The Power to Transform? Mapping Transformative Power in EU Research Projects and Policy Contexts

Transformative change is widely recognised as essential to address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and broader interconnected global crises. It is defined as ‘fundamental, system-wide shifts in views, structures, and practices’ (O’Brien et al. 2024 p. 5). Yet, translating this ambition into lasting societal change remains highly challenging. A key barrier lies in entrenched structures and power dynamics that constrain not only the implementation of new ideas and innovations, but also the dismantling of old systems and the ability to sustain these changes over time. Despite this, power dynamics remain underexplored in research on transformative change. This paper examines how transformative power is exercised and where it remains constrained within 14 EU-funded research projects in the Transformative Change cluster. We conducted a reflective power-mapping exercise with project coordinators, using an integrated framework of power dimensions (power to, over, with, and within) and power types (prefigurative, reinforcive, and countervailing). To provide broader context, the study also draws on five semi-structured interviews with EU policymakers and officials. The analysis shows that the Horizon Europe projects most strongly mobilise prefigurative forms of power, particularly through experimentation with new concepts, practices, narratives (power to), and collaborative arrangements (power with). Power within - shaping understandings, agency, and ownership - is also frequently fostered. In contrast, countervailing and reinforcive forms of power, especially those involving power over (e.g., challenging entrenched structures or institutionalising new governance arrangements), are consistently weaker. These patterns point to deeper, systemic challenges rather than project-level shortcomings. Moreover, the interviews with EU policy officials highlight complementary tensions at the science-policy interface, including institutional silos, limited transition capacity, unclear mandates, and difficulties sustaining momentum. Together, the findings reveal a systemic mismatch between transformative expectations placed on research and the authority, capacities, and leadership required to enact and sustain transformative change.