Grassroots innovation (GI) has gained increased attention in recent years as a significant driver for sustainable development. Seyfang and Smith’s (2007) definition of GI is widely accepted and referenced, defining it as:

“networks of activists and organizations generating novel bottom-up solutions for sustainable development and sustainable consumption; solutions that respond to the local situation and the interests and values of the communities involved.”

Unlike sustainability efforts by mainstream actors attempting to “green” the incumbent economic systems, GI is community-level action aimed at counteracting hyper-consumption and the unsustainable neocapitalist economic systems ( Nicolosi et al., 2018). 

One example of GI is alternative food networks aimed at increasing the availability and accessibility of natural, regional food, directly linking producers and consumers, and promoting the local economy (Gernert et al., 2018).  

Alternative food networks can take many organizational forms, with farmers’ markets, food box schemes, and food cooperatives as typical examples (Kirwan et al., 2013).  Geared to serving members’ needs, alternative food networks are less prone to wasteful over-production and over-consumption compared to conventional food systems, which are based on the industrialized production of standardized foods.

GI and Sustainability

Based on ideological commitment instead of profit maximization motives, GI seeks to promote economic, environmental, and social sustainability (Hossain, 2016):

• Economic sustainability – The economic goals of GIs center on supporting local businesses and fostering stronger local economies.

• Environmental sustainability – GIs are focused on meeting social needs instead of being growth-oriented. In other words, the objective of GI is to meet social needs rather than some growth target such as a GDP growth target. This makes GI inherently more sustainable than the mainstream economic system because the growth-oriented goals of the latter put excessive and ever-increasing pressure on the earth’s natural resources and lead to more pollution. Features such as localized supply chain and asset sharing, which are common in many forms of GI, are conducive to sustainable development because they are associated with lower resource consumption and fewer carbon emissions.

• Social sustainability – The fact that GI is generated by civil society instead of government or business (Tang et al., 2011) makes social inclusion an inherent element of GI. Its focus on community-based collaborations and partnerships, civil participation, and localized economy helps to promote social cohesion and social capital building, as well as the well-being of the participants. Even when their skills may not be valued by formal employment markets, participating in GI can make individuals feel appreciated and recognized for their contributions to social reproduction (Seyfang and Longhurst, 2016).    

In part 2 of this article, we’ll introduce some examples of GI.

Link to Part 2

References:

Gernert M, El Bilali H, Strassner C. (2018). Grassroots Initiatives as Sustainability Transition Pioneers: Implications and Lessons for Urban Food Systems. Urban Science 2(1): 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci2010023

Hossain, M. (2016). Grassroots innovation: A systematic review of two decades of research. Journal of Cleaner Production 137: 973–981. 

Kirwan, J., Ilbery, B., Maye, D., & Carey, J. (2013). Grassroots social innovations and food localisation: An investigation of the Local Food programme in England. Global Environmental Change 23(5): 830–837.

Nicolosi, E., Medina, R., & Feola, G. (2018). Grassroots innovations for sustainability in the United States: A spatial analysis. Applied Geography 91:55–69.

Seyfang, G., & Longhurst, N. (2016). What influences the diffusion of grassroots innovations for sustainability? Investigating community currency niches. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 28(1): 1–23.

Seyfang, G., & Smith, A. (2007). Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics 16(4): 584–603.

Tang, T., Karhu, K., Hamalainen, M., 2011. Community innovation in sustainable development: a cross case study. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 49: 396-403

Like (1)