Transdisciplinarity and climate innovation entrepreneurship in Africa: an assessment using the DCOx framework

A climate innovation entrepreneur (CIE) is an individual or business that focuses on creating economic value while addressing the climate challenges facing society. Climate innovation entrepreneurship is an increasingly important mechanism in addressing climate change affecting African countries, but is recognised as being extremely difficult to undertake. Given the difficulties of climate innovation entrepreneurship, taking a transdisciplinary approach has been proposed, especially bridging action between research and practice. How to ensure that this takes place in a way that benefits those on the practice side of the bridging action and not just those on the research side requires attention. Moreover, the frameworks that exist have often been developed in the context of the Global North rather than the Global South. This paper attempts to address this issue by examining the experiences of three transdisciplinary research projects focused on climate innovation conducted on the African continent. The qualitative case studies were purposively selected from a list of 13 transdisciplinary projects initially identified. It examines them using the DCOx framework, an analytical framework focusing on the drivers (D) or the rationale of a CIE, the challenges faced by a CIE in operating their business (C) and their desired outcomes or expected results (O). The framework also focuses on the cross-cutting issue of stakeholder engagement (x), which is essential for ensuring successful transdisciplinary research–practice bridging action. The use of the DCOx framework to analyse the three case studies highlighted that co-creation emerged as a cornerstone of success, enabling stakeholders to merge scientific expertise with localised knowledge; tensions between agendas and issues of trust must be addressed while structural barriers and inequalities influence the outcome. The paper ends with a call for more exploration of transdisciplinary projects using the DCOx framework and, importantly, more work to understand if this framework can provide a basis for encouraging and developing more transdisciplinary projects that focus on climate innovation entrepreneurship on the African continent.

1 Introduction

In the face of escalating climate change threats, the imperative to innovate and foster sustainable solutions has never been more pressing. Climate innovation entrepreneurship emerges as a pivotal avenue in the global pursuit of mitigating environmental degradation while fostering economic growth. This paper takes its definition of a ‘climate innovation entrepreneur’ as an individual or business that takes a management approach focused on taking opportunities while mitigating risks (Eisenmann, 2013) that are based on knowledge, technology or research and lead to tangible outcomes (new patents, products, business models) that enable resource generation (Block et al., 2016) and ‘sustainable value’ focused on finding solutions to climate-related issues facing society (Karadayı et al., 2024).

The nexus between climate change, innovation, and entrepreneurship is complex and intertwined (Philip et al., 2021), particularly in many African countries. The economies of African countries are largely dependent on climate-sensitive sectors, including agriculture, forestry, and fisheries (Obsi Gemeda and Dafisa Sima, 2015). Current trends in climate variability point towards an increased frequency of adverse occurrences rather than a decrease (Gannon et al., 2022). This variability could allow individuals and businesses to use innovation and entrepreneurship to create new products and services, develop new markets, and access new funding streams and finance mechanisms. On the other hand, entrepreneurs and businesses also experience high risks associated with climate change variability (Crick et al., 2018). Generally, entrepreneurs and innovators in developing countries lack the knowledge, financial resources, and organisational capacity to recruit, hire, and retain the necessary teams to implement climate-resilient enterprises (Park, 2016). While many desire to expand their businesses, they are often unable. The design of private sector adaptation policies favours the needs of larger and formal businesses rather than small and informal businesses, given the resources needed to implement them and their bias towards established businesses (Gannon et al., 2022; Crick et al., 2016). Furthermore, African entrepreneurs can lack access to the knowledge and tools necessary to formalise and sustain businesses (Fal, 2013). They also often lack the required expertise and the professional networks to address the functional needs of their enterprises. For this reason, a transdisciplinary approach to climate innovation entrepreneurship has been recommended (Gawell, 2020).

Transdisciplinarity has gained popularity since the 1970s with increasing acknowledgement that science and society should interact more and that there is a need for the ‘solving of problems in motion’ (Gibbons, 1994; Alvares and Freire, 2023). Transdisciplinarity has multiple definitions but at its core is about the integration of knowledges (Vienni-Baptista et al., 2022) or the ‘unity of knowledge’ (Nicolescu, 2001; Alvares and Freire, 2023). It moves beyond disciplines, arguing that solving societal issues requires new combinations of actors – that science alone and single disciplinary approaches within science are insufficient. It argues for multi-stakeholder participation in dedicated efforts to build mutual learning and knowledge transfer.

As such, it embodies a participatory ethos, engaging diverse stakeholders in co-creating knowledge and solutions (Caniglia et al., 2021). This inclusive approach recognises the inherent interconnectedness of social, economic, and environmental dimensions, advocating for solutions that are technically feasible, socially acceptable, and economically viable. This entails engaging entrepreneurs with researchers, policymakers, investors, community members, and other stakeholders in collaborative endeavours aimed at driving sustainable innovation and entrepreneurship (UNFCCC, 2018). As such, transdisciplinarity draws on both academic and practice-based knowledge systems (Thiam et al., 2021) with the inclusion of different stakeholders, values, and perspectives in participatory research and innovation (Kok et al., 2021). Transdisciplinarity refers to a new form of learning and problem-solving (Kok et al., 2021) that uses inquiry-driven interaction, engagement of knowledge, and informative action to address the challenges facing humanity (Heidkamp et al., 2021). It also recognises the importance of ‘knowing in practice’ (Polanyi, 1969) and increasing work that brings together research and practice (Lawrence, 2022, 2023). The co-production of knowledge is particularly relevant for Sub-Saharan Africa, where countries are still off-track in achieving Sustainable Development Goals (Thiam et al., 2021).

The diverse nature of the challenges affecting the African continent and the solutions required to solve them make it difficult for a single actor to address them (Matos et al., 2022). In the context of climate innovation entrepreneurship, this entails integrating expertise from environmental science, engineering, economics, sociology, policy studies, business, and beyond (Froebrich et al., 2020). This transdisciplinarity provides a practical way of addressing challenges for purposes of system innovation through social learning in circumstances that are wrought with uncertainty and ambiguity.

Despite the growing interest, the literature on lessons from transdisciplinary projects – bridging research and practice – in the African region, specifically Sub-Saharan Africa, is still scarce. What exists often focuses on the utilisation of frameworks and methods from the Global North (Thondhlana et al., 2021). This paper seeks to address this gap by reviewing examples of transdisciplinarity within climate innovation entrepreneurship projects in Africa and using these to develop an analysis framework. The resulting DCOx framework focuses on drivers, challenges and outcomes, and the cross-cutting issue of ‘stakeholder engagement’. As such, the objectives of this paper are to (a) outline the DCOx framework and provide a rationale for its development, (b) review the use of the framework against three case studies, and (c) outline the results of the DCOx analysis of the three case studies to highlight further transdisciplinary research areas. The rest of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the DCOx framework, Section 3 outlines the methodology used in this research work. Section 4 presents the case studies of transdisciplinary initiatives in Africa. The last section, Section 5, discusses the findings from the analysis of the case studies using our DCOx framework and the resulting conclusions.

2 The DCOx framework

The framework (see Table 1) is based on the elements identified as critical across the definitions of transdisciplinarity and climate innovation entrepreneurship that emerged from a review of the initial 13 case studies reviewed. These identified four core elements or factors that can help understand transdisciplinary projects in the climate innovation entrepreneurship space in the Global South. Ostrom (2011) notes that frameworks use elements to classify or organise inquiry and provide a platform for the development of causal explanations and relationships (Coral and Bokelmann, 2017). In this way they provide a structured way to organise thoughts and interpret data (Betsill and Nasiritousi, 2023). As such, the DCOx framework was developed through the thematic review of the case studies that articulated these four framework areas and highlighted the logical sequence of the Drivers, Challenges and Outcomes together with the cross-cutting issue of stakeholder engagement.

Table 1

Table 1. DCOx framework elements.

The first of these core elements is what we term the drivers or rationale for transdisciplinary projects bridging research and practice in the climate innovation entrepreneurship (CIE) space. It is also based on the need for more focus on moving transdisciplinarity out of the academic research world and into the practice realm. As such, the drivers identified are focused on those used to define a CIE. In helping consider how to ensure more ‘knowing in practice’ and ‘solving of problems in motion’, the framework focuses on understanding the challenges encountered with past transdisciplinary projects in the CIE space to enable lesson learning for future endeavours. The third element of the framework focuses on outcomes or the tangible immediate and longer-term changes that are important to stakeholders. In both discussions of CIE and transdisciplinarity, there is consensus that efforts should focus on addressing societal problems; however, the focus of a CIE is also on ensuring the tangible creation of new resource-generating inventions, products or services. Finally, the framework recognises the importance of what we term ‘stakeholder engagement’ as a cross-cutting requirement that brings together actors from diverse environments to support the integration of knowledge for successful CIE.

This framework does not put together particularly new framework elements. Others who have written on climate entrepreneurship have used similar combinations of our three core elements (drivers, challenges and outcomes), although they are often referred to by different names. For example, Singh et al. (2025) use a drivers and outcomes-based framework to analyse green entrepreneurship, while Tura et al. (2019) utilise a drivers and barriers framework to analyse the circular economy. A Scopus search of article titles found 249 papers that focused on identifying or analysing barriers and drivers.¹ Waxin et al. (2023) actually use the same three elements – drivers, challenges, and outcomes – to study environmental management system implementation in public sector organisations.

This study augments the analytical framework elements that many have used in the past in various combinations by incorporating the element of stakeholder engagement. Recognising the centrality of human action in bringing about change is not a new idea, having been first discussed by Aristotle and other Greek philosophers (Schlosser, 2019). However, it was not until the 1980s that stakeholder theory gained popularity, and since then, numerous approaches to considering the role of stakeholders in business management have emerged (Miles, 2017). Analysing the case studies using this framework provides recommendations for those considering the development of new climate innovation entrepreneurship support programmes, especially from the entrepreneur’s perspective. Using the framework also reiterates the importance of co-creation and co-production elements of stakeholder engagement for transdisciplinarity in climate innovation entrepreneurship (Norström et al., 2020). In particular, the framework – by including stakeholders and therefore issues of agency and not just structure – allows the cases to be examined based on their contexts. Specifically, it allows for the reflection of assumptions, an appreciation of power dynamics and (re)iteration of projects and their aims (outcomes) as needed (Thondhlana et al., 2021).

3 Case study selection methodology

This paper uses a qualitative case study-based approach with purposively selected case studies. Specifically, it uses the DCOx framework to analyse case studies of CIE projects that utilised transdisciplinary approaches in Africa. The case studies were identified during the TransCIIT Project. This project, conducted from 2021 to 2023, focused on transdisciplinarity in climate innovation entrepreneurship in Kenya, bringing together students from Kenyan universities with climate innovation entrepreneurs through a “matchmaking service.” As the project ended its pilot phase in 2022, the project team reviewed other similar projects on the continent. The main focus during this review was on the challenges faced by those engaged in transdisciplinary projects, through which the importance of drivers, outcomes and stakeholders became apparent. This was reiterated though a review of the broader transdisciplinary literature.

This review enabled the project team to understand what had worked and what had not worked in similar projects. The results of this review helped the project team develop the project’s second phase. The review of similar projects utilised Google Scholar and Google search engines to identify relevant material. Combinations of the following search terms were used to narrow the search: “transdisciplinary project outcomes,” “transdisciplinarity initiatives,” “climate innovation,” “entrepreneurial universities,” and “transdisciplinary research” and “Africa.” 13 initial case studies were identified – see Table 2.

Table 2

Table 2. Case study rationalization process.

For this paper, three years later, we have narrowed down on three case studies to study in more depth using purposive sampling. It was decided not to consider any additional projects that may have come up in the intervening years due to the amount of initial data analysis that had already been conducted during the first review period. Table 2 outlines this case study rationalisation process and the final selected case studies.

The selection criteria used to narrow down to three case studies included (a) the need for a clear focus on climate innovation, (b) a selection of cases that included a range of experiences from across the continent and, (c) a set of cases that provided examples of multi-country, country-wide and locally focused/ sub-national projects.

Despite the selection criteria, given the bias of the initial case study list on Kenyan examples (because the original project was focused in Kenya), two of the three case studies used in this paper are Kenyan. However, these do include a mix of national-level and sub-national examples. There is also diversity in the size and shape of the case studies, reducing the potential bias in country focus. Specifically, two of the case studies are located in the agriculture field and the last is located in the education field. Such potential bias was deemed negligible by the authors relative to the lessons that can be learnt from the three case studies with respect to the promotion of transdisciplinarity for transformative change. That said, the implications are likely to have most relevance for countries with contexts similar to Kenya and East Africa more generally, than perhaps other parts of the world. In areas where the geography, history, economics and social structures have created different climate entrepreneurship and innovation contexts, the findings may be less relevant.

The data on the case studies were reviewed and written up into narrative overviews provided in Section 4. The case study write-ups start with an initial background to the project or programme, before narrowing down on the drivers or rationale for the project or programme, the challenges that have affected the programme, the outcomes that were initially expected and eventually achieved and the stakeholders that were influential.

4 Case studies of transdisciplinary initiatives in Africa

Transdisciplinary initiatives in Africa represent a dynamic and evolving landscape of collaborative efforts to address complex socio-environmental challenges, particularly those exacerbated by climate change. These initiatives unite diverse stakeholders, including researchers, policymakers, communities, and practitioners, to co-create innovative solutions that transcend disciplinary boundaries and integrate multiple perspectives and knowledge systems. This section introduces and interrogates the case studies to showcase the breadth and depth of transdisciplinary approaches in tackling climate-related issues and promoting sustainable development across the continent.

4.1 An introduction to the case studies

Each case study included in this study has different histories, experiences and contexts that influence their drivers, challenges and outcomes. This section provides an overview of the history and objectives of each climate innovation initiative.

The case studies have been developed by reviewing papers written on each project. Specifically, Restrepo et al. (2020) for RELOAD, Ngetich et al. (2010) for OAT and Nyerere et al. (2021) for ESDA. See Table 3 for an overview of these case studies.

Table 3

Table 3. Overview of selected case studies.

4.1.1 Reducing Losses and Adding Value (RELOAD) project, Nakuru County, Kenya

The Reducing Losses and Adding Value (RELOAD) project focused on enhancing collaboration in transdisciplinary sustainability research to reduce post-harvest dairy losses among farmers in the Kenyan dairy sector. It was implemented in Nakuru county and operated between 2013 and 2016. The primary aim of this project was to improve milk preservation practices and reduce spoilage through participatory approaches (Restrepo et al., 2020). The initiative involved farmers, researchers, and local stakeholders in co-designing and implementing solutions, fostering enthusiasm and ownership among participants. The key actors in this project included smallholder farmers, academic researchers, and local dairy cooperatives, with the project initiated by a team of sustainability researchers.

To achieve the aim of this project, a collaborative learning process comprising four phases was set up. Phase 1 – establishing the collaboration; Phase 2 – dialogue; Phase 3 – discovery; and Phase 4 – applying the new knowledge.

Phase 1 entailed institutionalising the relationship between two bottom-up initiatives (Lare Livelihoods Improvement Community-Based Organisation and Mukinduri Dairy Self-Help Group) and researchers. Farmers were involved as co-researchers in defining, designing, testing, implementing, and evaluating sustainable solutions for jointly defined real-world problems.

Phase 2 entailed integrating knowledge to promote a shared understanding of contextualised sustainability challenges related to dairy production by group members and researchers. The problems were analysed through (i) participatory photography; (ii) reconstruction of farmers’ rationale when performing their farming activities based on second-order cybernetics; (iii) analysis of milk quality; and (iv) co-inquiry on milk production and commercialisation. Milk losses were defined as the difference between potential and actual milk yield. Testing different ideas to improve milk quality was done through a joint strategy and action plan. Groups acquired knowledge on how to apply for self-managed innovation through a video proposal.

During Phase 3, knowledge was co-created through, “(i) peer-to-peer exchange sessions about silage making, different types of fodder production, construction and maintenance of zero-grazing housing units, and keeping records; (ii) farmer-led experimentation; (iii) the implementation of participatory monitoring and evaluation activities (e.g., keeping milk production records, testing milk density, and mastitis incidence); and (iv) sharing stories of change.” This enabled farmers to fill knowledge gaps and develop context-specific innovations to address the identified challenges.

Phase 4 consisted of farmers implementing contextualised innovations on a wider scale. They also applied for farmer-managed innovation funds, consequently evolving into a new phase of discovery on resource use improvement. This enabled pilot testing of a small biogas digester that turns cows’ manure into cooking gas. The newfound practices expanded to neighbouring groups, resulting in enhanced societal impact.

Three basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness of the participating farmers were addressed through the transdisciplinary processes of knowledge integration and co-creation. The collaborative process involved researchers relinquishing traditional top-down control, instead empowering farmers by giving them active roles, responsibilities, and decision-making authority. This power-sharing dynamic was key to fostering the farmers’ sense of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, enabling effective knowledge integration and co-creation of practical solutions to reduce post-harvest dairy losses. This highlighted the importance of a collaborative approach to defining and refining the transdisciplinary approach to better empower the farmers to co-create practical solutions.

The research methods and tools used to co-create these practical solutions enhanced the farmers’ competence and elevated their enthusiasm. Peer-to-peer sessions enabled learning on specific challenges: change in perception about specific farming practices, better understanding of their knowledge, development of a testimony of own progress, and exchange of information on success. Knowledge exchange in formal and informal settings enabled the development of a sense of trust. Farmers were able to attach importance to empathy, friendship, and networking. The collaborative learning process was useful in enhancing the ability of participants to deal with sustainability challenges and institute change.

The RELOAD project in Kenya emerged as a response to post-harvest dairy losses exacerbated by climate variability. By fostering collaborative learning between researchers and farmers, the project reduced spoilage significantly through innovations like biogas digesters. Farmers’ active roles in co-designing solutions not only enhanced their technical skills but also strengthened community ownership, demonstrating how equitable participation can bridge scientific and local knowledge systems. Challenges such as market access gaps and resistance to new technologies persisted, yet iterative feedback loops ensured adaptability.

4.1.2 The Organic Agriculture with Trees project (OAT), Kenya

The Organic Agriculture with Trees (OAT) project aimed to promote sustainable farming practices by integrating organic agriculture and agroforestry in Kenya. It operated between 2004 and 2009 in the Kenyan highlands, focusing on improving soil fertility, crop yields, and environmental resilience through tree planting and organic techniques. The project facilitated knowledge exchange, capacity building, and participatory research among farmers and researchers (Ngetich et al., 2010). Key stakeholders included smallholder farmers, local communities, academic researchers, and NGOs, with the project initiated through a collaborative effort involving Kenyan and international researchers.

The researchers learned from each other, together, and with other actors in the project. Discussions among the actors were instrumental in refining the questionnaire and sampling procedure, generating research ideas, and developing the justification of the research questions and findings. Enumerators and non-researchers helped in developing trust between the respondents and researchers. Systematic engagement of stakeholders was achieved through different workshops organised for different categories of stakeholders, depending on the issues to be discussed.

The research concluded that it was necessary to motivate actors who participate in steering the project by demonstrating added value, which ought to be transparent for all engaged. The use of experience-based knowledge generated by different stakeholders with scientific knowledge results in an in-depth understanding and integrated knowledge necessary for addressing research problems. It was possible to bridge the knowledge gap through the integration of disciplines. There was limited commitment and consistency in the participation of local politicians, which could be attributed to the political tension in Mau at the time. Mixing local knowledge with external knowledge in the project locality resulted in hybrid knowledge that promoted synergy and synthesis. The project provided the opportunity for non-researchers and researchers to share experiences, build networks, and share their understanding of issues. The farmers’ expectations of gain were managed by providing tree seedlings, but there were indications they desired a longer-term engagement.

The OAT project integrated agroforestry with traditional farming to combat soil degradation. While the initiative improved crop yields and biodiversity, its success relied on reconciling scientific methods with indigenous practices. Workshops tailored to farmers’ needs facilitated knowledge exchange, though limited policy support and certification barriers for organic products highlighted systemic constraints. The project’s emphasis on women’s participation – leveraging their expertise in sustainable practices – revealed untapped potential for gender-inclusive climate resilience, yet broader institutional buy-in remained elusive.

4.1.3 Education for Sustainable Development in Africa (ESDA)

The Education for Sustainable Development in Africa (ESDA) project was a collaborative initiative to integrate sustainable development into higher education curricula across African universities. It operated from 2008 to 2019, with active implementation starting in 2013, and involved universities in multiple African countries (Nyerere et al., 2021). The project focused on developing graduate programs in sustainable integrated rural development, sustainable urban development, and mineral and mining resources management, fostering transdisciplinary research and capacity building. The key actors included academic researchers, students, policymakers, local communities and international supporters like UNESCO and the African Development Bank. The United Nations University (UNU), Tokyo initiated the project.

The programmes bought together universities and government and other actors outside universities. The eight universities were Kenyatta University (KU) and University of Nairobi (UoN) in Kenya; Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), University for Development Studies (UDS), and University of Ghana (UG) in Ghana; University of Ibadan (UI) in Nigeria; University of Cape Town (UCT) in South Africa and University of Zambia (UNZA) in Zambia. The three programmes that were conducted through this project were: Sustainable Urban Development (SUD); Sustainable Integrated Rural Development in Africa (SIRDA) and Mining and Mineral Resources (MMR).

Narrowing down on the SUD programme, this was offered at the UON and KU in Kenya. It targeted “policymakers; non-governmental organisations (NGOs); community health care and social workers; women and youth groups; and entrepreneurial, energy, housing, water, sanitation and manufacturing extension workers.” It was a two-year Master of Science in Sustainable Urban Development (MSc in SUD) designed to impart market-responsive knowledge, technical and entrepreneurial skills, and attitudes relevant to sustainable urban development. The key objective was to contribute to poverty alleviation in urban slums. The acquired skills were expected to give birth to an all-inclusive space that provides opportunities for self-employment security for the youth, women, and the vulnerable in poor urban communities. The training essentially facilitates the target population through capacity enhancement to operate sustainable income-generating activities and enables the accumulation of surplus resources to cope with development challenges.

The course has resulted in the development of entrepreneurial ventures such as NIKO GREEN, which facilitates knowledge exchange and technology transfer and enables the diffusion of sustainable innovation in society. The company provides evidence-based policy advice to government, UN agencies, NGOs, and businesses and promotes the deployment of green technologies in clean energy, green building, and sustainable health care.

The SIRDA programme in Ghana and Nigeria also allowed for interdisciplinary and holistic learning. It addressed complex developmental issues in West Africa that relate to nutritional deficiency, food insecurity, limited access to potable water, low agricultural production capacity, land degradation, and climate change. However, it was noted that the MMR training in Zambia and South Africa did not accord the students much exposure to transdisciplinary methods, as mining conglomerates imposed restrictions aimed at protecting their brands. The level of knowledge co-creation and co-implementation of sustainability action among stakeholders was quite limited.

The ESDA project reoriented higher education curricula to tackle systemic challenges like urban poverty. While graduate programs spawned ventures such as NIKO GREEN, which influenced green technology policies, disparities emerged between universities. Mining-focused curricula struggled with corporate resistance to knowledge sharing, whereas urban development programs thrived through community partnerships. Over a decade, ESDA strengthened institutional capacity but revealed gaps in decentralising decision-making to marginalised groups.

4.2 Analysis of the case studies using the DCOx framework

The examined initiatives underscore the transformative potential of transdisciplinary approaches in addressing climate-related challenges across Africa, though their effectiveness hinges on nuanced contextual factors. The key drivers, outcomes and challenges identified through the case studies are provided in Table 4. This table also focuses on the stakeholder engagement issues that are raised by the case studies.

Table 4

Table 4. Case study analysis using the DCOx framework.

All the projects were driven by aims and goals that fit broader societal challenges (e.g., climate change adaptation or food security) while also often addressing more specific needs (e.g., income generation by local entrepreneurs). The drivers were usually co-created together with other stakeholders.

The challenges facing the projects were multifaceted. Issues of institutionalisation of the activities, especially given differences in priorities amongst stakeholders and the resulting problems of collaboration, were raised in all the case studies. Similarly, the difficulty of engaging with some stakeholders and the importance of bringing in stakeholders early was also raised. The ESDA case study highlighted the importance of the sustainability of activities and the need to build continuity after the project has been completed. Cultural differences and technological issues were also faced by those working on other case studies.

The outcomes varied from tangible outputs in product development and new innovative technological solutions, technical reports and training programmes/ new curricula to individual and networking capacity building. It also included the achievement of outcomes related to more economic impact such as enhanced engagement in value chains and self-efficiency of entrepreneurs, as well as to societal impact linked to building climate resilience and biodiversity awareness.

The DCOx framework is completed by focusing on the cross-cutting issue of stakeholder engagement. This was found to be critical across all three case studies. Stakeholder engagement was deliberately designed into these projects, focusing on multiple types of stakeholder interaction from workshops to collaborative research to co-design and co-implementation of training programmes and curricula. The stakeholder engagement was widespread, involving a range of different types of stakeholders over the whole lifecycle of the project (whether it was a few years or over a decade in operation). Two of the case studies (OAT and ESDA) emphasised the importance of feedback loops in the engagement process to ensure mutual learning and trust building and constant review and updating of the project activities to fit the focused needs. Much of the engagement was focused on bridging research and practice, specifically ensuring research was focused on practical applications. The form of stakeholder interaction was dominated by a focus on practical and solution-based interactions, blending science and local knowledge as a result of the transdisciplinary approach each case study took.

5 Discussion and conclusion

The transdisciplinary approach offers an opportunity to overcome the challenges of climate innovation entrepreneurship by integrating diverse perspectives, knowledge, and expertise from various disciplines. Utilising the DCOx framework, this study has highlighted the drivers, challenges, and outcomes of transdisciplinary projects and the vital role of stakeholder engagement in successfully implementing such projects. In so doing, it addresses a gap identified in the literature for the development of frameworks in the context of the Global South (Thondhlana et al., 2021). It has also refocused the attention of these projects to those of all stakeholders and away from the dominant focus on research, even in research partner-led projects.

Refocusing the narrative and acknowledging the role of different stakeholders is critical as, across the three initiatives, co-creation emerged as a cornerstone of success, enabling stakeholders to merge scientific expertise with localised knowledge. For instance, the RELOAD project’s phased approach, where farmers co-designed solutions like biogas systems, demonstrated how iterative collaboration fosters ownership and contextual relevance. However, co-creation’s effectiveness hinged on equitable power dynamics. In OAT, while farmers contributed traditional agroforestry practices, inconsistent engagement from policymakers limited systemic change, revealing how hierarchical structures can stifle inclusive problem-solving.

The tension between global sustainability agendas and local realities surfaced repeatedly. ESDA’s alignment with the SDGs, for example, drove curriculum reforms but faced friction in contexts like Zambia’s mining sector, where corporate interests clashed with community-centric resource management. Similarly, OAT’s organic certification goals, though aligned with global environmental standards, struggled against local market barriers, as smallholders lacked access to premium markets. These cases highlight the need for adaptive frameworks that reinterpret global goals through culturally resonant, place-based strategies.

Sustained stakeholder trust proved vital yet fragile. ESDA’s limited integration of rural communities into decision-making eroded trust, as curricula sometimes overlooked grassroots needs. RELOAD’s multi-year engagement, with regular feedback loops, strengthened farmer-researcher relationships. Trust was thus both a catalyst for innovation and a vulnerability when engagement was superficial or transient.

Women and youth, though often sidelined in formal systems, emerged as linchpins of resilience. In RELOAD and OAT, women’s leadership in adopting sustainable practices from silage production to tree nurseries drove household income stability and ecological stewardship. Yet their enterprises remained disproportionately informal, constrained by limited access to finance and urban-centric support networks. As seen in ESDA, youth brought fresh perspectives; design students reimagined assistive technologies, while graduates launched green ventures. However, systemic barriers such as rigid academic structures in ESDA often stifled the agency of women and young people, underscoring the need for policies that amplify marginalised voices.

In addition to this structural inequality, other structural barriers persisted across contexts. Funding volatility, exemplified by ESDA’s reliance on donor grants, jeopardised long-term impact, while institutional fragmentation across all three case studies hindered holistic solutions. Cultural resistance also loomed large. For example, RELOAD farmers initially distrusted modern techniques. Overcoming these barriers required adaptive governance, as seen in OAT’s multi-year training programs. The OAT project also highlighted the barriers to policy influence that even a strongly transdisciplinary project could have until it brings in the policymakers more actively as a stakeholder.

Given the above, as transdisciplinary research is still emerging on the African continent, project teams and partners require time to reflect on the processes and adapt them to embryonic conditions. The expectations of different actors are likely to be varied. Understanding the context and interdependencies is critical because a solution designed for one situation may fail to work in another.

We posit that the DCOx framework provides a means to interrogate transdisciplinarity and its efforts in a way that pulls out the complexities of the context and the interdependencies between stakeholders. The framework (Table 1) visually considers the dimensions separately although actively noting that stakeholders influence all three of the D, C and O dimensions. However, there are obviously interconnections between the drivers, challenges and outcomes. For example, the RELOAD project was driven by a need to increase agricultural productivity but the very challenge (climate variability) that created problems in agricultural productivity (and gave rise to the project) also impacts on the ability for entrepreneurs to be successful during the project. The critical element of this framework is, however, the recognition of the importance of stakeholder interactions and the importance of building opportunities for stakeholder engagement and tackling trust and power relations. All three projects highlight the importance of addressing power relations head-on and utilising co-creation mechanisms. For example, the projects highlighted the critical role of women and young people as agents of resilience despite structural barriers and limited policy engagement opportunities.

The framework has been developed to analyse transdisciplinary projects in an ex-post environment. However, the team would be interested in exploring in future research the opportunity to use the DCOx framework as a framing device in the development and planning of future transdisciplinary projects. For example, early on in a project it is envisaged that the framework would provide a way for stakeholders to come together and create buy-in through a discussion of stakeholders’ different drivers for being involved, the expected outcomes on the part of each stakeholder, the challenges that are likely to be incurred (and therefore the type, form and extent of stakeholder engagement activities that will be needed).

The closest similar framework we have found was developed by Hölsgens et al. (2023), but in the context of transdisciplinary projects in Germany, further supporting Thondhlana et al. (2021)‘s assertion that most analytical frameworks on transdisciplinarity are developed in the context of the Global North. Thondhlana et al. (2021) reviewed four case studies and asked the questions: (1) What is the transdisciplinary approach followed by the project? (2) Which opportunities and challenges can be identified for successful transdisciplinary collaborations? (3) What is the rationale for engaging in transdisciplinary research from the perspective of social scientists? (4) What evidence is there of a ‘logic of empowerment’ as a driver for transdisciplinary research? Similar but different, this project focuses on the driver of researchers to ‘enlarge the impact of their work,’ i.e., to be empowered to implement their innovations, as opposed to the focus of DCOx on ensuring more recognition and empowerment of all stakeholders, especially those involved in the practice of climate innovation entrepreneurship.

In conclusion, this case study analysis of three projects has helped explain the concept of transdisciplinarity and its relevance for climate innovation entrepreneurship. It has done this by highlighting the experiences of three projects that took a transdisciplinary lens to their conceptualisation, implementation and evaluation. Transdisciplinarity is still emerging on the African continent with relatively few examples of these in the climate innovation entrepreneurship space. While further exploration of the DCOx framework is needed, it has highlighted the possibility of developing contextualised analytical frameworks that build on the needs and requirements of those in the Global South.

Specifically, this review of the three case studies using the DCOx framework has reiterated the role that a transdisciplinarity approach has in drawing on both academic and practice-based knowledge systems, using inquiry-driven interaction to bridge the gap between academia, industry, government, and civil society. By focusing on the stakeholder engagement relations and how these influence the drivers, challenges and outcomes, it places an emphasis on ‘knowing in practice’ (Polanyi, 1969) and ‘solving of problems in motion’ to further the unity of knowledges. Thus, this paper ends with a call for more exploration of transdisciplinary projects using the DCOx framework and, importantly, more work to understand if this framework can provide a basis for encouraging and developing more transdisciplinary projects that focus on climate innovation entrepreneurship on the African continent.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

RH: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, project administration. OA: Writing – review & editing. FW: Writing – original draft.

Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. The project fell under the work of the DSI/NRF-funded Trilateral Research Chair in Transformative Innovation, the Fourth Industrial Revolution and Sustainable Development. We, therefore, acknowledge the funding received through the DSI/NRF-funded Trilateral Chair from the National Research Foundation of South Africa (Grant number: 118873). This work was funded by the British Council through their Innovation in African Universities (IAU) programme. The lead author and the second author were also funded through the SARChI Chair in Transformative Innovation, the 4IR and Sustainable Development, which is supported by the National Research Foundation of South Africa (Grant Number: 118873).

Acknowledgments

This paper was inspired by work conducted during the TransCIIT project (2021–2023), a collaboration between the University of Sussex, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science and Technology, the African Centre for Technology Studies, the University of Johannesburg, and the Kenya Climate Innovation Centre. Finally, we would like to thank the two reviewers for their valuable comments that helped further sharpen the paper’s structure and content.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The authors declare that Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Use of an AI editing software.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

1.^Conducted 11/10/25 using search term “barriers and drivers.”

References

Alvares, L. M. A. D. R., and Freire, P. D. S. (2023). Transdisciplinarity: the search for the unity of scientific and technological knowledge. RDBCI Rev. Digit. Bibliotecon. Cienc. Inf. 20:e022016. doi: 10.20396/rdbci.v20i00.8670175

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Betsill, M., and Nasiritousi, N. (2023). Developing and working with analytical frameworks. Conducting research on global environmental agreement-making. Cham: Springer.

Google Scholar

Block, J. H., Fisch, C. O., and van Praag, M. (2016). The schumpeterian entrepreneur: a review of the empirical evidence on the antecedents, behaviour and consequences of innovative entrepreneurship. Ind. Innov. 24, 61–95. doi: 10.1080/13662716.2016.1216397

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Caniglia, G., Lüderitz, C., von Wirth, T., Fazey, I., Martín-López, B., Hondrila, K., et al. (2021). A pluralistic and integrated approach to action-oriented knowledge for sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 4, 93–100. doi: 10.1038/s41893-020-00616-z

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Coral, C., and Bokelmann, W. (2017). The role of analytical frameworks for systemic research design, explained in the analysis of drivers and dynamics of historic land-use changes. Systems 5:20. doi: 10.3390/systems5010020

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Crick, F., Diop, M., Sow, M., Diouf, B., Diouf, B., Muhwanga, J., et al. (2016). Enabling private sector adaptation in developing countries and their semi-arid regions–case studies of Senegal and Kenya. Cham: Springer.

Google Scholar

Crick, F., Eskander, S., Fankhauser, S., and Diop, M. (2018). How do African SMEs respond to climate risks? Evidence from Kenya and Senegal. World Dev. 108, 157–168. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.03.015

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Eisenmann, T. R. (2013). Entrepreneurship: a working definition. Harv. Bus. Rev. 10, 1–3.

Google Scholar

Fal, M. (2013). Accelerating entrepreneurship in Africa. Innov. Accelerating Entr. 8, 149–168. doi: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2066-5.ch004

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Froebrich, J., Ludi, E., Bouarfa, S., Rollin, D., Jovanovic, N., Roble, M., et al. (2020). Transdisciplinary innovation in irrigated smallholder agriculture in Africa. Irrig. Drain. 69, 6–22. doi: 10.1002/ird.2400

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gannon, K., Castellano, E., Eskander, S., Diop, M., and Agol, D. (2022). The triple vulnerability of female entrepreneurs to climate risk in sub-Saharan Africa: gendered barriers and enablers to private sector adaptation. WIREs Clim. Change 22, 1–23. doi: 10.1002/wcc.793

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gawell, M. (2020). “Towards a transdisciplinary approach to entrepreneurship for sustainable development” in Transdisciplinarity for sustainability. eds. M. M. Keitsch and W. J. V. Vermeulen (London: Routledge), 144–155.

Google Scholar

Gibbons, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Google Scholar

Heidkamp, C. P., Garland, M., and Krak, L. (2021). Enacting a just and sustainable blue economy through transdisciplinary action research. Geogr. J. 189, 246–258. doi: 10.1111/geoj.12410

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hölsgens, R., Wascher, E., Bauer, C., Boll, J., Bund, S., Dankwart-Kammoun, S., et al. (2023). Transdisciplinary research along the logic of empowerment: perspectives from four urban and regional transformation projects. Sustainability 15:4599. doi: 10.3390/su15054599

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Karadayı, T., Yazıcı, S., and Akdemir Ömür, G. (2024). Climate change and entrepreneurship: a review and research agenda. Glob. Bus. Organ. Excel. 44, 16–43. doi: 10.1002/joe.22281

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kok, K. P. W., Gjefsen, M. D., Regeer, B. J., and Broerse, J. E. W. (2021). Unraveling the politics of ‘doing inclusion’ in transdisciplinarity for sustainable transformation. Sustain. Sci. 16, 1811–1826. doi: 10.1007/s11625-021-01033-7,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lawrence, R. J. (2022). Handbook of transdisciplinarity: Global perspectives. New York, NY: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Google Scholar

Lawrence, R. J. (2023). Transdisciplinarity: science for the public good. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1519, 5–6. doi: 10.1111/nyas.14940,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Matos, S., Viardot, E., Sovacool, B. K., Geels, F. W., and Xiong, Y. (2022). Innovation and climate change: a review and introduction to the special issue. Technovation 117:102612. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102612

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Miles, S. (2017). Stakeholder theory classification: a theoretical and empirical evaluation of definitions. J. Bus. Ethics 142, 437–459. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2741-y

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nicolescu, B. (2001). Manifesto of transdisciplinarity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Google Scholar

Ngetich, K. A., Freyer, B., and Bingen, J. (2010). Transdisciplinary research in sub-Saharan Africa: experiences and challenges in Kenya. In: Building sustainable rural futures: the added value of systems approaches in times of change and uncertainty. 9th European IFSA symposium, Vienna, Austria, BOKU-University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences. 517–526. Available online at: https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/20133409822 (Accessed October 11, 2025).

Google Scholar

Norström, A. V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., et al. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sustain. 3, 182–190. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nyerere, J., Kapfudzaruwa, F., Fadairo, O., Odingo, A., Manchisi, J., and Kudo, S. (2021). Case study: higher education and the Education for Sustainable Development in Africa (ESDA) program. Research Policy 22, 179–199. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-74693-3_11

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Obsi Gemeda, D., and Dafisa Sima, A. (2015). The impacts of climate change on African continent and the way forward. JENE 7, 256–262. doi: 10.5897/JENE2015

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Stud. J. 39, 7–27. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00394.x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Park, J. (2016). Climate Strategies Global Climate Policy Conference Dar es Salaam. 1. Available online at: http://climatestrategies.org/global-climate-policy-conference-2016 (Accessed October 11, 2025).

Google Scholar

Philip, L. D., Emir, F., and Alola, A. A. (2021). The asymmetric nexus of entrepreneurship and environmental quality in a developing economy. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 19, 7625–7636. doi: 10.1007/s13762-021-03670-y

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Polanyi, M. (1969). Knowing and being: Essays by Michael Polanyi. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Google Scholar

Restrepo, M. J., Lelea, M. A., and Kaufmann, B. A. (2020). Assessing the quality of collaboration in transdisciplinary sustainability research: farmers’ enthusiasm to work together for the reduction of post-harvest dairy losses in Kenya. Environ. Sci. Pol. 105, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.12.004

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schlosser, M. (2019). “Agency” in The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (winter 2019 edition). ed. E. N. Zalta (Cham: Springer).

Google Scholar

Singh, H., Kumar, P., and Dana, L. P. (2025). The green entrepreneurship landscape: drivers, outcomes, and future directions. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 21, 1–63.

Google Scholar

Thiam, S., Aziz, F., Kushitor, S. B., Amaka-Otchere, A. B. K., Onyima, B. N., and Odume, O. N. (2021). Analyzing the contributions of transdisciplinary research to the global sustainability agenda in African cities. Sustain. Sci. 16, 1923–1944. doi: 10.1007/s11625-021-01042-6,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Thondhlana, G., Mubaya, C. P., McClure, A., Amaka-otchere, A. B. K., and Ruwanza, S. (2021). Facilitating urban sustainability through transdisciplinary (td) research: lessons from Ghana, South Africa and Zimbabwe. Sustainability 13, 1–18. doi: 10.3390/su13116205

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tura, N., Hanski, J., Ahola, T., Ståhle, M., Piiparinen, S., and Valkokari, P. (2019). Unlocking circular business: a framework of barriers and drivers. J. Clean. Prod. 212, 90–98. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.202

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

UNFCCC (2018). Energizing Entrepreneurs to Tackle Climate Change. Available online at: https://unfccc.int/ttclear/tec/brief12.html (Accessed October 11, 2025).

Google Scholar

Vienni-Baptista, B., Fletcher, I., Lyall, C., and Pohl, C. (2022). Embracing heterogeneity: why plural understandings strengthen interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. Sci. Public Policy 49, 865–877. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scac034

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Waxin, M. F., Bartholomew, A., Zhao, F., and Siddiqi, A. (2023). Drivers, challenges and outcomes of environmental management system implementation in public sector organizations: a systematic review of empirical evidence. Sustainability 15:7391. doi: 10.3390/su15097391

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar