12. In the Margins of Stakeholder Engagement: Fringe Stakeholders’ Inclusion in Sustainability Transition Initiatives

Sustainability transitions are long-term systemic changes that comprise not only technological innovations but also socio-cultural and economic changes, and they have a deep effect on institutions’ routines and people’s beliefs (Loorbach et al., 2017). Transitions entail a multiplicity of incremental changes that emerge from socio-political struggles (Swilling, 2020). Yet, while it has been noted that sustainability transitions do not provide everyone with equal opportunities or positive outcomes, little scholarly attention has been paid to social and economic inequalities connected to sustainability transitions (Chowdhury et al., 2021). The idea that not everyone is willing to engage in or collaborate on sustainability transition initiatives raises questions: Who is not included in the advancement of alternative sustainable solutions? Why is there resistance to taking up sustainability transitions? What is it about sustainability concepts that some find upsetting, creating contradictory and non-engagement stakes?

In this conceptual paper, we focus on fringe stakeholders to examine how those who are marginalised and non-collaborative are treated in stakeholder and sustainability transition literature. Fringe stakeholders comprise poor, adversarial, weak, non-legitimate and divergent groups (Chowdhury et al., 2021; Hart & Sharma, 2004; Rodrigo & Duran, 2021). In addition, fringe stakeholders include non-collaborative ones that, for instance, question the prevalent structures in society and the ways in which governments, researcher institutions and those in societal power positions seek to address and find solutions to the sustainability crisis. Fringe stakeholders, such as activists and local resistance actors, are perceived as intransigent, seeking to challenge the status quo with few resources and strategic capabilities, limited legitimacy and little influence (Chowdhury et al., 2021).

The central argument in stakeholder literature is that stakeholders have complex and contradictory interests regarding corporations or issues (Freeman, 2010a; Kujala et al., 2022). In his seminal work, Edward Freeman (2010b) brought together strategic management and stakeholder approaches by demonstrating that in strategic management, a firm must consider two parties. First, they should consider not only shareholders but also other stakeholders whose interests the corporation serves. Second, a firm should not only account for groups who can affect the corporation but also for those who are affected by the company’s operations. The stakeholder approach has been insightful in broadening the scope of business to wider societal embeddedness and making the involvement of business operations in society an important topic in strategic management (Hörisch et al., 2014). Stakeholder prioritisation has highlighted the need for corporate decisions to avoid negatively affecting marginalised groups (Hall et al., 2015), making the stakeholder approach an important component of addressing corporate social responsibility. Furthermore, stakeholder categories have been broken down into new dimensions, such as social identity (see Crane & Ruebottom, 2011), so that research can become better informed about the various aspects of heterogeneity and diversity. However, past literature has focused primarily on salient stakeholders, and there is still a lack of knowledge in the literature about the roles and perspectives of fringe stakeholders (see Chowdhury et al., 2021; Daudigeos et al., 2020; Derry, 2012; Khazaei et al., 2015; McCarthy & Muthuri, 2018).

Salient stakeholders are actors with legitimacy, power and urgency (Mitchell et al., 1997). The main body of existing stakeholder literature has been interested in how corporations engage salient stakeholders and the implications of their engagement for corporate, social and environmental outcomes (Kujala et al., 2022; McCarthy & Muthuri, 2018). There have been calls for more research on holistic and less corporate-centric approaches to address the inequalities among stakeholders in society (Mayes et al., 2013; McCarthy & Muthuri, 2018). In addition, the stakeholder model’s focus on primary stakeholders has left the concept of community undefined (Di Maddaloni & Davis, 2017), which is problematic when seeking to understand stakeholders’ roles and perspectives in sustainability transitions.

The sustainability transition literature depicts the transition as a complex systemic change that involves a variety of stakeholders, activities and interests that are both interconnected and interdependent (Geels, 2020). The literature has largely focused on techno-economic aspects, and less attention has been paid to socio-cultural aspects of such transitions (Swilling, 2020). Proka et al. (2018a) showed that sustainability transitions involve system destabilisation and conflict between incumbent regimes and initiatives that originate in niches. As an incumbent regime becomes destabilised, conflicts are bound to emerge between it and its niches. Sustainability transitions change both the formal and informal rules of the game because there is a power gap between the regime and the niche, and the niche is fragmentary. Proka et al. (2018a, b) recognised the transformative potential of fringe stakeholders to have a fundamental impact on the established regime. To better understand the socio-cultural aspects of the sustainability transition, bottom-up approaches and increased consideration of the most vulnerable are needed when it comes to exploring climate change and social inclusiveness in sustainability transitions (Raj et al., 2022).

Our chapter contributes to the stakeholder and sustainability transition management literature in two ways: First, since we direct attention to fringe stakeholders, we highlight the importance of a deepened understanding of those who are marginalised and non-collaborative in sustainability transitions. Our review integrates extant knowledge of the concept of fringe stakeholders to provide valuable insights into studying fringe stakeholders in sustainability transitions. Second, we examine ways in which the multistakeholder approach accounts for fringe stakeholders and elucidate the challenges related to addressing fringe stakeholders in stakeholder research. In turn, our investigation of past empirical studies on fringe stakeholders in sustainability transitions provides insights into how to account for the fringe stakeholder’s voices in empirical research. As a contribution, we synthesise learnings from these efforts and propose attention to methodological features that will guide researchers in giving voice to fringe stakeholders in stakeholder engagement research. In sustainability transitions, power structures favour the interests of businesses, corporations and other incumbent stakeholders, while the interests of fringe stakeholders are easily ignored or silenced. Our paper provides insights into features in stakeholder research that, on the one hand, maintain the focus on the salient stakeholders, and on the other, provide openings for accounting for the interests of fringe stakeholders.

The remainder of the chapter is structured as follows. First, we review the variety of conceptualisations of fringe stakeholders and present a comprehensive definition of the concept. Second, we examine multistakeholder approaches in the stakeholder literature to demonstrate that although fringe stakeholders are of concern in stakeholder literature, they remain understudied and difficult to address. Third, we present past empirical research on fringe stakeholders in sustainability transitions and summarise the key learnings for fringe stakeholder inclusion in research design. Fourth, we discuss the features of methodology and propose that particular attention should be paid to stakeholder identification, methods of data collection, researcher reflexivity and context when studying fringe stakeholders and stakeholder engagement. We summarise with guidelines for writing that enhance giving voice to fringe stakeholders and conclude the paper.

Previous literature has identified two types of fringe stakeholders, marginalised and non-collaborative. First, fringe stakeholders have been considered as those who have less power, voice and urgency than salient or primary stakeholders (Hart & Sharma, 2004). Examples of these types of fringe stakeholders include indigenous peoples; people who are extremely poor and isolated; and other marginalised and vulnerable individuals, such as women in developing countries (McCarthy & Muthuri, 2018). Vulnerability is considered to be shaped by social relations and reproduced by class, gender and heritage factors (Sovacool, 2021). By definition, these kinds of fringe stakeholders are voiceless (McCarthy & Muthuri, 2018). In developing countries, for instance, it is common to see fringe stakeholders’ voices silenced by powerful and legitimate stakeholders, such as multinational corporations, the government or the military (Lyra, 2021). Furthermore, it is common for the views of fringe stakeholders to be expressed through proxies, such as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), community leaders or academic research (Lyra, 2019b).

Second, fringe stakeholders have been considered those who question the pre-existing system and power structures. Hopwood et al. (2005) mapped stakeholder views on sustainable development in terms of the stance of the stakeholder towards socio-economic and equality concerns and environmental concerns. With this framework, Hopwood et al. (2005) identified three groups of stakeholders—namely, those who support the status quo, those whose interests are connected to reform and those who drive transformation. This framework depicts the differences between legitimate and fringe stakeholders as differences in the levels of intensity of socio-economic equality and environmental equality concerns. Supporters of the status quo recognise the need for change but do not see either the environment or society as facing insuperable problems. Such stakeholders include established institutions, such as the World Bank, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the European Union (EU). In contrast, those who take a reform approach accept that there are mounting problems, and they are critical of the current sustainability policies of businesses and governments. However, they do not believe that a collapse in ecological or social systems is likely or that a fundamental societal change would be necessary. These stakeholders include mainstream environmental groups. Transformationists, the third type of stakeholder, consider mounting environmental and social problems rooted in the existing structures of society, including the flawed ways in which humans interact with and perceive nature. They argue that a transformation of society and the human–nature relationship is a prerequisite for avoiding ecological crisis and the future collapse of society as we know it. Such stakeholders include ecofeminists, ecosocialists, ecofascist groups and anti-capitalist movements (Hopwood et al., 2005). We consider the transformationists to be fringe stakeholders who question the status quo and join the sustainability debate in an attempt to interrogate the prevalent understanding of society, humans and nature.

Despite the urgency of their claim, fringe stakeholders have neither power nor legitimacy (Mitchell et al., 1997). Activists and local resistance groups are often perceived to be intransigent, seeking to challenge the status quo with less strategic capabilities, limited legitimacy and little influence (Chowdhury et al., 2021). The level at which they can influence corporations to adopt new practices is largely dependent on the amount of support and resources they can access. Exposing the public to corporate transgressions is part of successful mobilisation by fringe stakeholders. Previous studies on corporate scandals and associated political transformations have shown that fringe stakeholders, especially those in developing countries, emerge with an agenda against corporations and self-organise in unpredictable ways to push corporations to reconsider their practices (Daudigeos et al., 2020; Lyra, 2019a). Their capacity to do so depends on their ability to organise into social movements that gain influence and attract resources to pressure companies, both nationally and internationally. Once this happens, fringe stakeholders may acquire an important voice and become a threat to the status quo of both corporations and government institutions.

Overall, when talking about non-salient stakeholders, the stakeholder literature tends to classify them as a secondary or less important stakeholder type (see Clarkson, 1994; Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Eesley & Lenox, 2006; Savage et al., 1991). This categorisation at times considers such stakeholders as hostile, dangerous or threatening (see Table 12.1). Furthermore, addressing stakeholders in the fringe has stemmed from an interest in examining the negative impact of focal companies on stakeholders and vice-versa, and thus, it has focused on examining the ways in which companies become vulnerable or socially exposed (Miles, 2017).

To summarise, we define fringe stakeholders as groups and/or individuals who have less power, voice and legitimacy than salient stakeholders, and because of this, find challenges in being included in stakeholder engagement processes. In this regard, some decide to question the status quo power structures in society and find disruptive and alternative ways to exert their influence on the main institution/organisation/initiative in question (Table 12.1). This conceptualisation of fringe stakeholders is needed to strengthen stakeholder theorising on sustainability transitions and to better account for the voices that are at the margins of stakeholder engagement. In Table 12.1, we contrast our definition of fringe stakeholders with similar concepts. A review of similar concepts shows that conceptual clarity is needed.

Secondary stakeholders are considered as a diverse set of stakeholders and include groups that are not directly associated with the focal organisation. They do not have a legal or contractual bond with the firm, and they do not directly engage in economic activity. Moral and legitimate claims are often associated with secondary stakeholders (Savage et al., 1991). Aaltonen and Kujala (2010) applied the concept using a lifecycle perspective for global projects aimed at understanding secondary stakeholders’ behaviour and the extent to which they can influence management’s decision-making. It is required that a secondary stakeholder gains salience and becomes part of the stakeholder network to obtain inner and lateral benefits. These include means to impose their will in the firm–stakeholder relationship, increase their legitimacy and reinforce the urgency of their claims in terms of time sensitivity and relevance. Secondary stakeholders deploy different types of strategies and tactics compared with primary stakeholders to engage in stakeholder politics, and the consequences of their tactics may differ (de Bakker & den Hond, 2008). Den Hond and de Bakker (2007) showed that, when conflicts between secondary stakeholders and firms escalate or endure over time, the tactics used become increasingly resource-intensive and confrontational. Their research suggests that radical and reformative stakeholder groups tend to use different tactics. Radical groups may be more inclined to bring material damage to the firm, whereas reformative groups may require mass participation for their success.

Marginal stakeholders are considered to be neither highly threatening nor particularly cooperative. In sustainability transitions, such issues as pollution and product safety may increase marginal stakeholders’ potential to cooperate or threaten the organisation. The corporate social responsibility literature talks about the positive consequences of engaging with marginal stakeholders. For instance, a firm that interacts positively with such stakeholders as communities and minority groups could exhibit positive financial performance (Rehbein et al., 2004).

Phillips (2003) studied the underpinnings of legitimacy in stakeholder theory and distinguished between normative and derivative legitimacy. In this understanding, normative stakeholders are those whose focal organisation has a moral and fair obligation to pay attention. Derivative stakeholders, in turn, are groups whose actions and claims must be accounted for by the focal organisation because of their ‘potential effects upon the organisation and its normative stakeholders’ (Phillips, 2003, p. 31). Activists and competitors are examples of derivative stakeholders, and their descriptions have some resemblance to dangerous and dormant stakeholders (Phillips, 2003).

Shareholder activists (Rehbein et al., 2004) are those who target companies that have questionable practices, including human rights and labour issues. Their motivations for filing social policy resolutions are interest-based, and while affecting the company, they also help to solidify the stakeholders’ identity as a group. Claimant stakeholders (Miles, 2017), in turn, are active in pursuing claims but lack the coercive power to guarantee that their claims will be attended to. Their claims often originate from moral or social rights issues rather than legal or economic claims, and thus, they lack political and economic power.

Recipient stakeholders (Miles, 2017) refer to individuals or groups that are passive receivers of the impact of corporate or organisational activity. This may be due to the mere existence of the stakeholder rather than because of an action or claim. Stakeholders may not always exercise their power, legitimacy or urgency, often choosing to keep quiet about their claims. Recipient stakeholders lack power and are affected by the focal company’s operations and activities. The focal firm can put recipient stakeholders at risk (Clarkson, 1994) or affect their interests (Madsen & Ulhøi, 2001). Such stakeholders may be ignorant of the presence or form of their claim or may lack the voice to present it. This is why they are called recipients rather than claimant stakeholders.

Dangerous stakeholders have urgency and power but lack legitimacy, and thus, they are potentially coercive and violent (Mitchell et al., 1997). Hostile stakeholders aim at increasing negative value (Barraquier, 2013; Pirozzi, 2019), and if not managed properly, they can pose risks to the project. Examples of hostile stakeholders are competitors and communities with ‘not in my backyard’ (NIMBY) attitudes. Sometimes, hostile stakeholders are suspected of acting in bad faith, malevolence and ignorance.

Dormant stakeholders (Mitchell et al., 1997) have little or no interaction with the firm or the focal organisation. They have the power to impose their will on the focal organisation, but because they do not have a legitimate relationship or an urgent claim, their power remains unused. Dormant stakeholders become more salient when they acquire either urgency or legitimacy.

Common to all the concepts described above is that, they denote stakeholders that do not fit the definition of a stakeholder proposed in Mitchell et al.’s (1997) framework as having power, urgency and legitimacy. As our review shows, there is an overlap in the use of the related concepts.

There are various approaches in stakeholder research that depart from the premise of a corporate/ego-centric focus on firm–stakeholder relations and address stakeholders and stakeholder relations in broader terms (Friedman & Miles, 2006; Miles, 2017). These approaches provide fresh alternative views to the corporate-centric stakeholder theory (Freeman, 2010b; Mitchell et al., 1997) and carry the potential to account for fringe stakeholders. However, as our review of these approaches shows, this potential has yet to be seized.

As an extension of the core idea of managing stakeholder relations, rather than looking at a focal firm, multi-stakeholder research has directed attention to issues that stakeholders have interests in or are affected by (Heikkinen, 2017; Roloff, 2008; Rühli et al., 2017; Sachs & Rühli, 2011; Schneider & Sachs, 2017). The multi-stakeholder approach examines stakeholder networks and collaboration and builds on the notion that in sustainability transitions, multiple actors join loosely in a collaborative effort to address a specific issue that concerns various actors (Heikkinen, 2017; Roloff, 2008; Rühli et al., 2017; Sachs & Rühli, 2011; Schneider & Sachs, 2017). In this line of research, there is surprisingly little attention to fringe stakeholders. However, Sachs and Rühli (2011) concluded that it is important that stakeholders become legitimate participants in multi-stakeholder collaboration and assume responsibility for the consequences of their contributions. There is an underlying assumption in multi-stakeholder network research that it is not only the responsibility of corporations, but also all stakeholders to identify how mutual interests can be negotiated (Boutilier, 2017; Ramirez, 1999).

The multi-stakeholder approach neglects attention to fringe stakeholders in assuming a responsible stakeholder that is interested in and capable of setting sustainability goals and finding ways to align with other stakeholders, whether in the short or long term. There is an assumption of responsibility for all stakeholders who share an interest in searching for ways to overcome trade-offs (Hörisch et al., 2014). Multi-stakeholder research acknowledges conflicts of interest and considers it important to address them via fair procedures (Rühli et al., 2017). However, while acknowledging that there are negative dynamics and conflicting interests among stakeholders, the multi-stakeholder approach builds on the assumption that stakeholders are motivated to interact and negotiate for integrative solutions (Lehtimäki & Kujala, 2017). The underlying notion is that there is a way to manage a multi-stakeholder network so that conflicting interests can be resolved, for instance, via approaches in which participants define their evaluation criteria regarding the outcomes of their engagement process (Heikkinen, 2017).

In environmental management research, there is a recognition of the need to address a wide diversity of relevant stakeholders. However, it has been difficult to distinguish between who is and who is not a stakeholder. Because of a lack of clear guidelines or solutions, the manner in which stakeholders have been conceptualised and classified has been based on scholars’ interests (Rivera-Camino, 2007). Stakeholder analysis in development and natural resource management projects has often focused on inclusivity and ways to empower marginal or socially disadvantaged groups (Johnson et al., 2004). In this line of research, stakeholder analysis has been developed in parallel with and enriched by the development of participatory methods in project design and planning, such as rapid and participatory appraisal, action research, social forestry and land-use planning (Grimble & Wellard, 1997).

The literature on managing stakeholder relationships highlights the importance of seeking win–win outcomes, and there has been limited attention on studying interactions with more marginalised and vulnerable groups (Mayes et al., 2013). How a company avoids, mismanages and neglects its stakeholders has not gained much attention in the literature (Kolk & Pinkse, 2006; Nadeem, 2020). Firms usually resist stakeholder pressures (Rowley, 1997), and previous research has shown evidence of situations in which managers have intentionally neglected stakeholders to strengthen their own positions (Kolk & Pinkse, 2006). Scholars have found that vulnerable stakeholders are rarely informed or explicitly considered in sustainability transition policies and actions; moreover, they are poorly positioned to provide inputs about their preferences, and thus, they have been discriminated against (Sareen, 2021).

Our discussion above shows that fringe stakeholders are of concern, but the issue of fringe stakeholders is difficult to address in multi-stakeholder and sustainability transitions research. The continued relevance of stakeholder theorising on sustainability transitions calls for bringing in fringe stakeholders’ perspectives. Indeed, attention to fringe stakeholders provides for a deeper understanding of critical views on existing institutions and an increased understanding of the underlying dynamics of societal institutions and the ways in which institutions support or resist change in sustainability transition.

As established above, fringe stakeholders are relevant yet difficult to identify and study in stakeholder research on the sustainability transition. As a solution, researchers have suggested that rather than approaching fringe stakeholders directly, attention should be directed to what pathways shape the activities of stakeholders (Wolfram, 2018). This approach directs attention to activities in civil society and allows for depicting fringe stakeholder activity as it emerges from lived experience and local contexts. Researcher sensitivity to value orientations and social needs that drive locally based ways of living, sharing and creating allows for articulating fringe stakeholder perspectives and identifying ways in which engagement of fringe stakeholders could occur.

Sustainability transition management research has directed attention to three proxies for studying fringe stakeholders—namely, grassroots niches, bottom-up initiatives and vulnerable user perspectives (Table 12.2). We review each of these proxies and case studies on cities in Europe and Asia that show different strategies for fringe stakeholder inclusion. First, studies of grassroots innovations and niche formation highlight the importance of cities as spaces where citizens and local civil society actors can be involved in sustainability transition initiatives (Seyfang & Smith, 2007; Wolfram, 2018). Second, bottom-up initiatives as proxies for studying fringe stakeholders (Fratini et al., 2019) direct attention to the needs and world views of fringe stakeholders. Third, vulnerable user perspectives (Sareen, 2021) allow for looking at policymaking based on the needs of fringe stakeholders.

Cities are hotspots in the sustainability transition because of their role as incubators and catalysts of socio-economic and environmental change (Douglas, 2013; Wolfram, 2018). They are sites of multilevel politics and shape civil society-driven sustainability transition initiatives. Cities draw on policymaking capacities that directly affect citizens across all domains, such as housing, employment and education. It is important to enable the engagement of a broad variety of stakeholder groups, including fringe stakeholders, in planning and decision-making. Therefore, it is inspiring and significant to direct attention to cities as socio-spatial spaces for studying fringe stakeholders in sustainability transitions.

An example of using grassroots niches as a proxy for studying fringe stakeholders is the study by Wolfram (2018). This author analysed urban community development and social innovation in the city of Seoul starting in 2012. His research demonstrated that stakeholder engagement can involve place-making activities that mutually engage citizens, local authorities and businesses in the transformation of diverse socio-technical systems that are embedded in the urban fabric. Furthermore, grassroots innovations address several socio-technical systems simultaneously.

In Seoul, proposals for community initiatives were collected twice a year (Wolfram, 2018). An initiative received support if it was evaluated as showing high potential in terms of necessity, public benefit, feasibility, durability, creativity, participation, resources, partnership and expected results. A conceptual stage model was developed, which further comprised the following stages: (1) the seed stage in which definitions and prioritisations emerged through on-site training and seminars; (2) the sprout stage in which management and business plan training was conducted to integrate earlier activities into wider solutions; and (3) the hope stage in which the capability of self-organising to generate and maintain solutions was strengthened (Wolfram, 2018). A Village Community Support Center (VCSC) was created as a new intermediary that would be responsible for managing the development process, including proposal selection, organisation of support and coordination. It was staffed with community leaders and other non-officials. The task of the independently operating VCSC was to implement community support. Indeed, the VCSC became a crucial intermediary in bridging the gaps between civil society and authorities in terms of trust, skills and language (Wolfram, 2018). Between 2012 and 2014, a total of 1709 new village communities were formed in Seoul, adding to the existing fabric of grassroots initiatives. Direct interaction and personal linkages between existing activist networks, local governments and the new entities created trust and empowered communities to adopt new knowledge and continuous adjustment in the support structures (Wolfram, 2018).

In terms of accounting for fringe stakeholder perspectives, the Seoul case showed that to synergise and enhance impacts beyond individual villages, initiatives may be framed and connected in multiple ways to attain diverse objectives by targeting established policy fields, such as housing, welfare or parks. It is not merely a matter of enabling ‘bottom-up’ initiatives to counter ‘top-down’ exclusionary policies and practices. Rather, it is equally important to avoid creating new divides or favouring only particular coalitions. Wolfram (2018) proposed a ‘nested’ structure of intermediation between authorities and civil society as instrumental for this.

Three case studies in three cities elaborate on issues related to bottom-up initiatives as a proxy for fringe stakeholders. Fratini et al. (2019) conducted a study comparing the circular economy imaginary in European cities. In London, the focus was a product oriented on facilitating the design and production of low-carbon goods. The approach to circular economy was developed around different types of business models and facilitated by local authorities in collaboration with business and academic research. The core stakeholders for circular transformation were the finance community, start-ups, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with the notion of youth, and community gardens. Researchers have found that when positioning businesses as the core beneficiary of the circular city strategy, both citizens and NGOs become uncertain about their roles and find it difficult to participate (Fratini et al., 2019). In Paris, strategies to be implemented by 2050 were conveyed to public decision-makers, economic actors and citizens. In 2015, the General Assembly brought together a wide spectrum of stakeholders to develop opportunities for the implementation of a circular economy in the Greater Paris area. Emphasis was placed on community-based initiatives with a particular interest in developing an inclusive circular economy model and creating a stronger sense of belonging in the region. The researchers concluded that not enough emphasis was given to the inclusion of citizens, communities and methods for participatory processes. Simultaneously, too much emphasis was placed on incumbent stakeholders (Fratini et al., 2019). The results reinforce the challenges in engaging fringe stakeholders, denoting that the predominant engagement of salient stakeholders is being reproduced in transition arenas if particular attention is not paid to stakeholder involvement. In Amsterdam, the development of the circular economy imaginary proceeded hand-in-hand with the development of the ‘smart city’ and the ‘sharing economy’ imaginaries. The government and municipality were considered facilitators of circular resource flows. However, in practice, the public sector was mainly carrying out circular economy activities, whereas the private sector and NGOs were in charge of sharing economy activities. This independent approach to work created an apparent disconnection between consumption and production patterns and generated questions on how green identities carried through the ‘sharing city’ imaginary would be linked and integrated into the systemic and growth-oriented ‘circular city’ imaginary (Fratini et al., 2019, p. 982).

Finally, two case studies examined vulnerable user perspectives as a proxy for studying fringe stakeholders. Studies on two cities, Bergen and Lisbon, revealed gaps in regulation, lack of policies and piecemeal implementation, as well as identifying scope for concrete advances to ensure inclusive essential services. Bergen is one of the frontrunners in electric vehicle adoption, and Lisbon is the founder of Solar Cities. In the case studies, smart mobility transition efforts in Bergen were associated not only with transport decarbonisation solutions but also with mobility justice (Mullen & Marsden, 2016). The benefits included enlarged public spaces for walking and bicycling and local air quality improvements (Sareen, 2021). Improvements to public services in the field of smart electricity transitions in Lisbon, in turn, worked to enhance the practical benefits of these transitions among ordinary households, 15–23% of which are energy poor (Horta et al., 2019). The researchers collected data via participant observation in the smart grids, interviews with solar energy cooperative members, field visits to solar plant and meetings on energy flexibility and poverty. Both studies are examples of the inclusion of marginalised stakeholders in transition efforts in cities.

The study by Sareen (2021) showed that cities could be developed as inclusive spaces where residents can be assured of their safety and feel free to express themselves in ways that are respectful of others. In terms of fringe stakeholders, this includes developing social competencies and soft skills (e.g. conflict management and confidence building), tailored support that adjusts as initiatives mature and personal interaction to encourage the application of new knowledge in local contexts.

Addressing and giving voice to fringe stakeholders in stakeholder research is necessary to ensure that research remains relevant in terms of contributing to an increased understanding of the socio-cultural aspects of sustainability transition and addressing social inclusiveness and social justice. In Table 12.3, we highlight methodological features that enhance giving voice to fringe stakeholders. In future research on fringe stakeholders, we propose that particular attention should be paid to stakeholder identification, methods of data collection, researcher reflexivity and context. We discuss each of these features below and summarise guidelines for writing aimed to enhance giving voice to fringe stakeholders.

First, stakeholder identification and selecting informants is about giving voice to the different kinds of stakeholders. To improve the criteria for stakeholder identification and to include more vulnerable and marginalised individuals, Khazaei et al. (2015) suggested considering the four following themes: (1) diversity and heterogeneity in salient stakeholder groups; (2) engagement of marginal and less powerful stakeholders; (3) the adoption of flexible strategies to account for changing stakeholder motivations; and (4) the use of a less corporate-centric approach that is more focused on collaborative relationships between stakeholders. In their review on community engagement in tourism planning and decision-making activities, these authors identified first-generation immigrants as an example of fringe stakeholder groups that would go unnoticed without attention to these four themes. In studying fringe stakeholders, attention to these themes will support the inclusion of the different types of stakeholders and appreciation of different stakeholders’ reasoning, motivation and thought structures. Consequently, such inclusivity will allow for building an understanding of fringe stakeholders’ subjective experiences. When writing about data collection, it is important that the researchers are transparent in describing the selection criteria for the subjects of study and provide a rich description of the stakeholders in the study.

Second, methods of data collection determine the richness and depth of understanding of what is relevant to fringe stakeholders in the setting of the study. When studying fringe stakeholders and using traditional methods of data collection, such as interviews, researchers may consider talking to proxies, such as NGO representatives, as equivalent to engaging with the whole community’s perspectives and viewpoints. While interviewing proxies can be justified based on the easier access to interview data this approach presents, the challenge is that NGO representatives may pursue a large agenda, and while the agenda may be aligned with fringe stakeholders, it is not equal to accessing the authenticity of the lived experience of fringe stakeholders. In addition, a challenge with traditional interviews is that the interview protocol creates a question–answer conversation in the discussion between a researcher and an interviewee. The protocol may reduce the researcher’s flexibility to adjust the conversation based on informant responses, and it may subdue the power relation that is inherent in the interview situation. Thus, subtle nuances in the interviewees’ talk and expressions may go unnoticed.

To address the challenges outlined above, previous research has highlighted the need to build dialogue with the vulnerable (Roberts, 2003) and to invest in understanding the socio-environmental issues that these groups face (Rodrigo & Duran, 2021). In addition, the use of creative methods in data collection has been explored, and researchers are also encouraged to include such methods in interviews (McCarthy & Muthuri, 2018). McCarthy and Muthuri (2018) used visual participatory research (VPR) methods to understand gendered power relations along occupational and domestic divisions of labour in the Ghanaian fair trade cocoa value chain. The results of their study showed that VPR helps challenge organisational assumptions about what fringe stakeholders can communicate, as well as power relations between the researcher and participant, allowing participants to circumnavigate linguistic and cultural barriers. McCarthy and Muthuri (2018) argued that keen attention to power relations is necessary to account for fringe stakeholders in sustainability transitions research. According to these authors, this requires enabling fringe stakeholders’ voices to be heard and ensuring participation from these stakeholders by critically addressing issues of power, class, ethnicity and gender. We propose that future research on fringe stakeholders would benefit from employing various data collection techniques. This would benefit the studies in terms of overcoming barriers to expression that the stakeholders experience and help researchers to be more sensitive about the power relations between the researchers and the stakeholders. In describing the methodology, researchers are advised to describe how the method of data collection allows for understanding fringe stakeholders’ worldviews and meaning-making.

Third, research reflexivity and sensitivity to concepts used in studying fringe stakeholders and stakeholder engagement are needed. Without researcher reflexivity (Harley et al., 2004), the researcher may dismiss multi-voiced worldviews as they unfold from the perspectives of the fringe stakeholders. In addition, the unidentified pre-assumptions of the researcher may contribute to dismissing the views of fringe stakeholders. For instance, with all good intentions, a researcher may adopt an empathetic approach to studying fringe stakeholders to increase understanding about their potential to pressure corporations, their legitimacy and their right to operate (Hart & Sharma, 2004). With such an approach, a researcher adopts a systematic approach to identifying, exploring and integrating views from the ‘fringe’. However, the challenge with this approach is the underlying assumption of stakeholder engagement as a dialogue between the corporation and the salient stakeholders where the worldviews of the elite and stakeholders with legitimacy set the established rules for dialogue. Like the concept of voice, the idea of dialogue is also discursively produced. It informs who may speak, as well as when, how and where they may speak; moreover, it shapes meanings in stakeholder engagement (Carolan & Bell, 2003). Thus, critics of stakeholder dialogue argue that it inherently limits the interests and behaviours of marginalised groups (Mayes et al., 2013).

To open spaces for the Other in research accounts, we propose that researchers studying fringe stakeholders should identify, explore and challenge assumptions that guide research design and methods of data collection and analysis. Such research reflexivity will allow for being open to unexpected and unconventional lines of argumentation that may interrogate the power structures in society. In writing the results of the study, researchers should describe how the method of data collection allows for understanding fringe stakeholders’ worldview and meaning-making. Ideally, the style of writing would give the reader an active role in interpreting meaning.

Fourth, attention to context is necessary for creating valid accounts of fringe stakeholders’ views and reasoning and operational conditions. Rodrigo and Duran (2021) advocate for a contextual approach to stakeholder dialogue to respond to stakeholders’ specific characteristics and expectations. They developed the concept of fringe community dialogue, which is composed of three dimensions and two enabling mechanisms. The first dimension is dialogue groundwork, which acts as a predialogue stage, setting the foundation for a relationship between the parties and addressing issues that could hamper conversations. The second dimension is dialogue confirmation. This encompasses aspects of successful talks, considering the features of fringe communities. Finally, dialogue reinforcement contains intimate aspects that emerge when the dialogue process happens such as a sense of involvement and trustworthiness. The enabling mechanisms for fringe community dialogue are dialoguing attitudes and knowledge accumulation. Rodrigo and Duran (2021) believe that these mechanisms describe the dynamics of fringe community dialogue and explain how the dimensions are intertwined.

Previous literature has shown that a lack of analysis of the social contexts and institutional conditions under which sustainability transitions are being implemented creates a significant barrier to making valid contributions to understanding socially just and environmentally desirable transitions (Fratini et al., 2019; Korhonen et al., 2018; Moreau et al., 2017). In their ethnographic study on social bricoleur entrepreneurs working in remote rural areas in India, Sengupta and Lehtimäki (2022) showed that, on the one hand, the environmental, cultural, social and societal context created conditions that facilitated the enactment of care ethics in interaction between the entrepreneurs and the vulnerable local people. On the other hand, they showed how the context became constituted in that interaction and what opportunities for change in the socio-cultural context of the marginal and vulnerable were created via an entrepreneurial agency. In a study analysing why some groups oppose mining projects in Brazil, Lyra (2021) also concluded that the context plays a key role in explaining stakeholder resistance and non-engagement and can be associated with deep historical roots from previous struggles.

Drawing on social constructive theory (Crawford & Mills, 2011; Unger, 1987), we propose that a contextualised understanding of fringe stakeholders allows for examining how the context sets the conditions for fringe stakeholder activity and how the context is created and recreated in that activity. In future studies on fringe stakeholders, we encourage attention to practices, routines, conceptions, roles, shared beliefs, institutional structures and taken-for-granted arrangements that produce the context and the ‘fringe’. To do this, a rich interpretative description of the context and the interplay between context and agency are needed when discussing the research results.

While the stakeholder approach has proven its validity and importance in business and society research (Kujala et al., 2022), further research is needed to account for fringe stakeholders. Studying complex issues related to sustainability change, such as climate warming or biodiversity loss, and advancing sustainability thinking requires a broad understanding of the techno-economic and socio-cultural dimensions of transition. Sustainability transitions have been included in national and transnational policies as a means to prepare companies to become more competitive in global markets while engaging in actions to support climate neutrality. Along with efforts to make industries and nations more sustainable, there is a need to engage a broad variety of stakeholders to support a just transition. Contemporary policy initiatives, such as the recent EU Green Deal, emphasise the need to put ‘everyone in the same boat’ and ‘leave no one behind’, and many types of stakeholders must be engaged to accomplish this.

Including a variety of stakeholders in sustainability transition research requires attention to power structures that privilege the interests of businesses, corporations and other incumbent stakeholders and ignore or silence those of the fringe stakeholders. Stakeholder theory pioneered the idea of firms’ responsibility to all stakeholders, not only shareholders. Our review shows that, without researcher reflectivity and critical attention to research methodologies, stakeholder research runs the risk of neglecting fringe stakeholders while favouring salient stakeholders in sustainability transitions. Multi-stakeholder approaches have been insightful in decentring corporations in stakeholder analysis (Mayes et al., 2013) and broadening the view to a variety of stakeholders and stakeholder interactions. However, a critical approach to power structures and relations of power is needed to widen the view further and give voice to fringe stakeholders.

Our review of empirical studies on fringe stakeholder inclusion in urban settings highlights grassroots niches, bottom-up initiatives and vulnerable user perspectives as proxies for studying fringe stakeholder interests. In studying sustainability transitions, urban settings are important because cities are socio-economic and cultural sites where sustainability initiatives can be created by civil society actors (Seyfang & Smith, 2007; Wolfram, 2018). Studies from different cities around the world show that in empirical research, attention to the research design is needed to address power issues and imbalances among the different stakeholders.

Fringe stakeholders’ actions challenging the status quo have to do with the way they see and interpret sustainability development and the ways in which problems are located within existing social–economical power structures. This calls for a critical research approach, sensitivity and skill in using interpretative research methods. More research is needed on the potential strategies and tactics that fringe stakeholders use to interpret and create reality and what kinds of actions they use to dispute truths in sustainable circular economy transitions. Fringe stakeholders build their arguments against certain views on sustainability development by claiming that sustainability advocates are not primarily concerned with human well-being or environmental sustainability but instead promote the power of the elite.

More attention needs to be paid to translating sustainable business discourses and representations into political action and to the active role that public authorities and citizens could play in this process (Fratini et al., 2019). Corporations should not underestimate fringe stakeholders’ potential because, in a connected world, remote groups can find common causes to pressure and question a given firm’s legitimacy and right to operate (Hart & Sharma, 2004). As a managerial implication, our study proposes that to prevent surprises and threats and to manage uncertainty, companies should be keen on acquiring knowledge from diverse stakeholders, many of whom may be adversarial. As part of risk management, companies should proactively seek out fringe voices related to social and environmental concerns.