Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Aligning sociotechnical systems perspectives and adoption readiness levels to accelerate clean energy adoption

Nature Reviews Clean Technology (2026)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Accelerating clean energy technology adoption requires a comprehensive understanding of the complex interplay between technological and social factors. In this Perspective, we discuss how the sociotechnical (ST) systems field of research, which is part of the broader field of science and technology studies (STS), aligns to the adoption readiness level (ARL) framework. Unlike the technology readiness levels, which focuses on the technical maturity of technologies, ARL aligns with STS and ST systems thinking through emphasis on the technical, economic, social, political and cultural factors that hinder technology adoption. We map four core risk areas of ARL — value proposition, market acceptance, resource maturity and licence to operate — to ST systems elements. This framework provides academics, policymakers and practitioners with theoretically grounded, context-tailored tools for improved assessment of clean technology adoption readiness.

Key points

  • The technology readiness level framework, while widely adopted, fails to capture the sociotechnical factors that often determine whether clean energy technologies achieve widespread market adoption.

  • The adoption readiness level (ARL) framework addresses this gap by assessing 17 risk dimensions across four core areas: value proposition, market acceptance, resource maturity and licence to operate.

  • Unlike technology readiness level, which is context-agnostic and linear, ARL assessments are inherently dynamic and can change over time as policy, market or social conditions change.

  • ARL risk dimensions can be mapped to specific elements of the sociotechnical systems paradigm, which is part of the broader field of science and technology studies (STS), to explicitly show the interdependence between the social and technical factors that underpin STS frameworks and influence ARL.

  • The alignment of STS frameworks to ARL via the mapping provided gives policymakers and practitioners a practical means of leveraging academic theory for technology adoption risk assessments that capture the spatial and temporal variability inherent in such assessments.

  • Future work should validate this alignment of STS to ARL through comparative, real-world ARL applications across multiple clean-technology transition contexts and test whether STS-informed evidence collection and interpretation improves the accuracy, transparency and usefulness of technology adoption-risk assessments.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: ARL framework.
Fig. 2: Mapping adoption readiness level dimensions of adoption risk to sociotechnical system elements.
Fig. 3: General workflow for operationalizing STS frameworks in ARL assessments.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Geels, F. W., Sovacool, B. K., Schwanen, T. & Sorrell, S. Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonization. Science 357, 1242–1244 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Brown, M. A. & Sovacool, B. K. Climate Change and Global Energy Security: Technology and Policy Options (MIT Press, 2011).

  3. Geels, F. W., Sovacool, B. K., Schwanen, T. & Sorrell, S. The socio-technical dynamics of low-carbon transitions. Joule 1, 463–479 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Creutzig, F., Hilaire, J., Nemet, G., Müller-Hansen, F. & Minx, J. C. Technological innovation enables low cost climate change mitigation. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 105, 103276 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brown, M. A., Chandler, J., Lapsa, M. V. & Sovacool, B. K. Carbon Lock-In: Barriers to Deploying Climate Change Mitigation Technologies (ORNL, 2008).

  6. Creutzig, F. et al. Beyond technology: demand-side solutions for climate change mitigation. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41, 173–198 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Al-Emran, M. & Griffy-Brown, C. The role of technology adoption in sustainable development: overview, opportunities, challenges, and future research agendas. Technol. Soc. 73, 102240 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Stern, N. The economics of climate change. Am. Econ. Rev. 98, 1–37 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Nordhaus, W. Climate change: the ultimate challenge for economics. Am. Econ. Rev. 109, 1991–2014 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. US Department of Energy. Technology Readiness Assessment Guide (DOE, 2015).

  11. Mankins, J. C. Technology readiness assessments: a retrospective. Acta Astronaut. 65, 1216–1223 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tomaschek, K., Olechowski, A., Eppinger, S. & Joglekar, N. A survey of technology readiness level users. INCOSE Int. Symp. 26, 2101–2117 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Olechowski, A. L., Eppinger, S. D., Joglekar, N. & Tomaschek, K. Technology readiness levels: shortcomings and improvement opportunities. Syst. Eng. 23, 395–408 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hofbauer, L., McDowall, W. & Pye, S. Challenges and opportunities for energy system modelling to foster multi-level governance of energy transitions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 161, 112330 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tian, L., Mees, J., Chan, V. & Dean, W. Commercial Adoption Readiness Assessment Tool (CARAT) (DOE, 2023).

  16. Chan, V. Z. Using adoption readiness levels (ARLs) to assess your technology. Presented at LDES National Consortium Annual Workshop (2024).

  17. US Department of Energy. Adoption readiness levels (ARL) framework. DOE https://www.energy.gov/technologycommercialization/adoption-readiness-levels-arl-framework (2024).

  18. Emery, F. E. & Trist, E. L. in Management Science Models and Techniques Vol. 2 (eds Churchman, C. W. & Verhulst, M.) 83–97 (Pergamon, 1959).

  19. Trist, E. L. & Bamforth, K. W. Some social and psychological consequences of the Longwall method of coal-getting: an examination of the psychological situation and defences of a work group in relation to the social structure and technological content of the work system. Hum. Relat. 4, 3–38 (1951).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Peterson, J. C. & Pinch, T. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Sage Publications, 2001).

  21. Felt, U., Fouché, R., Miller, C. A. & Smith-Doerr, L. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (MIT Press, 2016).

  22. Sorrell, S. Explaining sociotechnical transitions: a critical realist perspective. Res. Policy 47, 1267–1282 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Geels, F. W. & Schot, J. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res. Policy 36, 399–417 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Geels, F. W. Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Res. Policy 39, 495–510 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Trist, E. L. The Evolution of Socio-Technical Systems: A Conceptual Framework and an Action Research Program (Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre, 1981).

  26. Sovacool, B. K. What are we doing here? Analyzing fifteen years of energy scholarship and proposing a social science research agenda. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 1, 1–29 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Krupnik, S. et al. Beyond technology: a research agenda for social sciences and humanities research on renewable energy in Europe. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 89, 102536 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bates, C. A. & Clausen, C. Engineering readiness: how the TRL figure of merit coordinates technology development. Eng. Stud. 12, 9–38 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Stern, P. C. How can social science research become more influential in energy transitions? Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 26, 91–95 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sovacool, B. K. & Hess, D. J. Ordering theories: typologies and conceptual frameworks for sociotechnical change. Soc. Stud. Sci. 47, 703–750 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Günther, A. et al. Psychological and contextual determinants of clean energy technology adoption. Nat. Rev. Clean Technol. 1, 547–565 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Fuso Nerini, F. et al. Mapping synergies and trade-offs between energy and the sustainable development goals. Nat. Energy 3, 10–15 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Mercure, J.-F. et al. Reframing incentives for climate policy action. Nat. Energy 6, 1133–1143 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Olabi, A. G. & Abdelkareem, M. A. Renewable energy and climate change. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 158, 112111 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Brand, U. et al. Structural limitations of the decarbonization state. Nat. Clim. Chang. 15, 927–934 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wheeler, D. & Ulsh, M. Manufacturing Readiness Assessment for Fuel Cell Stacks and Systems for the Back-up Power and Material Handling Equipment Emerging Markets (NREL, 2010).

  37. US Government Accountability Office. Best practices: capturing design and manufacturing knowledge early improves acquisition outcomes. US GAO https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-02-701 (2002).

  38. Rönnebro, E. Technology and Manufacturing Readiness of Early Market Motive and Non-Motive Hydrogen Storage Technologies for Fuel Cell Applications (DOE, 2012).

  39. Krebsz, M., Pasinszki, T., Sreenath, S. & Ting, V. P. Advances in catalysing the hydrogen storage in main group metals and their tetrahydroborates and tetrahydroaluminates. EES Catal. 3, 1196–1228 (2025).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Zhou, M.-J., Miao, Y., Gu, Y. & Xie, Y. Recent advances in reversible liquid organic hydrogen carrier systems: from hydrogen carriers to catalysts. Adv. Mater. 36, 2311355 (2024).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Wisdom, J. P., Chor, K. H. B., Hoagwood, K. E. & Horwitz, S. M. Innovation adoption: a review of theories and constructs. Adm. Policy Ment. Health 41, 480–502 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Salvador-Carulla, L., Woods, C., Miquel, C. de & Lukersmith, S. Adaptation of the technology readiness levels for impact assessment in implementation sciences: the TRL-IS checklist. Heliyon 10, e29930 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. El Farsaoui, M., Uratani, J. M., Zahra, M. A. & Griffiths, S. Establishing leadership in bringing carbon capture, utilisation and storage to scale. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 121, 103960 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Griffiths, S. & Uratani, J. M. Fossil fuel-exporting countries have the responsibility and resources to accelerate CCUS adoption. Nat. Rev. Clean Technol. 1, 6–7 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Greig, C., Spokas, K., Waltzer, K., Ulama, D. & Hobart, S. Systemic bankability is the key to unlocking energy transition speed and scale. SSRN https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5149329 (2025).

  46. Bataille, C., Stiebert, S., Algers, J., Li, F. & Alfare, M. Triggering Investment in First-of-a-Kind and Early Near-Zero Emissions Industrial Facilities (CGEP, 2024).

  47. Vik, J., Melås, A. M., Stræte, E. P. & Søraa, R. A. Balanced readiness level assessment (BRLa): a tool for exploring new and emerging technologies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 169, 120854 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Verma, A. & Allen, T. A sociotechnical readiness level framework for the development of advanced nuclear technologies. Nucl. Technol. 210, 1722–1739 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Sabidussi, A. & Wasser, J. M. M. Energy transition readiness: a practical guide. Int. J. Sustain. Energy Plan. Manag. 40, 27–40 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Sprenkeling, M., Geerdink, T., Slob, A. & Geurts, A. Bridging social and technical sciences: introduction of the societal embeddedness level. Energies 15, 6252 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Holden, N. M. A readiness level framework for sustainable circular bioeconomy. EFB Bioecon. J. 2, 100031 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Tao, L., Probert, D. & Phaal, R. Towards an integrated framework for managing the process of innovation. R&D Manag. 40, 19–30 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Evans, J. D. & Johnson, R. O. Tools for managing early-stage business model innovation. Res. Technol. Manag. 56, 52–56 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. KTH Innovation. KTH Innovation readiness level. KTH Innovation https://kthinnovationreadinesslevel.com (2024).

  55. Manning, C. G. Technology readiness levels. NASA https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/somd/space-communications-navigation-program/technology-readiness-levels (2023).

  56. European Commission Directorate General for Research and Innovation. Scaling up Ideas: Using Technology Readiness Levels to Analyse Technology Progression in Horizon Europe (Publications Office of the European Union, 2025).

  57. Godin, B. The linear model of innovation: the historical construction of an analytical framework. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 31, 639–667 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Innovation Fund Denmark. Societal Readiness Levels (SRL) defined according to Innovation Fund Denmark (Innovation Fund Denmark, 2018).

  59. Bruno, I. et al. Technology readiness revisited: a proposal for extending the scope of impact assessment of European public services. in Proc. 13th Int. Conf. Theory Pract. Electron. Govern. 369–380 (ACM, 2020).

  60. Nilchiani, R. R., Caddell, J. & Taramsari, H. B. The extended technology readiness level (eTRL): from deployment to obsolescence. IEEE Open J. Syst. Eng. 3, 1–9 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Anadon, L. D. et al. Making technological innovation work for sustainable development. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 9682–9690 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. US Government Accountability Office. Technology Readiness Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Evaluating the Readiness of Technology for Use in Acquisition Programs and Projects (US GAO, 2020).

  63. Griffiths, S., Uratani, J. M., Ríos-Galván, A., Andresen, J. M. & Maroto-Valer, M. M. Green flight paths: a catalyst for net-zero aviation by 2050. Energy Environ. Sci. 17, 9425–9434 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Howe, C. et al. Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Sustainable Aviation Fuel (DOE, 2024).

  65. Golnaraghi, M. Bringing Climate Tech to Market: The Powerful Role of Insurance (Geneva Association, 2024).

  66. Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations. OCED Investment Risk Approach (OCED, 2025).

  67. Hollas, A., Tuan, A., Viswanathan, V. & Ragazzi, I. Adoption Readiness Level Assessment of Redox Flow Batteries (DOE, 2024).

  68. Johnson, J. After decades of focus on technology innovation, it’s time for climate companies to ask: ‘Can we scale this?’. B Capital https://b.capital/insights/after-decades-of-focus-on-technology-innovation-its-time-for-climate-companies-to-ask-can-we-scale-this/ (2024).

  69. Avery, G. et al. Addressing adoption barriers and accelerating market deployment of new technologies. RSC Sustain. 3, 1830–1847 (2025).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Crossan, M. M. & Apaydin, M. A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature. J. Manag. Stud. 47, 1154–1191 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Woolgar, S. The turn to technology in social studies of science. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 16, 20–50 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. National Research Council. Making IT Better: Expanding Information Technology Research to Meet Society’s Needs (National Academies Press, 2000).

  73. Geels, F. W. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Res. Policy 33, 897–920 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Geels, F. W. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy 31, 1257–1274 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Markard, J., Raven, R. & Truffer, B. Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects. Res. Policy 41, 955–967 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Coenen, L., Benneworth, P. & Truffer, B. Toward a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions. Res. Policy 41, 968–979 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Hansen, T. & Coenen, L. The geography of sustainability transitions: review, synthesis and reflections on an emergent research field. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 17, 92–109 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Asheim, B. T. & Gertler, M. S. in The Oxford Handbook of Innovation (eds Fagerberg, J. & Mowery, D. C.) 291–317 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2006).

  79. Tartaruga, I., Sperotto, F. & Carvalho, L. Addressing inclusion, innovation, and sustainability challenges through the lens of economic geography: introducing the hierarchical regional innovation system. Geogr. Sustain. 5, 1–12 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  80. Heng, Y., Lu, C.-L., Yu, L. & Gao, Z. The heterogeneous preferences for solar energy policies among US households. Energy Policy 137, 111187 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Crago, C. L. & Chernyakhovskiy, I. Are policy incentives for solar power effective? Evidence from residential installations in the Northeast. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 81, 132–151 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Darghouth, N. R., O’Shaughnessy, E., Forrester, S. & Barbose, G. Characterizing local rooftop solar adoption inequity in the US. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 034028 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Dokshin, F. A. Assessing potential for policy feedback from renewable energy incentive programs. npj Clim. Action 3, 83 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Stid, J. T. et al. Impacts of agrisolar co-location on the food–energy–water nexus and economic security. Nat. Sustain. 8, 702–713 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Barbose, G. L. One Year In: Tracking the Impacts of NEM 3.0 on California’s Residential Solar Market (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2024).

  86. Mouat, G. et al. State-led climate action can cut emissions at near-federal costs but favors different technologies. Nat. Commun. 16, 4635 (2025).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Bromley-Trujillo, R. Trump will weaken climate action — the rest of the US must not follow suit. Nature 637, 765–765 (2025).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Latour, B. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory (OUP, 2007).

  89. Bergek, A. et al. Technological innovation systems in contexts: conceptualizing contextual structures and interaction dynamics. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 16, 51–64 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Gjørtler Elkjær, L., Horst, M. & Nyborg, S. Identities, innovation, and governance: a systematic review of co-creation in wind energy transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 71, 101834 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Dall-Orsoletta, A., Romero, F. & Ferreira, P. Open and collaborative innovation for the energy transition: an exploratory study. Technol. Soc. 69, 101955 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Coggan, A., Carwardine, J., Fielke, S. & Whitten, S. Co-creating knowledge in environmental policy development. An analysis of knowledge co-creation in the review of the significant residual impact guidelines for environmental offsets in Queensland, Australia. Environ. Chall. 4, 100138 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Wang, Y. Boundary competition and co-production in clean energy issues: revisiting the scientific process and the politics of knowledge through the lens of STS. J. Knowl. Econ. 16, 18322–18352 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Galende-Sánchez, E. & Sorman, A. H. From consultation toward co-production in science and policy: a critical systematic review of participatory climate and energy initiatives. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 73, 101907 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M. & Tummers, L. G. A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Manag. Rev. 17, 1333–1357 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations. Learning from Case Studies: Financing and Development Approaches from Recent First-of-a-Kind Projects (OCED, 2024).

  97. Zorn, A. LanzaTech faces uncertain future as revenue declines and layoffs loom. Chicago Business Journal https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2025/05/20/lanzatech-chicago-layoffs-financial-troubles.html (2025).

  98. Shittu, I., Saqib, A., Tang, C. F. & Chen, Y. Does global geopolitical risk jeopardize the clean energy transition? New evidence from a global panel. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 223, 116006 (2025).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Wang, Q., Wang, X. & Li, R. Geopolitical risks and energy transition: the impact of environmental regulation and green innovation. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 11, 1272 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Finley, M. Navigating market and political uncertainties in the age of energy transition. Brookings Institute https://www.brookings.edu/articles/navigating-market-and-political-uncertainties-in-the-age-of-energy-transition/ (2025).

  101. Ragin, C. C. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies (Univ. California Press, 2014).

  102. Rihoux, B. & Ragin, C. C. (eds) Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques (SAGE, 2009).

  103. Fernández-Esquinas, M., Sánchez-Rodríguez, M. I., Pedraza-Rodríguez, J. A. & Muñoz-Benito, R. The use of QCA in science, technology and innovation studies: a review of the literature and an empirical application to knowledge transfer. Scientometrics 126, 6349–6382 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Rihoux, B. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related systematic comparative methods: recent advances and remaining challenges for social science research. Int. Sociol. 21, 679–706 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Johnson, R. B. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ. Res. 33, 14–26 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Mitterrutzner, B. et al. Scaling carbon capture and storage (CCS) to gigaton capacity: a multi-dimensional and critical review. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control. 149, 104531 (2026).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. Smith, A., Stirling, A. & Berkhout, F. The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Res. Policy 34, 1491–1510 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Rip, A. & Kemp, R. in Human Choice and Climate Change. Vol. 2: Resources and Technology (eds Raynor, S. & Malone, E.) 327–399 (Battelle, 1998).

  109. Schot, J. & Geels, F. W. Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 20, 537–554 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Geels, F. W. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: responses to seven criticisms. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 1, 24–40 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Geels, F. W. Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Theory Cult. Soc. 31, 21–40 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Köhler, J. et al. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: state of the art and future directions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 31, 1–32 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Pinch, T. J. & Bijker, W. E. The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Soc. Stud. Sci. 14, 399–441 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Klein, H. K. & Kleinman, D. L. The social construction of technology: structural considerations. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 27, 28–52 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Hughes, T. P. et al. (eds) The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (MIT Press, 1987).

  116. Winner, L. Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: social constructivism and the philosophy of technology. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 18, 362–378 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Bijker, W. E. How is technology made? — That is the question! Camb. J. Econ. 34, 63–76 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Callon, M. Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. Sociol. Rev. 32, 196–233 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Latour, B. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society (Harvard Univ. Press, 1987).

  120. Bijker, W. E. & Law, J. (eds) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change (MIT Press, 2010).

  121. Law, J. On sociology and STS. Sociol. Rev. 56, 623–649 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Latour, B. Technology is society made durable. Sociol. Rev. 38, 103–131 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Law, J. Notes on the theory of the actor-network: ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Sys. Pract. 5, 379–393 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Law, J. & Hassard, J. (eds) Actor Network Theory and After (Blackwell, 2007).

  125. Latour, B. & Latour, B. We Have Never Been Modern (Harvard Univ. Press, 1994).

  126. Akrich, M. in Shaping Technology/Building Society. Studies In Sociotechnical Change 205–224 (MIT Press, 1992).

  127. Bijker, W. E. & Law, J. in Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change 1–14 (MIT Press, 1992).

  128. Hughes, T. P. Networks of Power (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1983).

  129. Hughes, T. P. in The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology 51–82 (MIT Press, 1987).

  130. Hughes, T. P. The seamless web: technology, science, etcetera, etcetera. Soc. Stud. Sci. 16, 281–292 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Joerges, B. in The Development of Large Technical Systems (Routledge, 1989).

  132. Mayntz, R. & Hughes, T. The Development of Large Technical Systems (Routledge, 2019).

  133. Summerton, J. Changing Large Technical Systems (CRC, 2021).

  134. Joerges, B. Do politics have artefacts? Soc. Stud. Sci. 29, 411–431 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Hughes, T. P. Human-Built World: How to Think about Technology and Culture (Univ. Chicago Press, 2004).

  136. Coutard, O. (ed.) The Governance of Large Technical Systems (Routledge, 1999).

  137. Hommels, A. Unbuilding Cities: Obduracy in Urban Sociotechnical Change (MIT Press, 2005).

  138. Carlsson, B. & Stankiewicz, R. On the nature, function and composition of technological systems. J. Evol. Econ. 1, 93–118 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. Jacobsson, S. & Lauber, V. The politics and policy of energy system transformation — explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology. Energy Policy 34, 256–276 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A. A., Negro, S. O., Kuhlmann, S. & Smits, R. E. H. M. Functions of innovation systems: a new approach for analysing technological change. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 74, 413–432 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Jacobsson, S. & Johnson, A. The diffusion of renewable energy technology: an analytical framework and key issues for research. Energy Policy 28, 625–640 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., Holmén, M. & Rickne, A. Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues. Res. Policy 31, 233–245 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S. & Rickne, A. Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: a scheme of analysis. Res. Policy 37, 407–429 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  144. Bergek, A. & Jacobsson, S. in Change, Transformation and Development (eds Metcalfe, J. S. & Cantner, U.) 197–227 (Physica, 2003).

  145. Metcalfe, J. S. & Cantner, U. (eds) Change, Transformation, and Development (Physica, 2003).

  146. Carlsson, B. (ed.) Technological Systems and Economic Performance: The Case of Factory Automation (Springer, 1995).

  147. Jacobsson, S. & Bergek, A. Transforming the energy sector: the evolution of technological systems in renewable energy technology. Ind. Corp. Change 13, 815–849 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. Jacobsson, S. & Bergek, A. Innovation system analyses and sustainability transitions: contributions and suggestions for research. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 1, 41–57 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  149. Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S. & Sandén, B. A. ‘Legitimation’ and ‘development of positive externalities’: two key processes in the formation phase of technological innovation systems. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 20, 575–592 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Markard, J., Hekkert, M. & Jacobsson, S. The technological innovation systems framework: response to six criticisms. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 16, 76–86 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. American University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

    Steve Griffiths

  2. Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex, Brighton, UK

    Joao M. Uratani

  3. Bennett Institute for Innovation and Policy Acceleration, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK

    Joao M. Uratani

  4. School of Engineering, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Dlzar Al Kez & Aoife M. Foley

  5. School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Vanessa Chan

Authors
  1. Steve Griffiths
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joao M. Uratani
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dlzar Al Kez
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aoife M. Foley
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vanessa Chan
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.G. conceived the article with support from J.M.U. and wrote the article with support from J.M.U. J.M.U. designed the figures. All authors discussed article content and reviewed and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steve Griffiths.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Clean Technology thanks Christian Clausen, Jae-Yun Ho and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Glossary

Actant

A term from actor-network theory referring to any entity that makes a difference or modifies a state of affairs within a network.

Actor-network theory

(ANT). A material-semiotic approach in science and technology studies that treats both human and non-human entities (actants) as participants in heterogeneous networks; it traces how these networks are assembled and stabilized through processes of translation.

Adoption readiness level

(ARL). A framework developed to assess the non-technical readiness of a technology for market adoption, evaluating risks across four core areas: value proposition, market acceptance, resource maturity and licence to operate.

Clean energy technologies

Technologies that contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions across the energy system, including renewable energy generation, energy storage, carbon capture, low-carbon fuels and energy efficiency technologies.

Complementary artefacts

Physical elements (for example, machines, materials and infrastructures) that are part of a broader, interdependent web of components within a sociotechnical system.

Interpretive flexibility

A core concept in the social construction of technology, referring to the idea that a technological artefact has different meanings and possibilities for different social groups during its development, before a dominant design emerges.

Large technical systems

(LTS). A science and technology studies framework that studies the evolution of large-scale, infrastructural systems, emphasizing their heterogeneous nature and the concept of technological momentum.

Multilevel perspective

(MLP). A science and technology studies framework that analyses large-scale transitions as the outcome of interactions between three analytical levels: niches (protected spaces for radical innovation), sociotechnical regimes (the dominant structures and rules) and the sociotechnical landscape (the broad contextual setting).

Qualitative comparative analysis

A set-theoretic research method used to analyse complex causality by identifying which configurations of conditions are necessary or sufficient for a particular outcome to occur across a number of cases.

Social construction of technology

(SCOT). An STS framework arguing that the form and meaning of a technology are not predetermined but are shaped by negotiations among different relevant social groups.

Sociotechnical (ST) system

A system that recognizes the inseparable and co-evolving interactions between social elements and technical elements.

Sociotechnical regimes

A central concept in multilevel perspective, representing the semistable configuration of institutions, techniques and actor networks that orients and coordinates activities within a societal subsystem.

Technological innovation systems

(TIS). A science and technology studies framework that analyses the development and diffusion of a specific technology by assessing the performance of a set of key processes or functions within a system of actors and institutions.

Technological momentum

A key concept in large technical systems, describing the tendency of mature, large-scale systems to resist change owing to their accumulated mass of technical, social and economic investments.

Technology readiness level

(TRL). A framework for assessing the technical maturity of a technology on a scale from 1 (basic principles observed) to 9 (actual system proven in operational environment).

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Griffiths, S., Uratani, J.M., Al Kez, D. et al. Aligning sociotechnical systems perspectives and adoption readiness levels to accelerate clean energy adoption. Nat. Rev. Clean Technol. (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44359-026-00146-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44359-026-00146-5

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene