Research

INTRODUCTION

In light of the immense challenges posed by sustainability, businesses play a pivotal role alongside governments and non-governmental organizations in realizing effective climate action (DiBella et al. 2023). It is widely recognized that the efforts of any single social actor, in isolation, will fall short of addressing the complex and multifaceted issue of climate change (Burch et al. 2016). Hence, the notion that a singular entity can orchestrate the necessary transformations is unrealistic. Actions across a diverse range of actors, from businesses to governments and citizens, are needed to impact the direction and swiftness of transformations (Ferraro et al. 2015). Indeed, beyond the involvement of public institutions and non-governmental bodies, businesses are vital contributors to these profound changes (Schaltegger et al. 2018).

One key social actor that often remains on the periphery of climate endeavors, despite their potential to contribute to ambitious actions, are small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (Westman et al. 2019, Luederitz et al. 2023a). SMEs represent a cornerstone of many economies (Ayyagari et al. 2007) and collectively contribute to significant environmental pressures (Climate Smart 2018). Thus, there exists a compelling incentive to empower SMEs to enact sustainability-oriented innovation in their business practices (Luederitz et al. 2023b). In this article, we investigate the extent to which and how SMEs can be engaged in transformative learning for climate action.

Beyond overlooking pivotal actors, initiatives addressing complex global challenges and aspiring to achieve ambitious actions often fall short because of their overemphasis on technical fixes rather than creating conditions for transformative learning to unfold. To contribute to transformative efforts for climate action, mobilizing new capacities is imperative (Sardar 2010, Proust et al. 2012, Kläy et al. 2015, Sharpe et al. 2016). These capacities need to enable interaction among diverse people to open up thinking, facilitate change processes, reimagine futures, encourage discourse, provide a sense of empowerment, and work on complex problems (Frame and Brown 2008, Wicks and Jamieson 2014, Kläy et al. 2015, Adhikari and Safaee Chalkasra 2021). These capacities can instigate evolution of perspectives, beliefs, and expectations, leading to transformative learning. Transformative learning changes the meaning structures of individuals, and hence their perspectives and actions (Mezirow 1998).

Many studies in the past have highlighted the need for approaches that can support future-oriented knowledge generation among diverse participants while facilitating transformative change (Caniglia et al. 2021). One such approach that has received increasing attention is the Three Horizons approach (THA). The THA “connects the present with desired (or espoused) futures and helps to identify the divergent futures which may emerge as a result of conflict between the embedded present and these imagined futures” (Curry and Hodgson 2008). This approach has been successfully applied with municipalities and conservancies (Jiren et al. 2021, Harmáčková et al. 2022), and educational institutions (Stewart et al. 2023) across diverse sectors: for example, in agriculture (Collste et al. 2023). However, it lacks a sophisticated theory to inform strategic use for instigating transformation and explaining resulting outcomes (Sharpe et al. 2016, Fazey et al. 2020, Collste et al. 2023). Indeed, the existing applications of the THA have solely focused on outcomes of interventions and have not theorized the transformative learning processes that occur, or used such insights to facilitate transformative learning. Therefore, there exists a research gap concerning how the THA informs and catalyzes transformative learning processes to drive climate action. Moreover, the literature is deficient on how SME owners experience, learn from, and navigate these transformative learning processes instigated through the THA.

In response to these observations, in this study we theorize how the THA can realize transformative learning processes and generate the needed evidence to assess its effectiveness. To achieve this, we draw upon transformative learning theory (Mezirow 1978) and explore how the THA stimulates transformative learning processes among SMEs. Therefore, the focus of our research is not to examine transformative learning as an outcome but to understand transformative learning as a process within the framework of THA. Exploring how the THA is experienced by SMEs and how it impacts them will provide insights that may lead to unleashing the transformative potential of the THA for climate action. Understanding these experiences has significant implications for designing transformative learning processes and environments using the THA to foster societal transformations for climate action.

In the subsequent sections of this article, we outline the theoretical frameworks informing this research, detailing the THA and transformative learning theory. Following this, we describe the research design and methodological considerations. Subsequently, we report our findings pertaining to transformative learning. The discussion section circles back to the foundational premise of this article to examine how the THA supports processes of transformative learning and change. Lastly, in the conclusion, we summarize the key findings and highlight the transformative potential of the THA for climate action.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Three Horizons approach

The Three Horizons approach (THA) is a simple framework that can help people think about current assumptions, emerging changes, and desired and possible futures. It visually maps overlapping waves of change. The influential book The Alchemy of Growth by Baghai et al. (1999) introduced the initial version of the THA, outlining managers’ engagement with short-term, medium-term, and long-term futures. Subsequently, the THA was significantly adapted and formally established by Bill Sharpe from International Futures Forum under the UK Foresight Directorate’s “Intelligent infrastructure Futures: Technology Forward Look” project (Sharpe and Hodgson 2006). This project aimed to depict overlapping waves of technological innovations and corresponding change, which was more realistic than traditional technology road mapping. The future-oriented, three-horizons model is composed of the following:

• First horizon: the state of the current system as it continues into the future. Because of changes in the external environment, it fails to “fit” over time.
• Second horizon: the intermediate space between the first and third horizons where these two horizons collide. This is regarded as the unstable space of transition, characterized by value clashes where alternative and competing paths to the future are proposed by various actors.
• Third horizon: ideas regarding the future of the system which have the potential to change the world as they respond to changes in the external environment.

Sharpe et al. (2016) delineated five main steps involved in the THA to transition toward desired futures, explained as follows and illustrated in Figure 1:

• Step 1: examining present concerns. Starting the THA, the first step explores present concerns and describes how current ways of doing things are perceived to lose their “fit” with evolving conditions. For example, a present concern can be transportation emissions relating to climate change, which may require rethinking fuel choices, vehicle choices, and mobility patterns to make the best use of changing contexts and emerging opportunities while reducing risks.
• Step 2: exploring future aspirations. This step entails exploring the aspirations, visions, ideas, and possibilities for the reality that will emerge in the future to replace the first horizon. For example, if the desired or possible future is sustainable mobility, then electric cars or shared mobility centers may present possibilities that can replace the first horizon in the future.
• Step 3: exploring inspirational practice in the present. In this step, pockets of the future are identified in the present. These practices are concrete examples of how the future might look as they illustrate new ways of doing things. These practices are not yet adopted by the mainstream, nor are they incorporated in “business as usual” procedures; instead, they exist at the fringes. For example, in the case of sustainable mobility as a desired future, examples of such practices can be sharing a vehicle and commuting via bicycle.
• Step 4: innovations in play. This step serves as a bridge between the third and the first horizon. It spotlights innovations that can be framed as a response to challenges that emerge through the first horizon. At the same time, the innovations discussed in this step carve out a space of possibility for the third horizon. For example, for sustainable mobility as a desired future, ride-sharing applications and bicycle paths in the city as part of the infrastructure can be innovations in play.
• Step 5: essential features to maintain. Concluding the process, this step focuses on aspects of the old system that will remain in the future because they support new ways of doing things or can persist in the context of the new system (with a changed environment). They are the desired elements that need to be retained in the envisioned future. In the case of sustainable mobility, they can include the reliability of a journey, safety of a journey, and traffic rules.

Sharpe et al. (2016) demonstrated that the THA allows individuals to make sense of complex situations or challenges (via future consciousness, exploring dominant patterns, examining status quo and resistances to bringing change). Furthermore, they proposed that the THA allows individuals to “put themselves in the picture” by exploring their role in making a difference or dealing with challenges. Yet, scholars employing the THA have fallen short of explaining why such transformative learning processes take place and how they can be intentionally designed. These questions have been at the center of attention in research on transformative learning, to which we turn in the next section.

Transformative learning

Transformative learning theory is concerned with changes in adults’ frames of reference (i.e., the meaning structures influencing perceptions, expectations, habits, thoughts, and feelings) and how these changes can lead to emancipation and contribution toward a better social future (Mezirow 2003). These frames define adults’ worldviews (Mezirow 1997) and tend to reject ideas that are not aligned with individual’s perspectives, distorting their ability to be open to new perspectives (Taimur and Onuki 2022). Frames of references, or perspectives, are acquired through experiences and inform the values, beliefs, and assumptions of individuals, shaping their understanding of the world (Mezirow 1990, 1991). Perspectives are useful as they guide the action of an individual in uncertain situations, but they can sometimes hinder one’s ability to remain open to new ideas and perceptions.

Transformative learning theory can help explain why some people choose not to engage in climate action or ignore opportunities to address risks posed by climate change, since doing so may challenge their deeply held assumptions. Transformative learning enables experiences that allow difficult, new, and challenging frames of reference to be accommodated and not denied (Hulme 2009). Mezirow (2000:7-8) defined transformative learning as the

process by which we transform our taken-for-granted frames of reference...to make them more inclusive, discriminating, open, emotionally capable of change, and reflective so that they may generate beliefs and options that will prove more true or justified to guide action.

Transformative learning occurs in a series of steps or phases (Taylor 1997). It starts with a disorienting dilemma instigated via new experiences in the real world, which challenges an individual’s frames of reference (Rodríguez Aboytes and Brath 2020). This phase is followed by critical reflection, where an individual examines their assumptions (perceptions/thoughts). It requires an individual’s active engagement with related discourses, which can lead to perspective transformation (Mezirow 2003). For transformative learning to occur, an active engagement with the new meaning structures is necessary via exploration or negotiation of new roles or relationships, preparing a plan for the course of action, solution testing, or integration of the solution into real life (Rodríguez Aboytes and Barth 2020).

Taimur et al. (2022) proposed a greater specificity in the phases of transformative learning by developing the transformation helical model. This framework perceives transformative learning as a continuous and cyclical process. According to the transformation helical model (Fig. 2), a business entrepreneur endowed with a range of experiences (E) constructs assumptions (A) shaped by their cumulative life experiences to view the world around them. The assumption is that exposing a business entrepreneur to the THA will lead to new experiences or disorienting dilemmas, which, in turn, allows them to question their assumptions/perspectives (also known as challenging perspectives, see “CP” in Fig. 2), leading toward perspective transformation (see “T” in Figure 2).

Purpose of the study

Our review of the THA and transformative learning theory demonstrates their inherent compatibility, despite pursuing distinct aims. The THA focuses on substantive outcomes and strategic orchestration of participants’ engagement to facilitate transformations. Transformative learning theory delves into the underlying mechanisms, offering explanations for the emergence of generated outcomes. It details the micro-foundations of the procedural elements underpinning engagement processes through which individuals transform their frames of reference (or fail to do so). Yet, it is unclear why the THA enables its participants to transform their frames of reference and which horizon, or step, is responsible for such changes. Furthermore, the precise mechanisms through which effective implementation of the THA can be facilitated, particularly when informed by insights from transformative learning theory, remain largely unexplored.

Importantly, our research does not examine transformative learning as an outcome but understands transformative learning as a process. Therefore, we draw on the transformative learning phases described in the transformation helical model to capture learning experiences from participants’ perspectives. This enables us to explore if and how the THA sets up the conditions for transformative learning and why transformations occur by capturing participants’ (business entrepreneurs’) perceived experience. In short, the following research questions (RQs) drive our inquiry:

RQ1: How does the THA influence the transformative learning experience of participants?

RQ2: How does the THA create conditions supportive of transformative learning?

METHODS

Research design

To understand transformative learning in the private sector, we employed an embedded case study approach. We analyzed how the THA supports learning processes among small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the Mont-Saint-Hilaire Biosphere Reserve in Quebec (Canada).

UNESCO Biosphere Reserve regions are model regions for sustainable development, aiming to reconcile economic development with environmental protection. In Canada, biosphere reserves provide a home to over 2.3 million residents (Edge and McAllister 2009). Given the proximity to significant ecological features, small businesses in biosphere reserves may have heightened sensitivity to environmental concerns, translating into a more proactive stance on climate action (Williams and Schaefer 2013, Folke et al. 2016, Winkler and Hauck 2019). Therefore, the case study can be regarded as a critical case, which is of strategic importance and can permit case-inspired generalizations and maximum application of information (Patton 2002, Palinkas et al. 2015).

We employed the THA to engage SMEs in the Mont-Saint-Hilaire Biosphere Reserve in conversation about climate action. Our research design was composed of three phases, corresponding to the three horizons of the THA. These phases encompassed interviews to examine present concerns, an immersive online workshop to explore future aspirations, and an in-person workshop to probe into inspirational practices, innovations in play, and essential features to maintain (see Table 1). Our approach to ethical concerns is described in an endnote.^[1]

Data gathering

We collected contact information of SMEs located in proximity to the Mont-Saint-Hilaire Biosphere Reserve by identifying relevant organizations from publicly accessible business registries of relevant municipalities. Relevant SMEs were those that are unique and independently owned (excluding franchise and other business chains) and are actual businesses (excluding businesses that evidently do not generate the main income of the sole proprietor, such as real estate holdings or consultancies that are only operated as a side business). In total, nine municipalities were reviewed for collecting business contacts, including Saint-Jean-Baptiste, Saint-Charles-sur-Richelieu, Saint-Denis-sur-Richelieu,* Saint-Mathias-sur-Richelieu, Mont-saint-Hilaire, La Présentation, Sainte-Marie-Madeleine,* Otterburn Park,* and Saint-Madeleine.* Four of these municipalities (marked with asterisks) do not maintain a publicly open registry, so we also searched the local Chambre de Commerce for relevant businesses. We also included the municipalities of Beloeil and McMasterville because they are in close proximity to, though formally outside of, the biosphere reserve demarcation (see Fig. 3).

Interviews

Following this procedure, we identified relevant SMEs to engage them in discussing the first horizon. In total we identified 405 SMEs with no evident sustainability orientation and 35 businesses that have undertaken some climate action in the past. All businesses were contacted individually to request an interview. In total 39 SME owners agreed to the interview, which lasted 45–60 min.

The purpose of the interviews was to gather information about how SMEs pursue climate actions. Questions focused on key characteristics of each business, current challenges with a focus on climate change, including relevant potential and existing initiatives, why these initiatives were or should be undertaken, what resulted from changes, and what challenges SMEs faced in this process. We also inquired about existing collaborations, why owners engaged in them, the challenges involved, and the purpose and outcomes of such initiatives.

Online workshop

To explore the third horizon, we organized a workshop with SMEs in the Mont-Saint-Hilaire region to learn about opportunities for addressing present concerns through collective climate actions. The workshop aimed to create space for owners to imagine collaborative initiatives relevant to their own business. A total of eight owners from different industries collaborated in this workshop, which was held online. We suspect that this lower number of participants (compared to the interviews) resulted from time constraints of SME owners. Because of the logistics involved in organizing an online workshop, we were not able to accommodate everyone’s availability (contrary to the interviews). In addition, we received 10 late cancellations from participants who initially agreed to participate in the workshop. The online workshop was organized before the start of the work day. As part of the workshop discussions, participants explored 10 different initiatives, ranging from support networks and the circular economy to collective financing and regionalization. Each of the three breakout discussions were facilitated by a moderator and a professional illustrator to capture the main themes that were discussed (Fig. 4). Following the online workshop, a short follow-up interview was conducted with each participant to inquire about their experience and learnings.

In-person workshop

The last intervention explored the second horizon to discuss inspirational practices, innovations in play, and essential features to maintain with participants from the Mont-Saint-Hilaire region. The workshop focused on multi-sectoral collaboration and thus, aside from SME owners, we also invited participants from municipalities and not-for-profit organizations based in the biosphere reserve region. In total, 15 participants joined this in-person activity to exchange perspectives about four different self-selected topics for the discussion prompts (Fig. 5). The participants included eight SME owners and seven representatives from municipalities and not-for-profit organizations. Similar to the online workshop, we were not able to accommodate individual schedules, which can explain the lower number of participants in comparison to the interviews. The in-person workshop was hosted in the evening with complimentary food and beverages, which might have resulted in a better turnout than the virtual event. Three participants who initially agreed to participate in the workshop did not attend. The workshop was divided into three discussion sessions (one for each prompt) and participants changed tables for each session, ensuring a new group constellation for each round. Following the in-person workshop, we conducted interviews with each participant to inquire about their experience and learnings.

Across the interviews and workshops, we involved 42 SMEs that operated in 17 different industries (see Appendix 1 for the complete list).

Data analysis

To explore the occurrence of transformative learning among participants, we systematically analyzed the data using NVivo, a qualitative analysis software, following the method outlined by Boyatzis (1998) and Braun and Clarke (2012) for thematic analysis. Thematic analysis is a methodical way of analyzing qualitative data, involving the identification, categorization, and interpretation of recurring patterns or themes in the data set (Braun and Clarke 2012). Initially, a deductive coding approach was used to apply literature-informed categories to the text that were derived from the theoretical framework of transformative learning theory (transformation helical model) as depicted in Figure 2. Next, an inductive coding approach was employed to apply additional codes to the text that were inductively derived from the data, extending the analysis beyond the THM.

The thematic analysis involved the following steps: (a) transcription and labeling (data were transcribed and labeled); (b) familiarization (data were reviewed twice for immersion and preparation of memos); (c) codebook (a preliminary codebook was developed with codes based on THM; each code was defined and described); (d) initial coding (codebook was applied to the data; deductive coding); (e) adding codes (additional codes were added; inductive coding) to extend the data analysis beyond the theoretical proposition of THM; (f) identification of themes (themes were identified by exploring patterns in the data); and (g) review (identified themes were reviewed to verify that they were aligned with the data). The data analysis led to the identification of two broad themes, namely, transformative learning phases and transformative conditions developed through engaging participants with the THA. In the results section, the first theme is presented aligned to each horizon, and the second theme is presented with the description of each code under the theme.

We employed intercoder agreement, where independent coders analyzed the data (Silverman 2005). The first, second, third, fourth, and fifth authors analyzed the data independently and discussed the themes aligned to the codes. The final themes were reviewed by the rest of the authors. There were no significant differences, and minor discrepancies were resolved through discussion to create the set of themes presented in the paper.

RESULTS

In this section, we present two predominant themes we identified in the data: participants’ viewpoints on their transformative learning experiences facilitated by the THA, and the potential of the THA to establish conditions for supporting transformative change in the realm of climate action. Accordingly, we present the results aligned to our research questions, first, by introducing findings that reveal how the THA enabled participants to challenge established perspectives (as transformative learning experience). Second, we present results highlighting how the THA created conditions for change. We uncover how our facilitation of the THA generated challenging perspectives and perspective transformations. A detailed overview of all themes and corresponding codes and quotes is offered in Appendix 2.

Transformative learning phases

The data analysis revealed that participants went through the transformative learning phases aligned to the transformation helical model during all three horizons. However, how these transformations unfolded differed for all three horizons. In the first horizon, participants became more open to learning and taking action to address climate change. In the third horizon, participants were inspired to act toward sustainability, building on the momentum generated in the previous horizon. In the second horizon, they recognized the potential of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to act for sustainability, which from their point of view would create a ripple effect, contributing to achieving system-wide transformations for sustainability.

Openness

In the first horizon, we conducted in-depth interviews to collect information on how SMEs pursue climate action. During these interviews, participants engaged in one-on-one conversations with the interviewer and shared their perspectives. Initially, participants’ perspectives on climate action were based on what they had been doing (either currently or in the past), highlighting their assumptions based on experience, as stated by one participant:

...[I]t would become complicated if there is a world crisis [referring to climate change], since we make luxury products it would impact us. And we use natural gas for heating and in the production process. But I don’t know if there is an environmental impact linked to that. (I47)

During the interviews, participants reflected on their existing assumptions and perspectives on climate action, challenging their own beliefs while engaging in a conversation with the interviewer and making sense of their experiences (e.g., by thinking out loud). While reflecting, participants also identified obstacles that hindered the adoption of new perspectives related to sustainability or the implementation of sustainability initiatives. This allowed participants to consider causes for the lack of sustainability initiatives and to think about possibilities for realizing change. For example, one of the participants mentioned:

But of all the environmental problems, I think water is becoming a major issue today. Composting, waste management, etc. all matters. But water would be a priority for us because the golf course is a big water user. But we actually don’t know if we are managing our use of the water well. This should become a priority for us. (I60)

Another participant mentioned:

Then there has been the debate since the 90s, 2000s about the blue bins [i.e., a local recycling program]. But for our business, it’s not that we don’t want to [recycle], it’s because the municipality doesn’t offer us that service here. (I26)

Toward the end of the interviews, participants expressed openness to learning more about integrating climate action into their business and taking concrete actions for climate action. Transformations transpired as participants’ openness to learning and taking action to address climate change during the first horizon:

... I remain open. If there is more information... I’m taking over the company, so I’m open to listening to all of that. If there are proposals, if there are people who start a company offering recycled packaging, if there are subsidies to help the companies like ours... [I would be interested but] I know nothing. (I47)

If I’m available on the date [of the workshop], I’ll be happy to join. I think it’s through discussions that we’re going to succeed and move forward. We need a global vision to succeed, but also long-term and short-term goals as well. (I61)

Inspiration

The third horizon was organized as an online workshop where participants envisioned and discussed solutions for desired future actions. Participants entered the workshop with their own experience-based assumptions, implying that they could not contribute much to climate action or sustainability because they were part of small organizations or had little relevant knowledge (as expressed during the interviews). However, the workshop provided them with the opportunity to exchange perspectives with other participants from different backgrounds and develop ideas for a sustainable future, as illustrated by one interviewee:

There are ideas that intersect no matter what industry or field you’re in. And that’s what’s interesting. The ideas we discussed really bridge completely different industries, but whose environmental goals are essentially the same. (OW21)

Envisioning and discussing ideas together allowed participants to learn about experiences different from their own and this exposure, in turn, enabled them to reflect on and challenge their viewpoints. Participants began to understand that entrepreneurs face similar challenges, and that SMEs can play a role in achieving climate action and sustainability. In this horizon, the transformation emerged among participants as an inspiration to act. Following the workshop, participants expressed that they felt empowered and inspired to take steps toward climate action:

I was able to share buried ambitions... the workshop provided an opportunity to share solutions that are often thought to be too big, and to dream of all what could be possible...I am eager to see what came out of the other groups. (OW21)

Setting a course of action

The second horizon was organized as an in-person workshop for the participants to discuss and plan alternative and competing paths to achieve the desired future actions. Participants expressed that they had no prior experience attending such workshops, and according to their experience-based assumptions, this exposure was new to them. This means they had never attempted to lay out a plan to achieve the desired future through concrete sustainability and climate action.

During the in-person workshop, participants once again interacted with diverse perspectives, including not only those from other SMEs but also from representatives of municipalities and not-for-profit organizations. Exposure to new realities related to sustainability was surprising for many participants, corresponding to the fact that their existing perspectives were being challenged to accommodate new viewpoints, as illustrated by the statement of one interviewee:

Well, you know, for sure there were people who had more expertise in transportation than I do. It’s not my expertise. But being able to listen to people’s new ideas is super relevant for making progress. People knew a lot of examples. (IPW11)

After going through the workshop, participants expressed their realization that SMEs have the potential to act for sustainability and can create a ripple effect to achieve system transformations for sustainability.

A small business is as important as a big business in the context of climate change. If everyone pitches in we can move a lot. All the ideas are there. So the role of small business... [is that]...a lot of small businesses together are going to make a big change. (IPW7)

Some participants also mentioned that they have either planned or taken actions to achieve the desired sustainable future within their enterprise:

We really liked how the workshop was arranged, the interaction with the other people, how you facilitated the workshop. We even took some of the insights and applied it to our own workshop afterwards. And we used the post-its with the big sheet and everything, so we applied it to our workshop on circularity visions which was held this week. (IPW10)

I left telling myself that we [at our business] have to sit down at the table and review the same [themes] that were discussed during the workshop. For example, agriculture... because our area has a lot of agriculture, and we want to create these mini gardens and all that. The idea would be to sit down at the table and take these subjects that we discussed during the workshop ... to review them with the owner [of our business] and...see what avenues we can take soon. (IPW7)

Transformative conditions incubated by Three Horizons approach

Our analysis focused on how the THA supports transformative learning phases and revealed three themes corresponding to the transformative learning phases in all three horizons, examining how the THA (1) enabled participants to make sense of challenging situations, (2) generated experiences that helped participants to challenge established perspectives, and (3) created an innovation space conducive to producing action-oriented knowledge.

Making sense of complex situations or challenges

The data analysis revealed that the THA supported participants in making sense of complex situations. The code capturing these insights comprised participants’ statements explaining how they engaged in sense-making under uncertainty and when faced with challenging situations in the context of climate change. The focus of this code was on statements that elucidated reflections by participants. Engaging participants through the THA enabled them to articulate how they (themselves) or their businesses relate to climate change or broader sustainability aspects. In many cases, it was the first-time participants who made these explicit connections between their own experiences within the business context and climate change (or sustainability more broadly).

It [climate actions] should be about eliminating. Think about the fuel that we use and don’t talk about or the coal. We need to eliminate everything including propane. I think that would be where we could have an impact. But we are just small people. Then again I would say that with the pandemic and telecommuting, “the small” can make a big impact. (I39)

Another set of statements comprised reflections by participants about their perceived isolation and inability to take climate actions. When invited to explore future aspirations (third horizon) related to climate change, participants engaged in reflection about why they have not acted on their desires to engage in climate action in the past. These reflections focused either on participants’ perceived miniaturization of their actions (as changes within a small business would have negligible effects on addressing global climate change, or their perceived loneliness) as isolated actions by only one business would not do much to address grand challenges.

Experiences instigating challenging perspectives

Our analysis revealed how the THA created new experiences for participants, enabling them to challenge their assumptions and existing perspectives. The code capturing these insights comprised participant statements about their experiences during the workshops that allowed them to question past beliefs and assumptions. The focus of this code was on statements that recapitulated dialogues between participants or experiences, facilitated by the THA, which suggested a change in “worldview” or how the respondent thought about a topic. Engaging participants through the THA created opportunities for dialogue that helped them better understand different facets of sustainability, gain exposure to different perspectives and worldviews, and experience the benefits of discussing sustainability topics with others:

...[I]t is about becoming aware once again that it is really transversal and that people from different fields, different backgrounds are interested in similar practices. And that’s why it’s interesting to put them around the same table so that we can create something that is inspired by what is done elsewhere, then create things that are adapted to our environment. I wasn’t at the agricultural table, but the transportation and tourism discussion allowed us to get to know different things that are done elsewhere that could be useful in our area. (IPW13)

Another set of participants’ statements in the data focused on the fun and joy they experienced while engaging in the discussions facilitated by THA. Although this was not a primary emphasis of the THA, multiple participants were delighted by their participation and enjoyed the stimulating discussion during the workshops:

Well, I found it fun to have several sectors at the event. I recall that there was an art gallery that I find fun. I found it interesting to see companies from several sectors. (IPW11)

Action and innovation space

Our analysis revealed that the THA created a space for climate action planning, while fostering and connecting novel ideas and strategies for sustainability on both individual and collective fronts. The code capturing these insights comprised statements of participants that suggest how one or a combination of the three horizons generated specific outcomes. This included the impact that participation had on people as well as their newly formed aspirations to undertake actions. Notably, we observed that the THA generated tangible outcomes, such as networking among participants and bridging the geographical isolation due to the mountain in the middle of the biosphere reserve that separates settlements:

For sure I came to maybe meet companies that are located in the Saint Hilaire area. But you know, [my field] is specific to agro food ... there weren’t necessarily other people [from the agro food industry]. However, for example with my colleague, she’s more in charge of partnerships, so we met [name of the city councilor redacted]. It’s like a good contact to have for our project ... we also gave companies in agriculture our contact, which marked it interesting. (IPW11)

Yes, the workshop structure was helpful ... the people are all from around [the mountain], so it’s all people who know our area. So the topics that were brought to each table necessarily touch us.... So, I really liked that it was done like that. So yes, the workshop and the way it was prepared was very helpful and that it brought together people around the mountain. (IPW7)

Moreover, participants expressed benefits resulting from meeting like-minded people, where previously they had felt isolated without a peer group to discuss ideas and take on challenges together. Furthermore, participants’ perspectives explained the merits of discussing challenging topics, such as climate change, in the region with insights from diverse perspectives. More specifically, participants appreciated hearing from other businesses in the region and their industry specific experiences related to climate change.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of our research was to investigate whether and how the THA supports transformative learning experiences among SMEs and creates conditions conducive for transformations. The results indicated that participants of this study went through transformative learning phases that were in alignment with the transformation helical model in all three horizons. Additionally, the data analysis showed that these transformative learning phases occurred in a sequence. The participants entered our research intervention with pre-existing perspectives, which were challenged through the engaging experiences facilitated by the THA. The results suggest that participation in the THA created new experiences (disorienting dilemmas), which stimulated critical reflection and discourse among participants, prompting the challenging of existing perspectives. In the first horizon, a disorienting dilemma was provided through the interview design and reflective prompts, whereas in the second and third horizons, it was offered through workshop design and exposure to diverse perspectives. Our observation aligns with Taimur and Onuki’s (2022) study, which also demonstrated exposure to diverse perspectives as a crucial disorienting experience, followed by discourse and critical reflection, leading to perspective transformations.

Although the transformative learning phases were consistent with the transformation helical model in all three horizons, the process through which “transformations” unfolded was different for each horizon. In the first horizon, transformation appeared as participants became more reflective and open to engaging in sustainability initiatives for climate action. In the third horizon, participants became more empowered and motivated to take the lead on climate action initiatives, whereas in the second horizon (the final step in the workshop series), transformation was evident in participants’ statements articulating how SMEs could create ripple effects by planning and realizing climate action.

The various forms of transformative learning experiences that we observed in each horizon also provide insights into how the THA links individual-level transformation with reflections on system transformations. This linkage begins to form as participants become more open and reflective by the conclusion of the first horizon and it strengthens as participants start to show intentions to plan concrete actions by the end of the last horizon (second horizon). This observation also differentiates this approach from other approaches (such as design thinking or collaborative learning), as the processes generating transformative learning are not limited to an individual’s perspective transformations, but transformations could radiate into the system via concrete actions and intentions to make a difference. Following this observation, personal transformation and system transformations are connected. Whereas previous studies have argued that when an individual has truly undergone a transformation, their impact will extend to the wider social context (Mezirow 1995, Servage 2008), our findings complement these insights as we demonstrated that discussion of system-level transformations can serve as a crucial reflection point in individuals’ learning journey.

Our findings highlight the importance of exposing SMEs participating in engaged research to diverging viewpoints for stimulating transformative learning. The notion of different perspectives as a beneficial input to sustainability processes has been increasingly recognized in research (Luederitz and Etzion 2024). Most often, it is achieved by bringing together academic researchers and non-academic practitioners with the goal of producing socially robust knowledge (Lang et al. 2012). Others have highlighted the importance of nurturing agility among participants about plural perspectives to enable transformative actions (Caniglia et al. 2021, Chambers et al. 2022). Furthermore, Taimur and Onuki (2022) also emphasized incorporating diverse perspectives, from different backgrounds, as a key condition to achieve perspective transformations.

Our findings contribute to this discourse by emphasizing the importance that exposure to different perspectives holds for SMEs engaged in sustainability processes to facilitate transformative learning. During the first horizon, emerging dialogues benefited from bringing together researcher and practitioner perspectives. The transformative learning that followed enabled practitioners to question their own perspectives, increasing their willingness to reconsider assumptions and express openness for continued engagement. Our research on the second and third horizon expanded on these insights by exposing participants to a plurality of practitioner perspectives, moving beyond the dualism of academic and non-academic insights. Importantly, the focus was not to agree on a common understanding or identify a single narrative to integrate diverging perspectives. Instead, participants engaged with the diverging contributions of others through reflections, providing a reference point and perspective for their own actions. Here, the learning was enabled by participants perceiving the workshop interventions as safe spaces for exploring new perspectives, questioning beliefs of restrained opportunities, and experiencing empowerment through the shift from individual to collective agency.

The success of generating transformative learning through the THA was supported by the enjoyment SME owners experienced throughout the interventions. On multiple occasions during the data gathering as well as during informal conversations, participants expressed that aside from the substantive learnings, they experienced fun while taking part in the different activities. The notion of fun appears to be a rarely discussed facet in studies on sustainability transformation; nonetheless, the literature on pedagogy has highlighted the importance of joy and entertainment in learning approaches. Our findings show that the THA is particularly suitable for creating opportunities for collaborative fun if diverging perspectives are highlighted and engaged throughout the process. Creating meaningful connections with other participants when sharing experiences, discussing new perspectives, and contributing to the development of a group identity are key attributes of collaborative fun (Okada and Sheehy 2020). Although we did not specifically cater to joy and entertainment in the design of our three horizon interventions, our findings do suggest that learning experiences could be elevated through such considerations, especially if other aspects of enjoyment, such as intrinsic fun (the acquisition of skill and mastery; Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi 2000), individual fun (the realization of fulfilling achievements; Buckley and Ollenburg 2013), and emancipatory fun (the development of critical awareness and curiosity; Okada et al. 2023), are considered to enhance transformative learning approaches. Future research could extend this line of inquiry to elaborate on the role of different notions of fun in supporting transformative learning outcomes.

Implications

As a method, the current study provides evidence that the THA enables transformative learning experiences. Each horizon was designed differently to facilitate processes that could support transformations; therefore, the outcomes of transformative learning (transformations) were different in each horizon. Previous studies have also reported multiple and diverse outcomes of transformative learning. For example, reflection and reconstruction of perspectives, values, and norms are among the outcomes reported in the literature where learners become compassionate and empathetic (Young and Karme 2015) and importance is given to social justice and environmental resources (Moyer and Sinclair 2020). Similarly, worldview and perspective transformation (Feriver et al. 2016, Papenfuss and Merritt 2019, Taimur and Onuki 2022) and experiencing self-awareness (Papenfuss and Merritt 2019, Taimur et al. 2022) are other outcomes reported in the literature.

The first horizon was organized as interviews with the participants, and this allowed effective (initial) engagement of SMEs with the THA. Previous studies, including Collste et al. (2023) and Schaal et al. (2023), which employed the THA to explore pathways toward sustainable futures, used workshops to implement the approach rather than interviews. In our case, transformative learning during the first horizon led participants to become more reflective and open to engage in climate action (i.e., transformation). Multiple studies have identified interventions to embed transformative learning, but what comes before individuals engage with transformative learning has not been explored deeply. The results of the current study show that the interviews conducted during the first horizon supported participants to become open to or willing to engage in transformative learning experiences. Taimur et al. (2022) identified that when individuals start engaging in the transformative learning process (for example, in transdisciplinary settings), it is not easy for them initially, but their willingness to engage keeps improving as facilitators support individuals to reflect and become involved in critical discourses.

The second and third horizons were organized as workshops. The third horizon was organized as an online workshop amid the COVID-19 pandemic and the second horizon was organized as an in-person workshop when such events were feasible again. The impacts of the pandemic allowed us to rethink and re-design the third horizon of the THA to encourage transformative learning while incorporating technology-enhanced modes of engagement. Even in the virtual settings, the learning processes facilitated during the third horizon supported transformative learning among participants without complex structural changes. However, it would be interesting to explore how participants’ transformations would unfold if the third horizon were organized as an in-person workshop or if the second horizon were also organized as an online workshop.

The results of the study show that the THA provides a structured and meaningful way to connect individual-level transformations to system transformations, while contributing to the growing body of literature on pathways toward positive (sustainable) futures (Pereira et al. 2018, Schaal et al. 2023). Therefore, if the goal is to empower SME owners to drive sustainability initiatives, and particularly climate actions within their organizations, utilizing the THA can facilitate transformative change rather than just imparting knowledge or instilling anxiety about sustainability challenges related to climate change.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that the Three Horizons approach can support transformative learning experiences. The THA has gained increased attention among transformation scholars and workshop facilitators to support transformative learning outcomes among diverse participants. Yet, why these learning outcomes are observed and how the THA needs to be designed to cater to and support transformative learning experiences remained undertheorized. In this study, we strengthened the procedural focus of the THA with insights from transformative learning theory to better understand its influence on transformative learning processes.

Our results show that combining the THA with a dedicated learning framework presents an effective way to support research participants to engage with individual-level transformations. We theorize that this support is realized by employing the THA to create three enabling conditions and by making two procedural adjustments to its facilitation. First, we enabled participants to become meaningfully involved with individual-level change by ensuring trust among participants and researchers and providing a safe space to engage with novel and at times uncomfortable experiences. Second, we strengthened participants’ ability to reflect and gain confidence in their own learning journey by creating encounters with diverse perspectives on the realization of sustainability. Third, our facilitation created opportunities for participants to feel entertained and experience fun and joy, supporting their commitment to open themselves to learning and explore new discourses. We argue that creation of these supportive conditions was ensured by organizing the THA as three discrete interventions and facilitating the first horizon through interviews and the second and 3^rd horizon through workshops. This allowed us to build rapport with participants and learn about their challenges with and perspectives on climate actions before facilitating engagement among participants and their diverse perspectives. Importantly, strengthening the THA with insights from the transformation helical mode (which suggests transformative learning as a cyclical process) enabled our facilitation to focus on participants’ continuous learning across the three horizons instead of narrowly centering on shared experiences.

Our study provides new insights into how the THA supports transformative learning. Although transformative learning theory suggests three sequential learning phases (forming experience-based assumptions, challenging perspectives, and engaging with perspective transformations) they unfolded distinctively in each horizon. For example, during the first and third horizons participants engaged with perspective transformations as they became open to new perspectives and inspired to take action to address climate change. During the second horizon, participants developed plans for concrete actions and intentions to make a difference, enabling reflections on system transformations.

Our research demonstrates the potential of employing theory-informed insights to strengthen the procedural focus of the THA and guide its facilitation to support transformative learning and create conditions conducive to sustainability transformations.

__________

^[1] Ethical considerations:
Because the research included human participants, ethical measures were implemented by obtaining informed consent from all participants. This involved providing participants with details about their involvement in the research, research procedures, purpose, voluntary nature of participation, confidentiality measures, as well as potential benefits and risks. Additionally, the research was reviewed and approved by a McGill University ethics committee. Data collected through this research have been anonymized and securely stored.

LITERATURE CITED

Adhikari, B., and L. S. Safaee Chalkasra. 2021. Mobilizing private sector investment for climate action: enhancing ambition and scaling up implementation. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment 13(2):1110-1127. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2021.1917929

Ayyagari, M., T. Beck, and A. Demirguc-Kunt. 2007. Small and medium enterprises across the globe. Small Business Economics 29:415-434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-9002-5

Baghai, M., S. Coley, and D. White. 1999. The alchemy of growth. Basic Books, New York, New York, USA.

Boyatzis, R. E. 1998. Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2012. Thematic analysis. Pages 57-71 in H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, and K. J. Sher, editors. APA handbook of research methods in psychology. Volume 2. Research designs: quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological. American Psychological Association.

Buckley, R., and C. Ollenburg. 2013. Tacit knowledge transfer: cross-cultural adventure. Annals of Tourism Research 40:419-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.08.010

Burch, S., M. Andrachuk, D. Carey, N. Frantzeskaki, H. Schroeder, N. Mischkowski, and D. Loorbach. 2016. Governing and accelerating transformative entrepreneurship: exploring the potential for small business innovation on urban sustainability transitions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 22:26-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.04.002

Caniglia, G., C. Luederitz, T. von Wirth, I. Fazey, B. Martín-López, K. Hondrila, A. König, H. von Wehrden, N. A. Schäpke, M. D. Laubichler, and D. J. Lang. 2021. A pluralistic and integrated approach to action-oriented knowledge for sustainability. Nature Sustainability 4:93-100. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00616-z

Chambers, J. M., C. Wyborn, N. L. Klenk, M. Ryan, A. Serban, N. J. Bennett, R. Brennan, L. Charli-Joseph, M. E. Fernández-Giménez, K. A. Galvin, et al. 2022. Co-productive agility and four collaborative pathways to sustainability transformations. Global Environmental Change 72:102422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102422

Climate Smart. 2018. 200 million tonnes of opportunity - how small and medium sized businesses can drive Canada’s clean economy. https://businessinsurrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2018-02-Climate-Smart-SME-200M-Tonnes.pdf

Collste, D., A. P. D . Aguiar, Z. V. Harmáčková, D. Galafassi, L. M. Pereira, O. Selomane, and S. van Der Leeuw. 2023. Participatory pathways to the Sustainable Development Goals: inviting divergent perspectives through a cross-scale systems approach. Environmental Research Communications 5:055014. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/acce25

Curry, A., and A. Hodgson. 2008. Seeing in multiple horizons: connecting futures to strategy. Journal of Futures Studies 13(1):1-20.

DiBella, J., N. Forrest, S. Burch, J. Rao‐Williams, S. M. Ninomiya, V. Hermelingmeier, and K. Chisholm. 2023. Exploring the potential of SMEs to build individual, organizational, and community resilience through sustainability‐oriented business practices. Business Strategy and the Environment 32(1):721-735. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3171

Edge, S., and M. L. McAllister. 2009. Place-based local governance and sustainable communities: lessons from Canadian biosphere reserves. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 52(3):279-295. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560802703058

Fazey, I., N. Schäpke, G. Caniglia, A. Hodgson, I. Kendrick, C. Lyon, G. Page, J. Patterson, C. Riedy, T. Strasser, et al. 2020. Transforming knowledge systems for life on Earth: visions of future systems and how to get there. Energy Research & Social Science 70:101724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101724

Feriver, Ş., G. Teksöz, R. Olgan, and A. Reid. 2016. Training early childhood teachers for sustainability: towards a ‛learning experience of a different kind.’ Environmental Education Research 22(5):717-746. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1027883

Ferraro, F., D. Etzion, and J. Gehman. 2015. Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: robust action revisited. Organization Studies 36(3):363-390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614563742

Folke, C., R. Biggs, A. V. Norström, B. Reyers, and J. Rockström. 2016. Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecology and Society 21(3):41. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08748-210341

Frame, B., and J. Brown. 2008. Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability. Ecological Economics 65(2):225-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.11.010

Harmáčková, Z. V., L. Blättler, A. P. D. Aguiar, J. Daněk, P. Krpec, and D. Vačkářová. 2022. Linking multiple values of nature with future impacts: value-based participatory scenario development for sustainable landscape governance. Sustainability Science 17:849-864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00953-8

Hulme, M. 2009. Why we disagree about climate change: understanding controversy, in action and opportunity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511841200

Jiren, T. S., M. Riechers, R. Kansky, and J. Fischer. 2021. Participatory scenario planning to facilitate human-wildlife coexistence. Conservation Biology 35(6):1957-1965. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13725

Kläy, A., A. B. Zimmermann, and F. Schneider. 2015. Rethinking science for sustainable development: reflexive interaction for a paradigm transformation. Futures 65:72-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.10.012

Lang, D. J., A. Wiek, M. Bergmann, M. Stauffacher, P. Martens, P. Moll, M. Swilling, and C. J. Thomas. 2012. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science 7:25-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

Luederitz, C., and D. Etzion. 2024. Generativity as a heuristic for impact-driven scholars addressing grand challenges. Strategic Organization. https://doi.org/10.1177/14761270241239137

Luederitz, C., A. Animesh, K. Rohrbacher, T. Li, A. Piper, C. Potvin, and D. Etzion. 2023a. Non-monetary narratives motivate businesses to engage with climate change. Sustainability Science 18:2649–2660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01386-1

Luederitz, C., L. Westman, A. Mercado, A. Kundurpi, and S. L. Burch. 2023b. Conceptualizing the potential of entrepreneurship to shape urban sustainability transformations. Urban Transformations 5(3). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42854-023-00048-w

Mezirow, J. 1978. Perspective transformation. Adult Education 28(2):100-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171367802800202

Mezirow, J. 1990. Fostering critical reflection in adulthood. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California, USA.

Mezirow, J. 1991. Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California, USA.

Mezirow, J. 1995. Transformation theory of adult learning. In M. Welton, editor. In defense of the lifeworld. State University of New York Press, Albany, New York, USA.

Mezirow, J. 1997. Transformation theory out of context. Adult Education Quarterly 48(1):60-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171369704800105

Mezirow, J. 1998. On critical reflection. Adult Education Quarterly 48(3):185-198. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171369804800305

Mezirow, J. 2000. Learning as transformation: critical perspectives on a theory in progress. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, California, USA.

Mezirow, J. 2003. Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative Education 1(1):58-63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344603252172

Moyer, J. M., and A. J. Sinclair. 2020. Learning for sustainability: considering pathways to transformation. Adult Education Quarterly 70(4):340-359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713620912219

Nerstrom, N. 2014. An emerging model for transformative learning. New Prairie Press, Illinois, USA. https://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3329&context=aerc

Okada, A., and K. Sheehy. 2020. Factors and recommendations to support students’ enjoyment of online learning with fun: a mixed method study during COVID-19. Frontiers in Education 5:584351. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.584351

Okada, A., K. P. de Souza, M. Struchiner, C. Rabello, and L. Q. da Rosa. 2022. Open schooling to empower Brazilian teachers: emancipatory fun in education for a sustainable innovation ecosystem. Pages 234-248 in A. Holliman and K. Sheehy, editors. Overcoming adversity in education. Routledge, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003180029-21

Palinkas, L. A., S. M. Horwitz, C. A. Green, J. P. Wisdom, N. Duan, and K. Hoagwood. 2015. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 42:533-544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y

Papenfuss, J., and E. Merritt. 2019. Pedagogical laboratories: a case study of transformative sustainability education in an ecovillage context. Sustainability 11(14):3880. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143880

Patton, M. Q. 2002. Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: a personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work 1(3):261-283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325002001003636

Pereira, L. M., T. Karpouzoglou, N. Frantzeskaki, and P. Olsson. 2018. Designing transformative spaces for sustainability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 23(4):32. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10607-230432

Proust, K., B. Newell, H. Brown, A. Capon, C. Browne, A. Burton, J. Dixon, L. Mu, and M. Zarafu. 2012. Human health and climate change: leverage points for adaptation in urban environments. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 9(6):2134-2158. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9062134

Rodríguez Aboytes, J. G., and M. Barth. 2020. Transformative learning in the field of sustainability: a systematic literature review (1999-2019). International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 21(5):993-1013. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-05-2019-0168

Sardar, Z. 2010. Welcome to postnormal times. Futures 42(5):435-444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.028

Schaal, T., M. Mitchell, B. C. Scheele, P. Ryan, and J. Hanspach. 2023. Using the three horizons approach to explore pathways towards positive futures for agricultural landscapes with rich biodiversity. Sustainability Science 18:1271–1289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01275-z

Schaltegger, S., M. Beckmann, and K. Hockerts. 2018. Sustainable entrepreneurship: creating environmental solutions in light of planetary boundaries. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing 10(1):1-16. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEV.2018.090990

Seligman, M. E. P., and M. Csikszentmihalyi. 2000. Positive psychology: an introduction. Pages 279-298 in M. Csikszentmihalyi. Flow and the foundations of positive psychology. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9088-8_18

Servage, L. 2008. Critical and transformative practices in professional learning communities. Teacher Education Quarterly 35(1):63-77.

Sharpe, B., and A. Hodgson. 2006. Intelligent infrastructure futures: technology forward look. Foresight Directorate, UK Dept of Trade & Industry, London, UK.

Sharpe, B., A. Hodgson, G. Leicester, A. Lyon, and I. Fazey. 2016. Three horizons: a pathways practice for transformation. Ecology and Society 21(2):47. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08388-210247

Silverman, D. 2005. September. Instances or sequences? Improving the state of the art of qualitative research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6(3).

Stewart, I., M. A. Capello, H. Mouri, K. Mhopjeni, and M. Raji. 2023. Three horizons for future geoscience. Earth Science, Systems and Society 3:10079. https://doi.org/10.3389/esss.2023.10079

Taimur, S., and M. Onuki. 2022. Design thinking as digital transformative pedagogy in higher sustainability education: cases from Japan and Germany. International Journal of Educational Research 114:101994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.101994

Taimur, S., M. Onuki, and H. Mursaleen. 2022. Exploring the transformative potential of design thinking pedagogy in hybrid setting: a case study of field exercise course, Japan. Asia Pacific Education Review 23:571-593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-022-09776-3

Taylor, E. W. 1997. Building upon the theoretical debate: a critical review of the empirical studies of Mezirow’s transformative learning theory. Adult Education Quarterly 48(1):34-59. https://doi.org/10.1177/074171369704800104

Westman, L., C. Luederitz, A. Kundurpi, A. J. Mercado, O. Weber, and S. L. Burch. 2019. Conceptualizing businesses as social actors: a framework for understanding sustainability actions in small‐and medium‐sized enterprises. Business Strategy and the Environment 28(2):388-402. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2256

Wicks, A., and M. Jamieson. 2014. New ways for occupational scientists to tackle “wicked problems” impacting population health. Journal of Occupational Science 21(1):81-85. https://doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2014.878208

Williams, S., and A. Schaefer. 2013. Small and medium‐sized enterprises and sustainability: managers’ values and engagement with environmental and climate change issues. Business Strategy and the Environment 22(3):173-186. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1740

Winkler, K. J., and J. Hauck. 2019. Landscape stewardship for a German UNESCO Biosphere Reserve: a network approach to establishing stewardship governance. Ecology and Society 24(3):12. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10982-240312

Young, S., and T. Karme. 2015. Service learning in an Indigenous not-for-profit organization. Education + Training 57(7):774-790. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-04-2014-0041

---

---