Social Innovation, Circularity and Energy Transition for Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Practices—A Comprehensive Review

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

It has been extensively debated how social innovation, circularity, and energy transition may all be considered environmental, social, and governance (ESG) components from a sustainability perspective. To comprehend the conceptual development of this subject in the academic literature, few studies, however, tackle the problems above by reviewing earlier research on the subject. By developing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) technique, this study aims to address the current and anticipated advancements in social innovation, energy transition, and circularity. As a result, we create two metasynthesis analyses related to “social innovation–energy transition” and “social innovation–circularity.” In the first analysis, the three databases Web of Science, Scopus, and JSTOR had a total of 1767 studies and reports, and in the second analysis, we reviewed the work from a total of 466 studies and reports. We emphasize that implementing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices require social innovation, circularity, and energy transition. The study’s key contributions are the five cluster themes classification for the two metasynthesis analyses, which point to potential future directions for both firms and governments to pursue some macro-level goals concerning energy transition and circularity through social innovation.

Related collections

Most cited references 67

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems.

Elinor Ostrom (2009)

A major problem worldwide is the potential loss of fisheries, forests, and water resources. Understanding of the processes that lead to improvements in or deterioration of natural resources is limited, because scientific disciplines use different concepts and languages to describe and explain complex social-ecological systems (SESs). Without a common framework to organize findings, isolated knowledge does not cumulate. Until recently, accepted theory has assumed that resource users will never self-organize to maintain their resources and that governments must impose solutions. Research in multiple disciplines, however, has found that some government policies accelerate resource destruction, whereas some resource users have invested their time and energy to achieve sustainability. A general framework is used to identify 10 subsystem variables that affect the likelihood of self-organization in efforts to achieve a sustainable SES.