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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.