrastructures (i.e., tasting fairs), to overcome both the required interdependencies and unnecessary complexities that challenged the generalisation of the new “natural” value. In 2000, the natural wine movement began to develop, attracting more consumers and developing a recognisable niche. Complexities and controversies emerged in this phase around the distinguishable, identifiable (and standardisable) characteristics of natural wine. In a second situation, intermediation around values emerged to complement ongoing knowledge and infrastructure intermediation. Starting in 2015, the increased popularity of natural wine was carried through digitalisation advances and greater consumer interest in sustainable agriculture. Uncertainties emerged into the generalisation process as existing forms of certification, labels and marketing did not fit with the values that needed to generalise with the product. All actors in the network independently held in person meetings across the country. The commitment to informal exchange without a commercial end, allowed rules intermediation in a third situation. This began to clarify and codify the natural wine quality through a commitment to informal exchange without a commercial end via in

<footnote n="8">⁸ National center for scientific research</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ Ministry of Higher education, research and innovation</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ Fonjep is the acronym used to refer to the JEP funds (fond pour la jeunesse et l'éducation populaire)</footnote>
person meetings.

Looking at the other two cases, we can trace the emergence and actions of these four objects of intermediation. For example, the generalisation of the bee-inclusive food system emerged and converged within controversy. In a first situation, the core controversy was between the researchers, regulators and companies who could not agree about the causes of harm to bees, questioning the justifications for banning specific products. Knowledge intermediation led to the development of new tests that could prove the causes of colony collapse, but it also led to the identification of interdependencies and complexities that challenged the further generalisation of the use of these tests and thus the development of sustainable apiculture as a valued practice. Addressing the interdependencies thus became the object of further knowledge intermediation in order to develop collaborative research in real conditions. At the same time, the fragmented apiculture sector complexified the generalisation process. Infrastructural investments, particularly establishing the Bee Technical Institute, intermediated this second situation and enabled convergence of the generalisation process. This was consolidated through rule intermediation and homologation of the “return to hive test” based on RFID technology that was adopted in 2021.

In the generalisation of TSOs, the knowledge that was valued by the dominant institutions offered the original challenge. In a first situation, knowledge intermediation thus emerged within a period of deep uncertainties about the legitimate inclusion of non-institutionalised actors in research and innovation for sustainability transitions. The challenge was to understand and specify what knowledge was needed to be produced, and to legitimate experiential knowledge that is valued in participatory research. The creation and diffusion of the white paper was the object of knowledge intermediation. As participatory research generalised more broadly across France, this process was challenged by complexity and deeply embedded interdependencies. Complexity appeared both in terms of the fragmentation of actors that did not have the means to collaborate effectively, and in the challenge of bringing the wide range of actors together under an umbrella of common values for sustainability issues. Knowledge intermediation was conducted through collective writing actions, meetings, and focus groups conducted to understand the needs of actors and include more disparate actors in co-creation. In a second situation, intermediation was thus carried out on the two fronts of infrastructure and values. This resulted in (partly failed) attempts to restructure the sector, in effective distributed actions among grassroots actors involved in projects, and in successful mobilisation of institutional entrepreneurs. The interdependencies among ministries and sectors were not taken seriously into consideration in the beginning. This challenged the ability of actors to fund their research and innovation. It also continued to challenge the generalisation of the system and required codifying TSOs and the notion of social economy (and social innovation) to establish legitimate rules. In a third situation, controversy emerged once the rules were intermediated as not all actors in the research sector were willing to recognise the TSOs as full research partners, and not all TSOs were willing to act for change. Rule intermediation is still ongoing to change the regulations for research and higher education to consolidate the generalisation of a hybrid epistemic community for sustainability transitions in France that includes and values third sector knowledge. Observatories and popular education trainings remain objects of knowledge and infrastructure intermediation.

As the above three narratives demonstrate, we see the four objects of intermediation circulating within the food systems and emerging to do the intermediation work in rather different situations. While the sequencing of these types of intermediations may differ from case to case, we can link these intermediations to the four conditions of turning points (Gotlib and Wheaton, 1997) (Table 2). If you look across the three cases, knowledge and rules emerged to stabilise the new direction, while infrastructures and rules offered resistance. Identity transformation and the evidence of role commitment were intermediated by all four objects.

<table><caption>**Table 2**
Intermediated turning points.</caption><thead><tr><th>Four conditions of turning points</th><th>Natural wine</th><th>Bees</th><th>TSO</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Stability of the new direction</td><td>Scores intermediating rules</td><td>Field tests intermediating knowledge about colony collapse</td><td>Intermediating knowledge through the white paper, symposia and working groups</td></tr><tr><td>Transformation of identity</td><td>Fermenting agents intermediating value</td><td>Sustainable apiculture as the result of value intermediation</td><td>Financing TSOs as infrastructure intermediation</td></tr><tr><td>Resistance to efforts to re-establish a former trajectory</td><td>Intermediating infrastructures through digital apps</td><td>Bee Technical Institute as the result of infrastructural intermediation</td><td>Rule and infrastructural intermediations through institutional entrepreneurship and distributed grassroots activism</td></tr><tr><td>Evidence of a role commitment</td><td>Festivals as objects of knowledge intermediation</td><td>Homologation of the return to Hive Test as rule intermediation</td><td>Value intermediation through the recognition of TSOs as research organisations</td></tr></tbody></table>

This analysis differs from how we had initially envisioned a one-to-one relationship between each object of intermediation and each of the four conditions of a turning point (i.e., knowledge-stability; identity-values; resistance-infrastructure; roles-rules). Rather than challenge our concept, this result points to the salience of hybridity and situatedness of intermediation. Specifically, for a turning point to emerge (i.e., for the four conditions to be met), we have identified more than one situation that was intermediated for each case. What this means, is that each situated intermediation may not be sufficient for a turning point to be identified, but it is rather how actors build upon the results of prior intermediations that can offer the conditions for situated intermediations to become turning points in transformative trajectories.

Taken together, these three cases help to explain how sustainable food systems are generalising in France. Emerging from quite different situations, and passing through others, we detect a pattern of intermediation that offers an explanation of generalisation of system innovations. First, these cases are important in illustrating that food systems are not simply food supply chains or formal agricultural innovation systems – but rather complex systems that include actors from research, civil society and the private sector. All these actors produce knowledge that serves to generalise system innovations from the first circle of inventors (Whitmarsh et al., 2021: 76; Nielsen et al., 2021; Parag and Janda, 2014). Thus, the cases emphasise the importance of situated knowledge for generalisation. Second, these differences reinforce the fact that change is catalysed each time challenges emerged to destabilise a given situation. In our cases, destabilisation was always tied to a re-stabilisation in a new direction of change after passing these intermediated situations. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the range of actors that actively intermediated the challenges were different from one situation to the next. They are not always formal knowledge brokers, nor professionals (Sutherland et al., 2023; Steyaert et al., 2017). Instead, the actors doing intermediation work were both human and objects. The human actors were furthermore specifically interested in effecting change in the food systems that they intermediated. Fourth, object intermediaries took on lives of their own by connecting actors across scales and parallel networks. Thus, while these cases demonstrate that generalisation requires knowledge intermediation (Loconto, 2023), we find that value(s), infrastructures and rules were also important objects of intermediation that contributed to turning points in the trajectory of each case.
## 5.2. Implications for generalisation

From the above analysis, we can draw out two key learnings that advance our understanding of generalisation and the role of intermediation within it. First, the needs for intermediation are linked to challenges that are posed during different phases of a generalisation process. Thus, while diffusion of innovation and theories of scaling have typically portrayed these processes as a progression of use (of a particular novel technology, product or service), generalisation should be considered as a dynamic process of intermediated network management, more similar to institutional innovation than to scaling of technologies (Hargrave and Van De Ven, 2006). However, we do notice that there is movement among forms of intermediation, which suggests that situated knowledge and other aspects of the situations shapes when and how some objects of intermediation work over others (Leeuwis and Aarts, 2011). Our data suggest that a successful generalisation is the result of intermediations around specific objects that can occur sequentially, but also in parallel. These parallel intermediations are often not synchronised. The accumulation of these situated intermediations seem to provide the conditions for turning points to emerge in transformative trajectories.

Second, while some cases display only one object of intermediation working at a time to advance the generalisation process, others are characterised by a combination of objects, which supports the importance of treating intermediation as a process and not as a type of actor (Steyaert et al., 2017; Kivimaa et al., 2019). Indeed, this suggests that over time, generalisation processes operate through the interplay between (at least) two “levels” of interaction. The clear example of this is in the case of TSOs whereby innovations are generalising simultaneously through pointed projects, but also through advocacy work to change the institutions of research and the rules about how associations can receive funding to conduct research. This parallel intermediation seems to be the mechanism through which networks can expand beyond the first ring of users. In line with Kivimaa et al. (2019), we argue that when we look at generalisation, we must learn to be able to see the multiplicity of actions by different actors across networks that are feeding into each other as constituting intermediation. Our relational and material approach offers a way to do this. During generalisation, intermediation activities are carried out both upstream and downstream of actor network formation and at several levels of organisation. Looking at intermediation as a confluence of these processes during different phases of generalisation complements the idea that there are four ideal-type pathways for generalisation (Sengers et al., 2021). We suggest that these activities are the micro-pinning necessary for any generalisation process to unfold. Building from the notion of micro-level intermediation in order to effect meso-level generalisation, we propose generalisation as an intermediated process that occurs: 1) with regards to the insertion of innovations into pre-existing institutional contexts; 2) by reconfiguring the network of actors involved, and 3) by reformulating the initial objectives of the innovation. This reformulation of objectives takes place at the intersection of the situations of emergence, development or convergence of innovations and the future state of the network that actors envision for their collective work. Put differently, generalisation connects spaces of anticipation and/or legitimation of the knowledge, value(s), infrastructures and rules of a socio-technical innovation (cf. Janssen et al., 2023). Intermediation in these networks constructs the boundaries within which it is possible to produce turning points in transformative trajectories.

## 6. Conclusions

This article sets out to better conceptualise and operationalise how system innovations generalise when facing unanticipated challenges so to create transformative change in food systems. We found that the literature has not yet been able to specify how the pathways and mechanisms of generalisation take shape, particularly because there has been too much focus on the human actors of intermediation, neglecting

the roles of objects. By introducing a relational and object-oriented approach to recognising the turning points in transformative trajectories that have resulted from situated intermediation, we offer both a new conceptual framework and new avenues for research into the meso-level mechanisms of generalisation. Our conceptual framework allowed us to identify a sequence of challenges and how objects of intermediation can address them. Monitoring and evaluating how these objects evolve could be a helpful way to think about generalisation and whether the new direction following a turning point is still the one intended by the actors.

Building an understanding of generalisation as an intermediated trajectory contributes to diffusion theory by further elaborating on the punctuated progression of diffusion processes and offering conceptual tools to explain shifts in the direction of change over time.

From a policy perspective, the improved understanding of generalisation provides insights into appropriate rationales and strategies of policy intervention in transformation processes related to resolving wicked problems. First, turning points are important moments in time along a transformative trajectory. Once these points have been passed, the goals, strategies and the new direction of change need to be revisited critically. This requires normative reflection and deliberation among the actors and stakeholders involved in the change processes in order to avoid directionality failure and intervene, if needed (Weber and Rohracher, 2012). Second, the reconsideration of the normative direction taken may call for adjusting policies, for instance in case the process of setting new collective priorities fails, the new direction turns out to be controversial, or the deliberation process fails altogether (cf. Kemp et al., 2022). An adjustment of the policy mix employed for fostering the generalisation process may even be necessary if consensus has been reached on the suitability of the new transformative trajectory. Third, the importance of turning points suggests that time matters for transformative trajectories and that policy interventions need to be launched in a timely manner to have an influence on the process of reconfiguration shortly after a turning point (Sartorius and Zundel, 2005). Finally, regular monitoring and formative evaluation processes are crucial both to informing policy action and reacting quickly after a turning point has been passed.

As a future direction, we propose research that could build on our meso-level understanding of generalisation and explore how this might be usefully combined with the generic policy pathways for enabling convergence on wicked problem-solution constellations introduced by Wanzenbock et al. (2020). Such reflections should push the innovation studies community to better articulate the interdependencies among different trajectories at the heart and on the edges of socio-technical regimes. Future empirical research might seek to test which objects of intermediation might be best suited for specific transformation challenges.

### CRediT authorship contribution statement

**A. Loconto:** Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Methodology, Formal analysis, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. **K.M. Weber:** Validation, Supervision, Methodology, Formal analysis, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. **R. van Dis:** Visualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. **E. Lhoste:** Visualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. **L. Bundgaard:** Visualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. **M. Matt:** Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft.
Declaration of competing interest

We hereby declare that this article is not submitted anywhere else and that we did not receive any specific funding for the content of this paper. We also declare no conflicts of interest and respect for the GDPR regulations.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the members of LISIS's innovation thematic group – in particular Marc Barbier, Bruno Turnheim, Philippe Laredo, Douglas

Robinson, Antoine Schoen, Remi Manesse and Raphael Stephens – for their comments and contributions to the early discussions of intermediation. They also thank their partners in participatory research. The special issue editors – Wouter Boon, Douglas Robinson and Susana Borras– are thanked for their very helpful comments. The three anonymous reviewers, who spent considerable time commenting on the paper, were very influential in shaping the final version of this article. We thank them very much for their efforts. This work received financial support from Fonjep (Youth and Popular Education Cooperation Fund) for the testing of a public policy instrument designed to fund intermediations in associations.

Annex 1 Publications of original data

[this table will be completed once peer review is completed so that the anonymity of the authors is not compromised].

<table><thead><tr><td>Source</td><td>Case studies</td><td>Methodologies</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Matt et al., 2017</td><td>60 case studies of agricultural innovations (plant, livestock, food, environment, agronomy, biodiversity...) generated by a single French public research organisation.</td><td>Standardized innovation case studies based on semi structured interviews with diverse stakeholders involved in the various steps of an impact pathway; and secondary sources (websites, official documents, archival material, and publications) to cross-check the information</td></tr><tr><td>Loconto et al., 2016, 2018, 2020</td><td>27 case studies of multi-actor initiatives that have created alternative markets for sustainably produced food in 25 countries (including France).</td><td>Standardized case templates completed by the innovators about the institutional innovation histories. Secondary sources (websites, official documents, expert validation, newspaper articles and NGO publications) to triangulate the data. Semi-structured interviews (90), an online discussion group comprising 86 members who identified challenges and solutions, and field visits of the case study sites, comprising observations, informal interviews and collective analysis. 221 stacked, structured questionnaires completed with producers, intermediaries and consumers in 12 initiatives. Three researcher-practitioner writing workshops and two validation workshops including over 100 participants.</td></tr><tr><td>Lhoste, 2021, 2022; Lhoste and Sardin, 2024</td><td>35 case studies of funded TSO's projects in France</td><td>We collected the empirical material between 2019 and 2022, as part of a formative evaluation of an experimental grant to participatory research. Standardized case studies based on semi structured interviews with grant winner organisations, participatory observation in organisations and steering committee of the grant, focus groups as part of the impact pathway process, and secondary sources (e.g., websites, official documents, grant applications) to cross-check the information.</td></tr></tbody></table>

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

References

Abbott, A., 2001. Time matters: On theory and method. University of Chicago Press.

Abbott, K., Levi-Faur, D., Snidal, D., 2017. Theorizing Regulatory Intermediaries: The RIT Model (The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science).

Adams, V., Murphy, M., Clarke, A.E., 2009. Anticipation: Technoscience, life, affect, temporality. Subjectivity 28 (1), 246–265.

Akrich, M., Barre, R., Bentz, E., Bontems, F., Delannoy, M., Evrard, F., Goussault, B., Grasset, L., Joly, P.B., Larqué, L., Le Bars y, Lenouvel D., Lhoste, E., Millier, C., Ottolini, L., Porcheron, P., Porte, E., Roturier, C., Schneider, M., 2017. Prendre au sérieux la société de la connaissance: Livre blanc. Alliss, Paris (france), p. 43.

Albouy, V., Le Conte, Y., 2020. Un avenir pour les abeilles et nos apiculteurs. Editions Quae, Paris.

Allen, T., Prosperi, P., 2016. Modeling Sustainable Food Systems. Environ. Manag. 57 (5), 956–975.

Alonso González, P., Parga-Dans, E., 2020. Natural wine: do consumers know what it is, and how natural it really is? J. Clean. Prod. 251, 119635.

Archibugi, D., Michie, J., 1995. The globalisation of technology: a new taxonomy. Camb. J. Econ. 19 (1), 121–140.

Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S., 2003. Key themes in qualitative research: Continuities and changes. Rowman Altamira.

Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J.M., Kemp, R., Haxeltine, A., 2017. Game-changers and transformative social innovation. Ecol. Soc. 22 (4).

Bach Petersen, T., 2021. En jurist med hang til marmeladevin forandrede vinverdenen for altid. Available at: https://www.information.dk/moti/2021/06/jurist-hang-marmeladevin-forandrede-vinverdenen-altid?lst_cntrb.

Barbier, M., Lamine, C., Couix, N., 2023. Pratiques et savoirs agricoles dans la transition agroécologique. Editions des archives contemporaines. Etudes des sciences et Histoire des techniques, Paris, p. 299.

Barré, R., 2020. Pour une recherche scientifique responsable. Nat. Sci. Soc. 28 (1), 45–50.

Bergek, A., 2020. Diffusion intermediaries: A taxonomy based on renewable electricity technology in Sweden. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.11.004.

Bodenheimer, M., 2021. Lost in transition? Disentangling agency, activities and actor roles. Fraunhofer ISI, Karlsruhe.

Breaugh, J., McBride, K., Kleinaltenkamp, M., Hammerschmid, G., 2021. Beyond Diffusion: A Systematic Literature Review of Innovation Scaling. Sustainability 13 (24), 13528.

Callon, M., 1991. Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. In: Law, J. (Ed.), A Sociology of Monsters: essays on power, technology and domination. Routledge, London, pp. 132–163.

Chiffoleau, Y., Loconto, A., 2018. Social Innovation in Agriculture and Food: Old Wine in New Bottles? Int. J. Sociol. Agric. Food 24 (3), 306–317.

De la Loconto, A., 2021. Standardisation à l'intermédiation : une sociologie des interactions. In: Vade me cum : L'Intermédiation de la consommation et production durables. Sociologie, 2. Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées. https://hal.inra e.fr/tel-03670962v1.

Duncan, J., Pascucci, S., 2017. Mapping the Organisational Forms of Networks of Alternative Food Networks: Implications for Transition. Sociol. Rural. 57 (3), 316–339.

Ericksen, P., Stewart, B., Dixon, J., Barling, D., Loring, P., Anderson, M., Ingram, J., 2010. The Value of a Food System Approach. In: Ingram, J., Ericksen, P., Liverman, D. (Eds.), Food Security and Global Environmental Change. Earthscan, London, pp. 25–45.

Felt, U., Wynne, B., Callon, M., Gonçalves, M., Jasanoff, S., Jepsen, M., Joly, P-Bt, Konopasek, Z., May, S., Neubauer, C., Rip, A., Siune, K., Stirling, A., Tallacchini, M., 2007. Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously. Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate,
Directorate-General for Research, European Commission. (Reportno. Report Number], Date. Place Published]: Institution)].

Fouilleux, E., Bricas, Z., Alpha, A., 2017. 'Feeding 9 billion people': global food security debates and the productionist trap. J. Eur. Publ. Policy 24 (11), 1658-1677.

Galati, A., Schifani, G., Crescimanno, M., Migliore, G., 2019. "Natural wine" consumers and interest in label information: an analysis of willingness to pay in a new Italian wine market segment. J. Clean. Prod. 227, 405-413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2019.04.219.

Geels, F.W., Johnson, V., 2018. Towards a modular and temporal understanding of system diffusion: Adoption models and socio-technical theories applied to Austrian biomass district-heating (1979-2013). Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 38, 138-153.

Goodman, D., DuPuis, E.M., Goodman, M.K., 2012. Alternative food networks: knowledge, practice, and politics. Routledge, New York.

Gorman, M., 2002. Types of Knowledge and Their Roles in Technology Transfer. J. Technol. Transf. 27 (3), 219-231.

Gotlib, I.H., Wheaton, B., 1997. Stress and adversity over the life course: Trajectories and turning points. Cambridge University Press.

Grin, J., Rotmans, J., Schot, J.W., 2010. Transitions to sustainable development: new directions in the study of long term transformative change. Routledge, New York.

Haraway, D., 1988. Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Fem. Stud. 14 (3), 575-599.

Hargrave, T.J., Van De Ven, A.H., 2006. A collective action model of institutional innovation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31 (4), 864-888.

Hebinck, A., Klerkx, L., Elzen, B., Kok, K.P.W., König, B., Schiller, K., Tschersich, J., van Mierlo, B., von Wirth, T., 2021. Beyond food for thought – Directing sustainability transitions research to address fundamental change in agri-food systems. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 41, 81-85.

Henderson, R.M., Clark, K.B., 1990. Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Adm. Sci. Q. 35 (1), 9-30.

Henry, M., Béguin, M., Requier, F., Rollin, O., Odoux, J.-F., Aupinel, P., Aptel, J., Tchamitchian, S., Decourtey, A., 2012. A common pesticide decreases foraging success and survival in honey bees. Science 336 (6079), 348-350.

Hernes, T., 2022. Narrative Trajectory. Organization and Time. Oxford University Press. pp.127-C127.F123.

Houllier, F., Merilhou-Goudard, J.-B., 2016. Les sciences participatives en France Etats des lieux, bonnes pratiques et recommandations. Reportno. Report Number], Date. Place Published: Institution].

Howells, J., 2006. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Res. Policy 35 (5), 715-728.

Huntjens, P., Kemp, R., 2022. The importance of a natural social contract and co- evolutionary governance for sustainability transitions. Sustainability 14 (5), 2976.

Janssen, M.J., Wesseling, J., Torrens, J., Weber, K.M., Penna, C., Klerkx, L., 2023. Missions as boundary objects for transformative change: understanding coordination across policy, research, and stakeholder communities. Sci. Public Policy. https://doi. org/10.1093/scipol/scac080.

Kaljonen, M., Korttetmäki, T., Tribaldos, T., 2023. Introduction to the special issue on just food system transition: Tackling inequalities for sustainability. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 46, 100688.

Kemp, R., Pel, B., Scholl, C., Boons, F., 2022. Diversifying deep transitions: accounting for socio-economic directionality. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 44, 110-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.06.002.

Kivimaa, P., Hyysalo, S., Boon, W., Klerkx, L., Martiskainen, M., Schot, J., 2019. Passing the baton: How intermediaries advance sustainability transitions in different phases. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 31, 110-125.

Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., 2008. Balancing multiple interests: Embedding innovation intermediation in the agricultural knowledge infrastructure. Technovision 28 (6), 364-378.

Kornberger, M., Bowker, G.C., Elyachar, J., Mennicken, A., Miller, P., Nucho, J.R., Pollock, N., 2019. Thinking Infrastructures. Emerald Publishing Limited.

Kropp, C., Antoni-Komar, I., Sage, C., 2020. Food System Transformations: Social Movements. Taylor & Francis, Local Economies, Collaborative Networks.

Laforce, J.M.L., Anderson, C.R., McLachlan, S.M., 2017. Governments grassroots, and the struggle for local food systems: containing, coopting, contesting and collaborating. Agric. Hum. Values 34 (3), 663-681.

Lam, D.P.M., Martín-López, B., Wiek, A., Bennett, E.M., Frantzeskaki, N., Horceza- Milcu, A.I., Lang, D.J., 2020. Scaling the impact of sustainability initiatives: a typology of amplification processes. Urban Transform. 2 (1), 3.

Larkin, B., 2013. The politics and poetics of infrastructure. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 42 (1), 327-343.

Lawhon, M., Patel, Z., 2013. Scalar politics and local sustainability: rethinking governance and justice in an era of political and environmental change. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 31 (6), 1048-1062.

Leeuwis, C., Aarts, N., 2011. Rethinking communication in innovation processes: creating space for change in complex systems. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 17 (1), 21-36.

Leeuwis, C., Boogaard, B.K., Atta-Krah, K., 2021. How food systems change (or not): governance implications for system transformation processes. Food Secur. 13 (4), 761-780.

Lhoste, E., 2021. Structurer les recherches participatives : éléments de diagnostic. [Rapport de recherche] INRAE UMR LISIS - UMR CNRS-ESIEE Paris-INRAE- Université Gustave Eiffel Cité Descartes - Bois de l'étang - Champ-sur-Marne 77 454 Marne-la-Vallée Cédex France, 22 p. (hal-03168045).

Lhoste, E., 2022. Trajectoire d'un champ d'action stratégique: les recherches participatives sont-elles solubles dans la science? Technol Innov 7. (hal-03606062).

Lhoste, E.F., Sardin, L., 2024. Unveiling research intermediations in citizen science. Citiz. Sci.: Theory Pract. 9, 1.

Loconto, A., 2017. Models of assurance: diversity and standardization of modes of intermediation. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 670 (1), 1-21.

Loconto, A., 2020. Labelling Agroecology: A study of valuation processes in developing countries. In: Laurent, B., Mallard, A. (Eds.), Labelling the Economy. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore, pp. 59-90.

Loconto, A., 2023. L'intermédiation des connaissances: le passage d'un état de savoir à un état de faire pour un transition agroécologique. Innovations 70 (1), 153-179.

Loconto, A., Poisot, A.S., Santacoloma, P. (Eds.), 2016. Innovative Markets for Sustainable Agriculture: How Innovations in Market Institutions Encourage Sustainable Agriculture in Developing Countries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Rome.

Loconto, A., Jimenez, A., Vandecandelaere, E., Taranac, F., 2018a. Agroecology, local food systems and their markets. Ager. J. Depopul. Rural Develop. Stud. 25 (2), 13-42.

Loconto, A., Jimenez, A., Vandecandelaere, E., 2018b. Constructing Markets for Agroecology. An Analysis of Diverse Options for Marketing Products From Agroecology. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Loconto, A., et al., 2020. Enabling Sustainable Food Systems: Innovators' Handbook. Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Marres, N., 2023. How to turn politics around: things, the earth, ecology. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 0 (0), 01622439231190884.

Matt, A., Gauand, A., Joly, P.-B., Colinet, L., 2017. Opening the black box of impact – ideal-type impact pathways in a public agricultural research organization. Res. Policy 46 (1), 207-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.09.016.

McGreevy, S.R., Rupprecht, C.D.D., Niles, D., Wiek, A., Carolan, M., Kallis, G., Kantamaturapoj, K., Mangnus, A., Jehlíčka, P., Taherzadeh, O., Sahakian, M., Chabay, I., Colby, A., Vivero-Pol, J.-L., Chaudhuri, R., Spiegelberg, M., Kobayashi, M., Balázs, B., Tsuchiya, K., Nicholls, C., Tanaka, K., Vervoort, J., Akitu, M., Mallee, H., Ota, K., Shinkai, R., Khadse, A., Tamura, N., Abe, K.-i., Altieri, M., Sato, Y.-I., Tachikawa, M., 2022. Sustainable agrifood systems for a post- growth world. Nat. Sustain. 5 (12), 1011-1017.

Nielsen, K.S., Clayton, S., Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Capstick, S., Whitmarsh, L., 2021. How psychology can help limit climate change. Am. Psychol. 76 (1), 130.

Parag, Y., Janda, K.B., 2014. More than filler: Middle actors and socio-technical change in the energy system from the "middle-out". Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 3, 102-112.

Rauschmayer, F., Bauler, T., Schäpke, N., 2015. Towards a thick understanding of sustainability transitions – Linking transition management, capabilities and social practices. Ecol. Econ. 109, 211-221.

Robinson, D.K.R., Simone, A., Mazzonetto, M., 2020. RRI legacies: co-creation for responsible, equitable and fair innovation in Horizon Europe. Journal of Responsible Innovation. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2020.1842633. 1-8.

Robinson, D.K.R., Borrás, S., Boon, W.P.C., 2024. Reimagining diffusion: Eight building blocks for reconceptualising the generalisation of innovation into society. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techores.2024.123844. 123,844.

Raysen, R., Bruehwiler, N., Kos, L., Boyer, R., Koehrsen, J., 2024. Rethinking the diffusion of grassroots innovations: An embedding framework. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 200, 123156.

Sartorius, C., Zundel, S., 2005. Time Strategies, Innovation, and Environmental Policy. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Scharnig, R., Sareen, S., 2023. Accountability implications for intermediaries in upscaling: Energy community rollouts in Portugal. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 197, 122911.

Schot, J., Steinmueller, W.E., 2018. Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Res. Policy 47 (9), 1554-1567.

Sengers, F., Wieczorek, A.J., Raven, R., 2019. Experimenting for sustainability transitions: A systematic literature review. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 145, 153-164.

Sengers, F., Turnheim, B., Berkhout, F., 2021. Beyond experiments: Embedding outcomes in climate governance. Environ. Plan. C. Pol. Space 0 (0), 2399654420953861.

Sonnino, R., Milbourne, P., 2022. Food system transformation: a progressive place-based approach. Local Environ. 27 (7), 915-926.

Śpiewak, R., Goszczyński, W., 2023. Alternative food networks from the institutional perspective. Int. J. Sociol. Agric. Food 29 (1), 5-24.

Stephens, R., Barbier, M., 2021. Digital feeding, cashless marketplaces and reconnection in intermediated third places: Conceptualizing metropolitan food provision in the age of prosumption. J. Rural. Stud. 82, 366-379.

Steyaert, P., Barzman, M., Billaud, J.-P., Brives, H., Hubert, B., Ollivier, G., Roche, B., 2007. The role of knowledge and research in facilitating social learning among stakeholders in natural resources management in the French Atlantic coastal wetlands. Environ. Sci. Pol. 10 (6), 537-550.

Steyaert, P., Barbier, M., Cerf, M., Levain, A., Loconto, A., 2017. Role of intermediation in the management of complex sociotechnical transitions. In: Elzen, B., Augustyn, A., Barbier, M., et al. (Eds.), AgroEcological Transitions. Changes and Breakthroughs in the Making. Wageningen University Research, The Netherlands, pp. 258-282.

Sutherland, L.-A., Adamsone-Fiskovica, A., Elzen, B., Koutsouris, A., Laurent, C., Stræte, E.P., Labarthe, P., 2023. Advancing AKIS with assemblage thinking. J. Rural. Stud. 97, 57-69.

Termeer, C.J.A.M., Dewulf, A., 2018. A small wins framework to overcome the evaluation paradox of governing wicked problems. Polic. Soc. 38 (2), 298-314.

van der Ploeg, J.D., Jingzhong, Y., Schneider, S., 2012. Rural development through the construction of new, nested, markets: comparative perspectives from China. Brazil and the European Union J. Peasant Stud. 39 (1), 133-173.

van Lente, H., Boon, W.P.C., Klerkx, L., 2020. Positioning of systemic intermediaries in sustainability transitions: Between storylines and speech acts. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 36, 485-497.
Vatin, F., 2013. Valuation as Evaluating and Valorizing. *Valuation. Studies Vol. 1* (1), 31–50.

Wanzenböck, I., Wesseling, J.H., Frenken, K., Hekkert, M.P., Weber, K.M., 2020. A framework for mission-oriented innovation policy: Alternative pathways through the problem-solution space. *Sci. Public Policy* 47 (4), 474–489.

Weber, K.M., Rohracher, H., 2012. Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change: combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework. *Res. Policy* 41 (6), 1037–1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.015.

Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W., Capstick, S., 2021. Behaviour change to address climate change. *Curr. Opin. Psychol.* 42, 76–81.

Wigboldus, S., Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., Schut, M., Muilerman, S., Jochemsen, H., 2016. Systemic perspectives on scaling agricultural innovations. *A review. Agron. Sustain. Develop.* 36 (3), 46.

Wise, T.A., 2013. Can We Feed the World in 2050? A scoping paper to assess the evidence. In: GDAE Working Paper. Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University, Medford, MA, pp. 1–36.

Yuana, S.L., Sengers, F., Boon, W., Hajer, M.A., Raven, R., 2020. A dramaturgy of critical moments in transition: Understanding the dynamics of conflict in socio-political change. *Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans.* 37, 156–170.

Zecevic, A., 2023. Natural Wine Labels Are Famously Opaque—and Winemakers Are Angry About It. *Wine Enthusiast*. https://www.wineenthusiast.com/culture/natural-wine-labels/?srsltid=AfmBOoochip5rlZj465laDNaL_M01sQbyD3zF3Xa1mpks_46Tl5wqhin. (Accessed 12 March 2025).

**Loconto, A.** is a Research Professor of sociology at the French National Institute for Research on Agriculture, Food and Environment (INRAE) and the Interdisciplinary Laboratory for Science, Innovation and Society (LISIS). Her research focuses on the governance of transitions to sustainable food systems, specifically on the metrics, models, standards and systems of certification that are part of emerging institutional innovations. She is Chief Editor of *International Journal of the Sociology of Agriculture and Food*, Associate Editor of the *Journal of Rural Studies*, Associate Editor of *Science as Culture* and is on the Editorial Board of *Agriculture and Human Values*.

**Weber, K. M.** is Head of Center for Innovation Systems & Policy at AIT Austrian Institute of Technology and Invited Professor at Université Gustave Eiffel, Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Science, Innovation, Société. He has a background in process engineering, political sciences and economics, and has been working for more than twenty-five years on the transformation of socio-technical systems, the analysis of innovation systems and network, and the governance of transformative and mission-oriented research and innovation policies. Matthias also has long-standing experience with foresight to support policy strategy development, and is member of several expert groups advising the European Commission and national governments.

**van Dis, R.** completed her PhD at Gustave Eiffel University (ParisEstSup) and the French National Research Institute for Agriculture Food and Environment (INRAE). She is currently a post-doctoral researcher at the Laboratory for Interdisciplinary Science, Innovation and Society (LISIS). She conducted her thesis in the context of real-time impact assessment of the French Priority Research Program (PPR) ‘produce and protect differently’, which aims for a zero-pesticides agricultural future in France. Her focus is on the responsibility of research through envisioning desired future transformations. Originally from the Netherlands, she holds a MSc in Organic Agriculture from Wageningen University, Netherlands, and a master in History of Science, Technology and Society from EHESS in Paris, France. Prior to completing her PhD, she worked for three years at the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) in Rome, Italy, as part of the team on Agroecology.

**Lhoste, E.** has conducted an extensive field work in French open labs / Third spaces since the beginning of their institutionalization (2012–2017). She now explores a process of real time assessment of a public policy instrument aimed at financing intermediary activities in NGOs. In addition to her research project, she has been engaged in a multi-actor think-tank to promote and legitimate the involvement of third sector organisations as partners of academic research and innovation. She also contributes to the open research strategy of Université Gustave Eiffel.

**Bundgaard, L.** is a scientist at the AIT Austrian Institute of Technology and an external lecturer at the University of Vienna and Copenhagen Business School. He is part of the Transformative Governance unit within the Center for Innovation Policy, where he focuses on the role of government and governance in sustainability transitions. With a background in social science research, he has worked on the role of cities in driving sustainable change, both at the City of Copenhagen and as an industrial PhD candidate. He has analysed cities within the Net-Zero Cities cohort to develop frameworks for assessing urban climate strategies. Lasse also has postdoctoral experience at the Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Sciences Innovations Sociétés (LISIS) in Paris, collaborating with AIT and the Swedish Transformative Innovation Policy Platform. He is additionally affiliated with the Centre for Innovation Research at Lund University.

**Matt, M.** is Director of Research at INRAE (National Institute of Agronomic and Environment Research) since 2011 and conducts her research at LISIS since 2018. She holds a PhD in economics from the University of Strasbourg (France), where she started her academic career. Her research interests focus on innovation studies; transformative innovation policies; evaluation of societal impacts generated by a public research organisation and analysis of typical impact pathways in the agricultural sector; strategic R&D partnerships, and transfer of academic research results towards industry. Her recent evaluation experience includes the ASIRPA (Assessment of Socio-economic Impact of Public Agricultural Research) ex-post and real-time project.