Revista de economía mundial 67, 2024, 51-70

ISSN: 1576-0162

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.33776/rem.vi67.8090

A ‘TrAnsformATion CompAss’ for soCiAl And solidAriTy

EConomy iniTiATivEs in ThEir TrAnsiTion TowArds posTgrowTh

Una ‘brújUla de transformación’ para las iniciativas de economía

social y solidaria en sU transición hacia el postcrecimiento

Ekhi Atutxa Ordeñana

Universidad de Deusto

ekhi.atutxa@deusto.es

Mario Damborenea Iglesias

Erasmus University Rotterdam

mario.dambor@gmail.com

Xabier Mendizabal Leiñena

Universidad de Deusto

xabier.mendizabal@deusto.es

Recibido: diciembre 2023; aceptado: abril 2024

AbsTrACT

The current climate crisis and global inequalities trigger intense debates on

the need of achieving socioecological transitions towards environmentally and

socially just scenarios. In this context, the Social and Solidarity Economy and

Postgrowth paradigms could play a major role in leading these transitions. The

strong convergence between their principles opens the door for this article’s

main contribution: a Transformation Compass. This tool allows Social and

Solidarity Economy initiatives to approach a Postgrowth economy through a

well-deﬁned matrix, which incorporates Hinton’s (2021) characterization of

postgrowth businesses. In addition, this Compass helps to assess the factors

and dimensions that affect different initiatives during this process.

Keywords: Transformation; Compass; Postgrowth; Social Solidarity

Economy; Socioecological Transition.

rEsumEn

La actual crisis climática y las desigualdades globales desencadenan

intensos debates sobre la necesidad de alcanzar transiciones socioecológicas

hacia escenarios ambiental y socialmente justos. En este contexto, los

paradigmas de la Economía Social y Solidaria y del Postcrecimiento podrían

desempeñar un papel fundamental a la hora de liderar estas transiciones. La

fuerte convergencia entre sus principios abre la puerta a la principal contribución

de este artículo: una Brújula de la Transformación. Esta herramienta permite

a las iniciativas de Economía Social y Solidaria acercarse a la economía

del Postcrecimiento a través de una matriz bien deﬁnida, que incorpora la

caracterización de Hinton (2021) de las empresas postcrecentistas. Además,

esta brújula ayuda a evaluar los factores y dimensiones que afectan a las

distintas iniciativas durante este proceso.

Palabras clave: Transformación; Brújula; Postcrecimiento; Economía Social

y Solidaria; Transición Socioecológica.

JEL Classiﬁcation/ Clasiﬁcación JEL: B52, D23, P48

Revista de economía mundial 67, 2024, 51-70

1. inTroduCTion

Progress in eco-social transition processes demands a deep reassessment

of our current stance on economics, the environment, and social justice (Cigna

et al., 2023; Krause et al., 2022). While various alternative economies are

in existence, not all of them explicitly underscore the radical transformations

essential for long-lasting sustainability (Zademach & Hillebrand, 2013).

Recognizing the challenges of surpassing six out of the nine planetary

boundaries (Richardson et al., 2023), addressing intra- and intergenerational

inequities, challenging the prevailing inﬂuence of values such as consumerism,

and mitigating the growing global and local disparities (Knappe & Renn, 2022;

Martin et al., 2016; Summers & Smith, 2014) allows us to distinguish those

alternatives that have the potential to truly steer us towards socially and

environmentally just scenarios.

This conclusion also emerges from the recently published study Beyond

Growth: Pathways towards Sustainable Prosperity in the EU, coordinated by

Jensen under the auspices of a conference held at the European Parliament

in May of 2023. Faced with sluggish economic growth and daunting climate

challenges, the European Union and other advanced economies are opening

a window to reexamining their economic narratives and seek a more

comprehensive understanding of the ingredients of socio-economic progress

(Jensen et al., 2023). To such an extent that, in the pursuit of transcending

traditional growth models and nurturing sustainable prosperity within the

European Union, the study underlines the need to focus on and promote

paradigms such as ‘Postgrowth’ (hereafter PG).

This is the juncture where the importance of this research comes into focus.

While PG has generally been studied at the macroeconomic level, there’s still

a signiﬁcant journey ahead in exploring how it can be effectively implemented

(Nesterova, 2020). Moreover, when it comes to designing and targeting public

policies, the challenge of differentiating between economic activities and

initiatives that steer us towards the mentioned socially and ecologically just

outcomes remains highly complex (Hinton, 2021). In particular, the European

Parliament’s study (Jensen et al., 2023) highlights this as a strategic area for

research and focus: on which dimensions of an initiative should we focus on to

facilitate the progress of socio-ecological transition processes? What are the

implications of focusing on some dimensions over others? This research aims

to provide deeper insights into these questions.

54 Ekhi Atutxa Ordeñana · Mario Damborenea Iglesias · Xabier Mendizabal Leiñena

Furthermore, it contributes to and enhances other major research projects

funded by the European Commission, such as the one secured by such as

the one secured by the Institute of Science and Environmental Technology

from the Autonomous University of Barcelona ICTA-UAB (2022), which, in the

coming years will “investigate how to move beyond the growth-based economy

and ensure both social well-being and planetary sustainability” (para. 1). More

precisely, in line with initiatives such as this, the present research clariﬁes how

initiatives within the ‘Social and Solidarity Economy’ (hereafter SSE) have the

potential to facilitate the indispensable processes for the eco-social transition,

ultimately leading to the realization of a PG economy.

The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the methods

used. Section 3 presents the main outcomes, which include the alignment of

paradigms with the constructed Compass, along with its practical applicability.

Finally, Section 4 discusses the core concepts, recognizes potential constraints,

and suggests avenues for future research.

2. mEThodology

Through an exhaustive analysis of the work of inﬂuential researchers

(Coraggio, 2011; Fitzpatrick et al., 2022; Hickel et al., 2022; Nesterova,

2020; Paech, 2017; Parrique et al., 2019), we have articulated and compared

the normative and applied principles that underpin both paradigms – the PG

and SSE. These paradigms have the potential to serve as guiding beacons,

orchestrating scientiﬁc research endeavors within the domain of socio-

ecological transition processes. This method of comparison in itself serves as a

framework that facilitates the identiﬁcation of practices that may play a crucial

role in catalyzing eco-social transitions, driven by the impetus of PG processes.

By revealing the intricate interplay and connections between these paradigms,

and by building on Hinton’s (2021) work, we have been able to develop the

Transformation Compass for a nuanced understanding of the PG potential

inherent in the range of initiatives embodied in the SSE.

The development of this Transformation Compass is grounded on an

extensive literature review, aimed at synthesizing existing theories and

practices from the SSE and PG paradigms. This comprehensive review sought

to identify key principles and challenges of ecosocial transitions, drawing on a

wide range of academic articles, case studies and theoretical frameworks. The

process involved a critical analysis of the literature to distil key insights and

patterns that could inform the conceptualization of the compass. Emphasizing

the bridge between theoretical knowledge and practical application, the

review adopted an iterative process of conceptualization. This meant revisiting

and reﬁning our understanding of the literature as the framework of the tool

began to take shape, ensuring that the compass was both rooted in strong

theoretical foundations and had clear implications for practical application in

SSE initiatives. This iterative approach facilitated a deep engagement with the

A ‘TrAnsformATion CompAss’ for soCiAl And solidAriTy EConomy iniTiATivEs in ThEir TrAnsiTion ...

rEvisTA dE EConomíA mundiAl 67, 2024, 51-70

material and allowed for the nuanced integration of different perspectives and

insights into the tool’s design.

Furthermore, while the Transformation Compass is a product of theoretical

exploration, its practical applications discussed here are intended to illustrate

its potential utility. Future work will focus on empirical testing and validation to

conﬁrm its effectiveness and applicability in real-world settings.

3. rEsulTs

3.1 AlignmEnT And ConsisTEnCy bETwEEn normATivE And AppliEd prinCiplEs of

ThE ssE And ThE pg EConomy

As noted above, the current state of environmental degradation, climate

change and the subsequent approach to planetary limits is largely caused

by human actions (IPCC, 2021). Therefore, it is necessary to reﬂect on the

appropriateness of the classical economic paradigm (or shareholder paradigm)

that has dominated the public debate for much of the 20th century and the

advent of the 21st century, championing the idea of accelerated growth in

economic value alongside human production and consumption as a path to

planetary development (Friedman, 1962; Groth et al., 1996; Laffer et al.,

2011).

In this context, a transition that allows moving from the neoclassical

framework of growth towards a PG society, which proposes a reduction and

adaptation of human production and consumption to the biophysical limits

of the planet, becomes especially important. For this reason, the study and

incorporation of alternative movements and paradigms related to development

is a fundamental element that will serve to know how the transitional process

could be carried out.

Building on the previous premises, this article aims to analyze the

contribution of a paradigm such as SSE makes in order to achieve a PG society.

The SSE can be deﬁned as a collective action project aimed at counteracting

the socially negative tendencies of the existing system, with the real or

potential perspective of building an alternative economic system that is based

on the reproduction and development of life (RIPESS, 2015). In this paradigm,

solidarity is undoubtedly a supreme moral value, a willingness to recognize and

care for others through cooperation and the collective sharing of resources and

responsibilities (Coraggio et al., 2016).

The previous SSE narrative would be at odds with the traditional pro-growth

paradigms, which are increasingly being contested by a growing proportion of

the world’s population and their countries (Hickel et al., 2022). Nevertheless,

there seems to be a consensus that the transition to a PG society will not

be straightforward and simple (Taibo, 2021). Therefore, merely examining

the SSE’s contributions to the Sustainable Development Goals is insufﬁcient

(Villalba-Eguiluz et al., 2020). The PG, by adopting a different path to the very

historical conceptualization of the idea of development (Unceta, 2009), also

56 Ekhi Atutxa Ordeñana · Mario Damborenea Iglesias · Xabier Mendizabal Leiñena

requires the SSE to elaborate new ways of thinking about how they are de facto

an alternative (Santos, 2017). This involves developing new frameworks and

tools, such as the one presented, to understand how SSE practices can align

with and promote PG paradigms.

For the necessary socio-environmental transition to gain momentum, SSE

could be considered in conjunction with other paradigms that share theoretical

and practical similarities. More precisely, the movement of ‘degrowth’

represents a complementary paradigm to both PG and SSE, as it emphasizes

the need for an alternative vision of the economy and human needs in order to

adapt the economic activity to the biophysical and environmental limits of our

planet, (Galli et al., 2007; Hickel, 2021). From a socio-economic perspective,

degrowth would seek “a more equitable distribution of existing resources” and

perceived income (Hickel, 2019, p. 12).

Indeed, in PG, after the appropriate transition, businesses should already

be operating under sufﬁciency, sustainability, and not-for-proﬁt objectives

(Hinton, 2021). In this new paradigm, human relationships, cooperation, and

consideration for non-human life will be the cornerstones of people’s lives.

The state will ensure that education of the population will cement the survival

of this PG mentality, taming any potential impulse to return to the previous

unsustainable pro-growth stage (Nesterova, 2020). In this sense, PG could

be considered as the long-term goal of degrowth principles, and thus the

majority of degrowth principles would become ideal characteristics of future

PG societies, if the transitions are carried out properly and simultaneously

across societies.

We take the plural form as different transitions (social, environmental,

economic, etc.) ought to take place in order to attain an ideal future PG

state. However, despite the important theoretical robustness of the degrowth

paradigm (Fitzpatrick et al., 2022; Hickel, 2019; Nesterova, 2020), its practical

implementation is challenging due to the reluctance by different actors (ﬁrms,

citizens, states) to part with the dominant social and economic development

model of recent decades (Taibo, 2021). Despite these difﬁculties, we argue

that degrowth principles should play an important role by acting as a beacon

of change in the current planetary transitions.

As previously shown, the degrowth and PG paradigms share a wide range

of similarities (Nesterova, 2020). Indeed, in the following table we mention the

normative and applied principles of PG societies (also shared with degrowth)

identiﬁed by Paech (2017) and relate them to the normative and applied

principles of SSE (Coraggio, 2011). This comprehensive comparison not only

facilitates self-diagnosis for organizations and communities, but also provides

a framework for developing responses to PG transition pathways.

In the case of the ﬁrst set of principles, the institutional innovation of PG

would be directly related to the principles of democratic government of SSE.

More speciﬁcally, PG’s institutional innovation refers to the transformative

potential that the adoption of a culture of degrowth should have both at the

company and at the social level. However, in order to be able to adopt these

A ‘TrAnsformATion CompAss’ for soCiAl And solidAriTy EConomy iniTiATivEs in ThEir TrAnsiTion ...

rEvisTA dE EConomíA mundiAl 67, 2024, 51-70

principles, it is necessary to develop autonomy, freedom and democracy, both

at the level of the organizations and society as a whole. In this regard, education

can be seen as a useful tool in the creation of free, equal, and critically aware

human beings in order to carry out processes of future transformations towards

sustainable and PG societies.

Concerning the second set of principles, both paradigms are strongly

focused on the development of people’s capabilities. The search for the

satisfaction of people’s needs as opposed to economic proﬁt, the promotion

TAblE 1: normATivE And AppliEd prinCiplEs of pg And ssE

PG normative pr. PG applied pr. SSE normative pr. SSE applied pr.

1. Institutional

innovation

1.1. Fostering a business cul-

ture that does not prioritize

growth

1. Democratic

government

1.1. Freedom of adherence and volun-

tary cooperation

1.2. Gradual adoption of

a PG social culture (role of

education)

1.2. Independent decision-making from

public administrations

1.3. Non-exploitation and non-discrimi-

nation of people

1.4. Regulation of markets

1.5. Democratic and participating

processes

1.6. Transparence and democratic

control

2. Development of

people´s capacities

2.1. Reduced working hours

to develop social skills

2. People´s

autonomy

2.1. Employment for all people

2.2. Development of own pro-

duction in essential goods

2.3. Care and promotion of

relational goods 2.2. Access of workers to different

forms of knowledge and production

means

2.4. Pursuit of voluntary self-

limitation

3. Sufﬁciency

3.1. Reduction in the use of

inputs and wastes in carrying

out economic activity 3. Care towards

people and planet

3.1. Socially and environmentally

sustainable goals and behavior

3.2. Primacy of social and environmen-

tal goals

3.2. Protection from envi-

ronmental impacts on the

most vulnerable groups and

individuals

3.3. Defending human and environ-

mental rights

3.4. Innovation and sustainable

technologies

4. Regional

economy

4.1. Local production

4. Equity, solidar-

ity, and interde-

pendence

4.1. Cooperation between SSE initia-

tives

4.2. Supporting the local

economy

4.2. Reciprocity and redistribution

between people and communities

4.3. Local community and territory

development

Source: Adapted principles from Coraggio (2011) and Paech (2017).

58 Ekhi Atutxa Ordeñana · Mario Damborenea Iglesias · Xabier Mendizabal Leiñena

of social relations through measures such as work-life balance and reduction

of working hours, the importance of activities that do not depend on economic

exchange such as self-production and self-consumption, and the search for

voluntary self-limitation are those principles applied to this end. As it can

be seen, under both paradigms, businesses’ mission would evolve from

organizations focused on obtaining an economic surplus for the shareholder

to organizations committed to the development of its stakeholders in different

areas (social, emotional, environmental and not only economic).

In relation to the third set of principles, the PG’s principles of sufﬁciency and

regional economy would be linked within the block of care towards people and

planet. Regarding sufﬁciency, its applied principles consisting of the reduction

of both inputs and waste from economic activity, as well as the protection of

environmental impacts, show a direct similarity to socially and environmentally

responsible behavior, goals and technologies, as well as the defense of human

and environmental rights. In the case of the regional economy, its applied

principles that consist of encouraging and supporting local production may

have a direct similarity to the development of the local community. Meanwhile,

cooperation between social economy initiatives, reciprocity and redistribution

between people and communities would show a sufﬁcient but not direct

relationship with PG’s ﬁrst normative principle about institutional innovation.

In essence, the complementarity and similarity of principles between PG

and SSE paradigms reinforce their important role in the transition towards

a PG scenario. This dialogue between principles represents a necessary and

unavoidable condition for the subsequent establishment of the dimensions,

factors and typologies to be fulﬁlled by those companies that aspire to

assume an ideally PG character. Nonetheless, a plethora of different actors like

businesses, public administrations and transnational organizations will need to

be involved to widen the scope of this dialogue and to accelerate the transition

towards a long-lasting PG society.

3.2 A TrAnsformATion CompAss: disCovEring ThE wAys in whiCh ssE iniTiATivEs

Could bE idEAl wiTh pg

At the macro level, the establishment of the normative and applied

principles of the PG economy on the one hand and the SSE on the other,

followed by their comparison and the identiﬁcation of points of convergence

and divergence, could be inferred as an instrumental outcome of the research

itself. However, this task is primarily a necessary step to move forward in the

micro level through the creation of a Transformation Compass that would aid SSE

initiatives in approaching PG and, consequently, advancing in socioecological

transition processes.

The research at the macro level has enabled us to understand that SSE

initiatives and the normative and applied principles they advocate and promote

are closely aligned with those of PG. However, this awareness and convergence

between frameworks alone are not sufﬁcient to effectively progress towards

A ‘TrAnsformATion CompAss’ for soCiAl And solidAriTy EConomy iniTiATivEs in ThEir TrAnsiTion ...

rEvisTA dE EConomíA mundiAl 67, 2024, 51-70

these future scenarios. It is essential to develop tools at the micro level that

empower SSE initiatives (as well as others established in different paradigms) to

(a) access more comprehensive information about the dimensions inﬂuencing

this task and (b) to comprehend the ease or difﬁculty of making progress in

these dimensions. The proposed Transformation Compass serves this purpose.

It enables initiatives to make more informed and consistent decisions while

also increasing their understanding of the implications of those decisions.

3.3 undErsTAnding ThE TrAnsformATion CompAss

The subsequent subsections elucidate the dimensions, typologies, and

factors underpinning the construction of the Transformation Compass, which is

visually represented in Figure 1.

horizonTAl Axis: fivE kEy dimEnsions of pg businEss

Moving from the macro to the micro level of analysis and taking an

institutional approach, the following ﬁve dimensions deﬁned by Hinton (2021)

are the ones that should be taken into account more by businesses and

policy makers in order to advance towards PG societies. Besides being more

accessible for self-diagnosis, their applied formulation is closer to the business

activity and its dynamics. Focused on institutional aspects, such as property

rights, the purpose and goals of business or whether they are legally binding,

Hinton (2021) identiﬁes these ﬁve key dimensions:

• ‘Relationship-to-proﬁt’: also referred to as the legal or organizational

structure, pertains to the legal categorization distinguishing between

for-proﬁt and not-for-proﬁt businesses.

• ‘Incorporation structure’: also known as the corporate or legal form,

signiﬁes the speciﬁc legal entity under which a company is established

and granted legal existence.

• ‘Governance’: encompasses the rules, norms, procedures, and

mechanisms governing decision-making within a business. It focuses

on how and by whom decisions are made, as well as who is excluded

from this decision-making process.

• ‘Strategy’: involves the utilization of businesses resources to fulﬁll its

mission. This encompasses elements such as business management,

planning and business practices.

• ‘Size and geographical scope’: delineate how large or small a business

is and whether it operates primarily on a local or global scale.

These ﬁve key dimensions of a company make up the horizontal axis of the

PG compass proposed in this research. The inﬂuence and alteration of these

dimensions represent a closer or further departure from the characteristics

that a PG initiative should embody.

60 Ekhi Atutxa Ordeñana · Mario Damborenea Iglesias · Xabier Mendizabal Leiñena

firsT vErTiCAl Axis: ThrEE diffErEnT TypEs of businEss And ThEir inTErsECTion wiTh

ThE fivE dimEnsions

In alignment with the importance given to Hinton’s (2021) work by the

European Parliamentary Research Service (Jensen et al., 2023), the ﬁrst

vertical axis of the compass is composed of three types of businesses in which

all existing entities within an economy could be categorized: (a) Growth-Driving,

(b) Potentially Compatible with PG Transition Pathways, and (c) Ideally suited

for PG economies.

Here, another scientiﬁc contribution of this paper arises from the intersection

of these ﬁve horizontally aligned dimensions with the three vertically positioned

business types. Within the 15 quadrants resulting from this intersection, we

delineate the characteristics that each type of business exhibits in each of the

ﬁve dimensions. For this purpose, the previous work for the deﬁnition of the

normative and applied principles of a PG Economy was used. For instance, in

the ‘Relationship-to-proﬁt’ dimension, a Growth-Driving business is primarily

focused on maximizing shareholder value (shareholder approach), a business

Potentially Compatible with PG has integrated consideration for the interests

and needs of various stakeholders (stakeholder approach), and a business

Ideally Suited for PG economies views its activities as a contribution to

society at large based on principles of social and ecological justice and strong

figurE 1: ThE dimEnsions, TypologiEs, And fACTors Comprising ThE TrAnsformATion CompAss

Source: Own elaboration based on Hinton (2021).

A ‘TrAnsformATion CompAss’ for soCiAl And solidAriTy EConomy iniTiATivEs in ThEir TrAnsiTion ...

rEvisTA dE EConomíA mundiAl 67, 2024, 51-70

sustainability on the basis of the Common good approach the Common good

approach (Salustri, 2020).

Based on the normative and applied principles of PG and SSE that have

been distilled previously, we can conclude that the initiatives within the latter

category consistently fall into the types of businesses classiﬁed as Potentially

Compatible with PG or Ideally Suited for PG economies (the two red shaded rows

in Figure 1). The implications of this assertion are signiﬁcant. In alignment with

other researchers (Quiroz-Niño & Murga-Menoyo, 2017; Villalba-Eguiluz et al.,

2023, 2020), it reafﬁrms the critical importance of support and collaboration

from public administrations to ensure their longevity, their expansion, and

their progress across less-explored dimensions on the challenging path of

socioecological transitions.

sECond vErTiCAl Axis: fACTors AffECTing TrAnsiTion And ThEir inTErsECTion wiTh

ThE fivE dimEnsions

This second vertical axis, comprising three factors organized in rows, aims to

shed more light on the relative ease or difﬁculty of moving across the quadrants

within the ﬁve key dimensions of a PG business. It also qualitatively assesses the

degree of relative complexity, permanence, and inﬂuence of these movements.

This, in turn, contributes to more informed decision-making when determining

how and where to focus efforts to advance the development of a SSE that most

closely aligns with the Ideally Suited for PG economies business type.

• ‘Unchangeability’: refers to the capacity of movements between

quadrants to endure and institutionalize over time. It’s a reformulation

of the Changeability factor introduced by Hinton (2021). Instead of

emphasizing the changeability of movements occurring between the

quadrants in various dimensions, we concentrate on the ﬂip side: their

permanence. In doing so, we organize the dimensions from relatively

less permanent to relatively more permanent. This approach unveils

the dimensions that would be most resistant to change due to their

level of institutionalization.

• ‘Complexity’: among other elements, this factor organizes the ﬁve

dimensions based on the number of actors, processes, and components

involved in each of them and how these affect the operation and

viability of the business (Estrada, 2023; San Cristobal et al., 2018;

Sturmberg, 2017; Turner & Backer, 2019). For example, Strategy may

entail greater uncertainty, dynamism, and creativity than Governance,

which is more rooted in stability, order, and normativity. Crafting,

implementing, and evaluating a Strategy could be more challenging

than Governance since it involves clearer and more established criteria.

Similarly, as it depends more on external and internal factors that may

vary or be unpredictable, strategic decision-making entails a higher

level of complexity than the Incorporation Structure. In contrast, the

62 Ekhi Atutxa Ordeñana · Mario Damborenea Iglesias · Xabier Mendizabal Leiñena

choice of legal forms relies on more objective and stable criteria and is

made from a predeﬁned set of options regulated by the law.

• ‘Isolation’: based on the relatively greater or lesser inﬂuence that

movements within the quadrants of one dimension have on the other

ﬁve dimensions (Hinton, 2021). This nuanced perspective allows for

a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamic relationships

between these dimensions. To determine which dimensions have less

impact on other dimensions, it has been considered that the lower

their inﬂuence, the more ‘isolated’ they are understood to be from the

rest. This factor assumes that certain dimensions have varying degrees

of inﬂuence on the wider framework, creating a spectrum of isolation.

This list of three factors is not exhaustive, and it is entirely possible

to introduce other new factors, such as (1) the ‘symmetry/asymmetry’ of

movements that may occur in each of the ﬁve dimensions or (2) the ‘resilience’

of each of the ﬁve dimensions. The Transformation Compass presented in this

study should be seen as a further step in the generation of scientiﬁc knowledge

aimed at translating paradigms and theoretical frameworks into practical

applications and the best ways of doing so.

3.4 An ExplorATion of ThE bEnEfiTs of ThE TrAnsformATion CompAss: how

doEs iT guidE us?

The Transformation Compass developed is a valuable tool that provides

insights not only for enhancing self-awareness regarding one’s initiatives but

also for delivering substantial value to policymakers and practitioners. Just

like any compass, this one can be used to determine the current position of

an initiative and chart its course towards achieving the desired destination,

which is the PG economy through eco-social transition processes. In reality,

the Compass provides a clear picture of the eco-social transition processes

that need to take place within a company in order to ultimately adopt a PG

approach. While the compass proves valuable for businesses of all kinds, it

is especially relevant for initiatives within the SSE. Examining micro-level

practices is essential to understand how transitions can be complemented by

individual and collective actions and behaviors within socio-ecological systems.

This complements the macro-level analysis by shedding light on the role of

actors, practices, institutions, and technologies involved in these transitions

(Köhler et al., 2018). According to a publication in Nature (Hickel et al., 2022),

proposal like degrowth can work. The question is how to do it from different

spheres. Some examples are included in Table 2.

Following Table 2, consider the next scenario: an initiative wants to

move towards PG, but has limited resources (e.g., 2,000€ and two available

employees). Using the framework, the initiative will conduct a self-diagnosis

and assess where it stands in relation to each principle. Once it knows

where it stands, the factors listed above come into play. Depending on the

A ‘TrAnsformATion CompAss’ for soCiAl And solidAriTy EConomy iniTiATivEs in ThEir TrAnsiTion ...

rEvisTA dE EConomíA mundiAl 67, 2024, 51-70

unchangeability, complexity and isolation, the initiative will be able to make

decisions in the way that suits it best (taking into account opportunity costs). If

it wants to inﬂuence the other decisions more, it will focus its efforts on making

changes in the ﬁrst and/or second dimension. On the other hand, if it wants to

make a more cultural change, it will know that the fourth and ﬁfth dimensions

are a better option. Alternatively, the initiative could also follow the grades of

difﬁculty in order to start with the easiest dimensions.

The recognition that some dimensions are inherently more changeable

and complex than others underscores the importance of allocating resources

judiciously and ensuring that initiatives have the support they need to

navigate them. It becomes clear that ‘Governance’ and ‘Incorporation

Structure’ dimensions coincide in both desired types of transformation. This

could lead to the conclusion that by combining actions and interventions in

both dimensions, it is possible to achieve the highest level of inﬂuence while

simultaneously addressing scenarios that would be balanced in complexity

and stability. Similarly, there is little uncertainty regarding the dimension of

‘Size and Scope’, which should require the least focus, as it is relatively less

complex, less inﬂuential, and more subject to change when compared to the

other four dimensions.

‘Relation to proﬁt’ and ‘Incorporation structure’: given that these are

relatively simple to transform, but which simultaneously last over time and have

a signiﬁcant impact on the rest, progress towards PG in these dimensions could

be left to the initiatives themselves, provided they receive expert guidance.

Conversely, owing to their distinctive characteristics, Public Administrations

may choose these dimensions to enact substantial, far-reaching, and enduring

transformations, requiring relatively modest efforts and resource allocation. In

such a scenario, it might be beneﬁcial for initiatives to place a stronger focus on

dimensions that are more dynamic and intricate to manage, such as ‘Strategy

and Governance’. The complexity of both dimensions could require a more

precise understanding of their multifaceted reality, and therefore, we suggest

pursuing transition efforts in these domains, supported by adequate technical

and ﬁnancial assistance for their realization.

Based on these kinds of reﬂections, is possible to delve deeper into the

implications of the Transformation Compass.

TAblE 2: dimEnsions for inTErvEnTion bAsEd on dEsirEd TrAnsformATion

Type of desired transformation The three dimensions that would contribute the most

1. Relatively enduring over time, not relatively complex

to manage, and inﬂuential on the other dimensions

1. Relationship to proﬁt

2. Incorporation Structure

3. Governance

2. Relatively changeable, complex to manage, and

inﬂuential on the other dimensions

1. Governance

2. Strategy

3. Incorporation Structure

Source: Own elaboration.

64 Ekhi Atutxa Ordeñana · Mario Damborenea Iglesias · Xabier Mendizabal Leiñena

1. Strategic resource allocation: the recognition that certain dimensions

are more changeable and complex than others underscores the need for

strategic resource allocation. Initiatives should consider a tiered approach

to allocate resources based on the complexity and potential impact

of each dimension. For instance, dedicating the resources they require

to ‘Governance and Incorporation Structure’, which are inﬂuential and

complex, can be a prudent decision. This ensures that initiatives have the

necessary support to navigate these crucial aspects of their transformation.

2. Synergistic dimensional alignment: recognizing the convergence of

‘Governance’ and ‘Incorporation Structure’ in both desired types of

transformation opens up the opportunity for initiatives to explore synergies

between these dimensions. By combining actions and interventions in

these areas, initiatives can potentially unlock a higher level of inﬂuence.

For instance, aligning governance strategies with changes in incorporation

structure can create a seamless transition process, further enhancing the

effectiveness of their eco-social transformation.

3. Customized transformation pathways: initiatives should be encouraged to

tailor their transformation pathways based on their unique characteristics

and objectives. For dimensions like ‘Relationship to proﬁt’ and

‘Incorporation Structure’, which are relatively simpler to transform and

have a lasting impact, initiatives may opt for self-guided transformations

with expert guidance. However, Public Administrations can play a pivotal

role in facilitating the transformation of these dimensions, especially

when the initiatives themselves may not have the expertise. Public-Social

collaborations can be explored to support these transformations efﬁciently.

4. Adaptive governance and strategy: recognizing that ‘Governance’ and

‘Strategy’ are changeable and complex dimensions, initiatives should

focus on building adaptive governance structures and ﬂexible strategic

approaches. This involves embracing a learning and feedback-driven

mindset. Initiatives should be encouraged to experiment and iterate in

these areas, understanding that precise and intimate understanding of

their complexities comes with time and experience. This adaptive approach

allows for continuous improvement and resilience in the face of changing

socio-ecological conditions.

5. Monitoring and evaluation: to ensure the success of these transformation

efforts, robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms should be put in place.

These mechanisms should not only assess the progress of each dimension

but also capture the interplay and synergies between dimensions. This

information-driven approach allows initiatives to make informed decisions,

adjust strategies as necessary, and demonstrate the effectiveness of their

initiatives to stakeholders and policymakers.

6. Knowledge exchange and collaboration: initiatives can beneﬁt from

knowledge exchange and collaboration. They should be encouraged to

share best practices, lessons learned, and resources with one another.

Creating a network of initiatives and organizations focused on eco-social

A ‘TrAnsformATion CompAss’ for soCiAl And solidAriTy EConomy iniTiATivEs in ThEir TrAnsiTion ...

rEvisTA dE EConomíA mundiAl 67, 2024, 51-70

transitions can accelerate the collective impact and enhance the overall

effectiveness of these transformations.

There is a multitude of combinations and possibilities for these

transformations, and the most appropriate strategy and operational approach

will be context-speciﬁc and time-dependent. However, despite the approach

for these transitions will ultimately be determined by the involved stakeholders,

the Transformation Compass furnishes essential insights into the elements that

demand consideration at each juncture.

4. disCussion And ConClusions

We have therefore inherited two factors (‘changeability’ and ‘inﬂuence’)

proposed by Hinton (2021) that have an inverse and symmetrical relationship.

In other words, these two factors cancel each other out. Although this feature

can be disputed, it is difﬁcult to deny that changeability and inﬂuence are two

distinct elements with their own antagonistic entity. For this reason, this article

accepts her contribution and proposes a third factor (‘complexity’). This last

one does not operate with the same direct and automatic logic, although it is

subject to the same simpliﬁcation (necessary to create a model, but open to

debate).

That being said, one concern that could arise from the proposed framework

would be the conditions that make a sector more or less ideal for PG. And,

ultimately, whether all sectors can be ideal or not (e.g., mobility-related tourism,

speculation, extractive or resource-intensive activities, marketing consultancy,

etc.). In those where transition is possible, future research should explore

questions related to how comprehensive sectorial transformations could be

carried out, and how the conditioning factors of the sector itself, as well as the

activities developed within it, may inﬂuence the possibilities for PG scenarios.

Similarly, we might ask whether PG is compatible with any political system

or type of society. That is, does the PG enterprise need certain cultural or

regulatory elements? Or, on the contrary, can it act voluntarily until it achieves

PG, without being compelled by law or rewarded by the incentive system? This

relates to the resilience factor mentioned above, where the capitalist incentives

are key. While some dimensions may be easy to assess (e.g., whether a for-

proﬁt company is more likely to last than a non-for-proﬁt company), others

are less clear (e.g., whether a democratic company is as likely to last as a

shareholder-run company). Reason why this factor has not been included in

the compass.

Moreover, the idea of allowing stakeholders to shape the course of these

transitions opens the door to a profound reﬂection on the nature of socio-

economic change and the role of various actors in bringing about transformative

shifts. It underscores the dynamic, evolving and context-dependent character

of sustainable progress. At the heart of this idea lies the recognition that there

is no one-size-ﬁts-all solution when it comes to promoting the PG principles.

66 Ekhi Atutxa Ordeñana · Mario Damborenea Iglesias · Xabier Mendizabal Leiñena

The complexity and multi-faceted nature of these dimensions require an

adaptive approach. It could be positive to entrust stakeholders, whether they

be individual initiatives or public institutions, with the responsibility of charting

their own path within the broader framework of a PG transition.

This empowerment of stakeholders would underscore not only the

importance of expert guidance, but also the potential need to foster a sense of

ownership and agency among those who are actively engaged in this journey.

Embracing diversity in strategies and to appreciate the potential contributions

of various actors, acknowledging that each dimension, whether Relationship to

Proﬁt, Incorporation Structure, or others, could be playing a signiﬁcant role in

the larger context of socio-economic transformation.

In parallel, it offers an opportunity to reﬂect on the evolving role of public

administrations, which can strategically target dimensions to instigate large-

scaleand lasting change. By carefully selecting their areas of focus, public

institutions could have the opportunity to maximize their impact and direct

resources more efﬁciently. This approach would open up the opportunity

for further research into the pivotal role they can play in steering societies

towards a PG paradigm. In essence, the paper also invites stakeholders and

policymakers to think critically about their roles and responsibilities in this

transformative process, fostering a sense of shared purpose and a commitment

to a more sustainable and equitable world.

In this sense, our society could not be ‘mature’ enough to embrace degrowth/

PG. Despite its necessity, its distance from the conventional economic model

may seem like an abysmal paradigm leap. This difference could have implications

on the short-term welfare levels. Especially if the right balance between market

and reciprocity labour is not achieved (cf. Andreoni & Galmarini, 2014, for

a model of well-being within degrowth). Following the question of maturity,

according to Parrique (2023) there are still several barriers to the transition,

including the need for greater progress in innovation. At present, the potential

of recycling is limited; it still requires a large amounts of raw materials and

energy. Similarly, technological advances, although signiﬁcant, are not being

directed towards those factors focused on achieving greater sustainability, nor

are they succeeding in displacing undesirable technologies (Parrique, 2023).

Finally, this framework complements previous contributions that have

defended different approaches or criteria, but share a similar practical spirit.

For example, Bocken and Short (2016) proposed a hierarchy of waste, in which

a list of ecological behaviours was listed according to their environmental

preferability. Their article emphasized the strategy of ‘sufﬁciency’ to mitigate

the environmental impact of the business activity – through a more sustainable

production methods and supply chains – and to better distribute the beneﬁts

among stakeholders. More recently, Niessen and Bocken (2021) presented a

‘Business for sufﬁciency’ framework. Their matrix juxtaposes the concepts of

‘rethink’, ‘reduce’ and ‘refuse’ on one hand, with less clutter, speed, distance,

and market on the other hand. However, compared to the compass proposed

A ‘TrAnsformATion CompAss’ for soCiAl And solidAriTy EConomy iniTiATivEs in ThEir TrAnsiTion ...

rEvisTA dE EConomíA mundiAl 67, 2024, 51-70

in this article, their framework may be more difﬁcult for an initiative to grasp

due to its conceptual complexity.

In summary, this paper makes signiﬁcant progress in the applicability of

Hinton’s (2021) theoretical work and its relationship to the SSE paradigm,

thanks to the creation of a Transformation Compass, a conceptual model

based on theoretical insights that is being empirically tested to consolidate

its effectiveness and reinforce its practical relevance for facilitating ecosocial

transitions. It also provides a meaningful picture of what such a move towards

socio-ecological transition might look like. To do this, the maximum degree

of each dimension (ideal with PG) has been built on the normative and

applied synthesis of the SSE paradigm (after certifying its kinship with PG).

In addition, three factors (‘unchangeability’, ‘complexity’ and ‘isolation’) have

been proposed to judge the level of difﬁculty to alter in each dimension. In this

way, initiatives and policy-makers are given the opportunity to delve into, both,

the practical criteria for assessing an initiative or a policy, and the theoretical

contributions for understanding the current debate.

ACknowlEdgmEnTs

This research was supported by Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa under the

Ecological, Sustainable and Just Transition Program of 2023.

rEfErEnCEs

Andreoni, V., & Galmarini, S. (2014). How to Increase Well-being in a

Context of Degrowth. Futures, 55, 78-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

futures.2013.10.021

Bocken, N. M. P. & Short, S. W. (2016). Towards a Sufﬁciency-driven Business

Model: Experiences and Opportunities. Environmental Innovation and

Societal Transitions, 18, 41-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.07.010

Cigna, L., Fischer, T., Hasanagic Abuannab, E., Heins, E. & Rathgeb, P.

(2023). Varieties of Just Transition? Eco-Social Policy Approaches at the

International Level.Social Policy and Society,1-17. https://doi.org/10.1017/

S1474746423000192

Coraggio, J L. (2011). Economía Social y Solidaria: El trabajo antes que el

capital. Ecuador: Editorial Abya-Yala.

Coraggio, J. L., Laville, J. L, Guerra, P., Bidegain, A. M., Sánchez-Soler, J. J.,

Gadotti, M.,... & Oviedo-Freire, A. (2016). Economía social y solidaria en

movimiento. Argentina: Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento.

Estrada, E. (2023). What is a Complex System, After All? Foundations of

Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-023-09917-w

Fitzpatrick, N., Parrique, T. & Cosme, I. (2022). Exploring Degrowth Policy

Proposals: A Systematic Mapping with Thematic Synthesis. Journal

68 Ekhi Atutxa Ordeñana · Mario Damborenea Iglesias · Xabier Mendizabal Leiñena

of Cleaner Production, 365, 132764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

jclepro.2022.132764

Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and Freedom. USA: Chicago University Press.

Galli, A., Kitzes, J., Wermer, P., Wackernagel, M., Niccolucci, V. & Tiezzi,

E. (2007). An Exploration of the Mathematics behind the Ecological

Footprint. International Journal of Ecodynamics, 2(4), 250-257. https://

doi.org/10.2495/ECO-V2-N4-250-257

Groth, J., Byers, S. & Bogert, J. (1996). Capital, Economic Returns and the

Creation of Value. Management Decision, 34(6), 21-30. https://doi.

org/10.1108/00251749610121452

Hickel, J. (2019). Degrowth: A Theory of Radical Abundance. Real-world

Economics Review, 87(19), 54-68. http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/

issue87/whole87.pdf

Hickel, J. (2021). What Does Degrowth Mean? A Few Points of Clariﬁcation.

Globalizations, 18(7), 1105-1111. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.202

0.1812222

Hickel, J., Kallis, G., Jackson, T., O’Neill, D., Schor, J., Steinberger, J., Victor,

P. & Ürge-Vorsatz, D. (2022). Degrowth can Work – here’s how Science

can Help. Nature, 612, 400-403. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-

04412-x

Hinton, J. (2021). Five Key Dimensions of Postgrowth Business: Putting

the Pieces Together. Futures, 131, 102761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

futures.2021.102761

ICTA-UAB. (October 25, 2022). Un proyecto europeo explorará las vías

hacia el postcrecimiento económico. UAB. https://www.uab.cat/web/

sala-de-premsa-icta-uab/detall-noticia/un-proyecto-europeo-explorara-

las-vias-hacia-el-postcrecimiento-economico-1345819907210.

html?detid=1345872411651

IPCC. 2021. Cambio climático 2021: bases físicas. Resumen para responsables

políticos. UK: Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/

wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WG1_SPM_Spanish.pdf

Jensen, L. , Baert, P., Evroux, C., Hölfmayr, M., Jutten, M. Simöes, H. M….

& Berlingieri, F. (2023). Beyond Growth. Pathways Towards Sustainable

Prosperity in the EU. European Parliamentary Research Service

(EPRS). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_

STU(2023)747108

Kallis, G. & March, H. (2015). El futuro dialéctico del decrecimiento: ¿ﬁcción

distópica o proyecto emancipador? Revista de Economía Crítica, 19, 21-

33. https://revistaeconomiacritica.org/index.php/rec/article/view/23

Knappe, H. & Renn, O. (2022). Politicization of intergenerational justice: how

youth actors translate sustainable futures. European Journal of Futures

Research, 10(6). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-022-00194-7

Köhler, J., de Haan, F., Holtz, G., Kubeczko, K., Moallemi, E., Papachristos,

G. and Chappin, E. (2018). Modelling Sustainability Transitions: An

A ‘TrAnsformATion CompAss’ for soCiAl And solidAriTy EConomy iniTiATivEs in ThEir TrAnsiTion ...

rEvisTA dE EConomíA mundiAl 67, 2024, 51-70

Assessment of Approaches and Challenges. Journal of Artiﬁcial Societies

and Social Simulation 21(1). https://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.3629

Krause, D., Stevis, D., Hujo, K. & Morena, E. (2022). Just Transitions for a New

Eco-social Contract: Analysing the Relations between Welfare Regimes and

Transition Pathways. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research,

28(3), 367-382. https://doi.org/10.1177/10242589221127838

Laffer, A. B., Moore, S., & Williams, J. (2011). Rich States, Poor States: ALEC-

Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index. USA: ALEC.

Martin, J.L., Maris, V. & Simberloff, D. S. (2016). The Need to Respect Nature

and its Limits Challenges Society and Conservation Science. PNAS,

113(22),6105-6112. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525003113

Musseta, P. (2020). La adaptación como respuesta al cambio climático. Notas

acerca de las contracaras de un paradigma dominante. Scripta Nova,

Revista Electrónica de Geografía y Ciencias Sociales, 24, 1-22. https://doi.

org/10.1344/sn2020.24.27841

Nesterova, I. (2020). Degrowth Business Framework: Implications for

Sustainable Development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 262, 121382.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121382

Niessen, L. & Bocken, N. M. P. (2021). How can Businesses Drive Sufﬁciency?

The Business for Sufﬁciency Framework. Sustainable Production and

Consumption, 28, 1090-1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.07.030

Paech, N. (2017). Postgrowth Economics. In C. L. Spash (editor) Routledge

Handbook of Ecological Economics (pp. 477-486). UK: Routledge.

Parrique, T. (2023). The Rise in Popularity of Degrowth. In VVAA, Imagining

Europe Beyond Growth (págs. 5-8). Belgium: European Environmental

Bureau, Think Tank Oikos & Green European Journal.

Parrique, T., Barth, J., Brien, F., Kerschner, C., Kraus-Polk, A., Kuokkanen, A.

& Spangenber, J. (2019). Decoupling Debunked. Evidence and Arguments

against Green Growth as a Sole Strategy for Sustainability. European

Environment Bureau (EEB).

Quiroz-Niño, C. & Murga-Menoyo, M. A. (2017). Social and Solidarity

Economy, Sustainable Development Goals, and Community Development:

The Mission of Adult Education & Training. Sustainability, 9(12), 2164.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122164

Richardson, K., Wolfgang, L., Bendtsen, J., Cornell, S.E ., Donges, J. F., Druke,

M. et al. (2023). Earth Beyond Six of Nine Planetary Boundaries Science

Advances, 9. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458

RIPESS (2015). Global Vision for a Social Solidarity Economy: Convergences

and Differences in Concepts, Deﬁnitions and Frameworks. Intercontinental

network for the promotion of social solidarity economy. http://www.ripess.

org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/RIPESS_Vision-Global_EN.pdf

Salustri, A. (2021). Social and Solidarity Economy and Social and Solidarity

Commons: Towards the (re)discovery of an Ethic of the Common Good?

Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 92, 13-32. https://doi.

org/10.1111/apce.12307

70 Ekhi Atutxa Ordeñana · Mario Damborenea Iglesias · Xabier Mendizabal Leiñena

San Cristóbal, J. R., Carral, L., Diaz, E., Fraguela, J. A. & Iglesias, G. (2018).

Complexity and Project Management: A General Overview. Complexity.

https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4891286

Santos, B.S. (2017). Justicia entre Saberes. Epistemologías del Sur contra el

epistemicidio. Spain. Ediciones Morata.

Sturmberg J. P. (2017). Complexity Sciences. Health System Redesign: How

to Make Health Care Person-Centered, Equitable, and Sustainable, 21-44.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64605-3_2

Summers, J.K. & Smith, L.M. (2014). The Role of Social and Intergenerational

Equity in Making Changes in Human Well-being Sustainable. Ambio, 43(6):

718-728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0483-6

Taibo, C. (2021). Decrecimiento. Una propuesta razonada. España: Alianza

Editorial.

Turner, J. R. & Baker, R. M. (2019). Complexity Theory: An Overview with

Potential Applications for the Social Sciences. Systems, 7(1): 4. https://doi.

org/10.3390/systems7010004

Unceta, K. (2009). Desarrollo, subdesarrollo, maldesarrollo y postdesarrollo

una mirada transdisciplinar sobre el debate y sus implicaciones. Carta

Latinoamericana, 7, 1-34. https://www.cartalatinoamericana.com/

numeros/CartaLatinoAmericana07Unceta09.pdf

Villalba-Eguiluz, U., Egia-Olaizola, A. & Pérez de Mendiguren, J. C. (2020).

Convergences between the Social and Solidarity Economy and Sustainable

Development Goals: Case Study in the Basque Country. Sustainability,

12(13), 5435. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135435

Villalba-Eguiluz, U., Sahakian, M., González-Jamett, C. & Etxezarreta, E. (2023).

Social and Solidarity Economy Insights for the Circular Economy: Limited-

proﬁt and Sufﬁciency. Journal of Cleaner Production, 418, 138050. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138050

Zademach, H. M., & Hillebrand, S. (Eds.). (2013).Alternative Economies and

Spaces: New Perspectives for a Sustainable Economy. Transcript Verlag.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1xxt0r