Sourcing Sustainability Transition in Small and Medium-Sized Ports of the Baltic Sea Region: A Case of Sustainable Futuring with Living Labs

Abstract

The present research points to an alternative concern against the mainstream research of future ports’ development by taking a transdisciplinary approach of a Living Lab (LL) concept for a better sustainability and innovation record in Small and Medium-Sized Ports (SMSPs). Deploying qualitative research for the examination of this new phenomenon of aggregating LLs into SMSPs, this research builds upon stakeholder workshops, in-depth interviews, and designed port pilots as case studies dedicated to innovation and sustainability transition in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR) at the turn of 2030. Given its rich and significant empirical foundation, the present research substantially contributes to sustainability orientation and transitions in ports. The key original elements of this study are fourfold: (1) the research provides a theoretical and practical LL framework enabling innovation and sustainability to be grasped in ports in times of technological, social, and political disruption; (2) this research increases the minimal number of existing previous efforts studying SMSPs in the transitional discourse; (3) the paper addresses not only hard technological innovation concerns but also aspects of social acceptance and the role of social interactions; (4) the research goes beyond geographical boundaries of a single port, thus providing a joint and collaborative approach towards sustainability rather than an individual perception on sustainability transition, existing networks, and clusters.

1. Introduction

The “Fit for 55” package, published by the European Commission (EC) in July 2021, aims at reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by at least 55% by 2030, thus paving the way for climate neutrality by 2050. For the first time, the portfolio of legislative proposals was extended to the maritime sector, which placed higher pressure on all economic actors involved in seaborne activities. First, the EU Emissions’ Trading System was extended to maritime transport. Second, new obligations were imposed on the use of Onshore Power Supply (OPS) or zero-emission technologies, as well as new limits on the GHG-intensive production of energy used on ships. New tax rates were made applicable for certain fuels/vessels. On top of that, the initial GHG strategy by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) was revised in 2023, with short-term legally binding carbon control measures, which entered into force in 2023, i.e., improving the carbon intensity of ships by 2% annually between 2023 and 2026. From 1 January 2023, the IMO Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) is applicable for all cargo, RoPax, and cruise vessels above 5.000 GT (gross tonnage) and trading internationally. By contrast to the Energy Efficiency Existing Ships Index (EEXI) introduced in June 2021, which targets one-time certification of ship design parameters, the CII addresses the actual emissions in operation. Therefore, the timeframes are short, and actors affected by those regulations, such as shipowners, shipping companies, and policymakers, are not fully aware of the implications and procedures that they need to complete and comply with. New pressure arising from environmental regulations will bring disruption in the existing transport and logistics operations, followed by the need to adopt existing supply and value chains as well as business models.

Considering the large number of ports (the majority of which are comprehensive, ensuring accessibility and connectivity of all regions in the European Union according to the Trans-European Transport Network—TEN-T) and the traffic intensity in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR), the Baltic Sea will face harsher competition due to lower investments into sustainability strategies, along with less technological readiness in environmental and energy management. In addition, regulatory pressures are increasing the burning needs of BSR ports and terminals. The European Green Deal (EGD) calls for a 90% reduction in transport emissions by 2050, a clear boost for multimodal transport with a substantial increase in freight (75%) transported on inland waterways, short-sea shipping, and smart traffic management systems [1] (COM(2019) 640 final, pp. 10–11). In the Communication of the Commission [2] (COM(2020) 780 final) on “Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy”, there is a need to create zero-emission ports by 2050, to enhance Emission Control Areas in all EU waters—in particular, the Mediterranean and Black Seas—and to increase transport via inland waterways by 25% by 2030 and by 50% by 2050 as compared to 2015.

In this vein, ports are experiencing a systemic change. Sustainability and sustainable development, originally posing a challenge and substantiated concern for ports to balance their economic performance with social, legal, and environmental practices, can be recently seen as an opportunity and a principal source of competitive advantage for ports [3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. Becoming a strategic priority, sustainability transition and sustainability orientation might provide ports as networked places with conditions, resources, and opportunities, giving them a qualitative momentum of environmental and social quality, deployed renewable energy, and efficient waste handling, as well as ensuring habitat quality and greenery [10,11,12,13,14]. However, little is known on ports in the realm of sustainability transition [15,16] and holistic perceptions of port systems in the sustainability transition [17]. Rationally, becoming an imperative, sustainability transition and orientation might increase competition over new market shares, intensify pressure from key stakeholders, and lead to tougher fights over public–private investments [18,19]. Given the different sizes, investment portfolios, and roles of ports, such a situation can either enable or jeopardize infrastructural and technological upgrading, bringing ports closer to carbon capture and more sustainable performance [20,21].

With this being a colossal task for ports, Small and Medium-Sized Ports (SMSPs) strive against harsher competition than their bigger counterparts when it comes to sustainability transition [22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. They are highly dependent on endogenous potentials, limiting their access to external knowledge, resources, and funding [29,30]. In comparison, they are worse in innovation and diffusion of innovation, because of missing access to public funding or other missing innovative measures [31,32,33], less stakeholder involvement and lower cooperation, limited open innovation, and intra-port competition lead to them overlooking opportunities of a networked industry and, thus, a network construct [9,34,35,36], hindering SMSPs’ efforts to improve their sustainability performance [37]. However, sustainability discourse might provide such ports with a wake-up call and a message from the public to port management and customers, by also showing SMSPs’ commitments to environmental and social responsibility. In addition, strategic management of stakeholders might improve sustainable regional port governance and pave the way for port cooperation [38,39,40,41]. This, in turn, could help them to understand the demands of users and adapt themselves to new changing paradigm conditions of inter-port competition and recognition by both their counterparts and society in large ([42], p. 224).

To counteract low recognition of networking, and to streamline innovation potential, the present research on sustainability transition recalls the recent concerns in the scientific literature on the need for transdisciplinary research and its realization, where science and society go hand in hand [43]. The involvement of practitioners as well as researchers in the innovation and sustainability transition process is essential, as it provides access to diversified knowledge, bears a high intensity of interactions and, thus, leads to empowerment of SMSPs, making transformational impacts a reality. Therefore, it becomes essential to examine stakeholder interactions and preferences over implementing innovation solutions in sustainability discourses [44,45,46,47]. Indeed, the examination of stakeholder interactions on SMSPs not only poses a managerial challenge but also records a limited research track [48,49,50,51].

Building upon this given research and practical problem, the authors adopt conceptual foundations of social interactions and networks and develop a framework for sustainability transitions in SMSPs—a trans-local port Living Lab (LL) approach for port sustainability transitions in the BSR. This novel approach in the research community applies LLs to port sustainability transition. To date, the scrutinized research records so far are mainly practical entries of LL applications in ports, such as Singapore, Hamburg, Rotterdam, etc., and EU projects, such as AEOLIX, COREALIS, CIRCLE, PLANET, etc., with very limited research entries [52]. Surprisingly, due to their experimental nature, LLs are worthy of attention [53,54,55]. This is because ports need space for strategic experimentation and exploration of transition pathways ([56], p. 376). In addition, the present research contribution is an alternative one in terms of studying sustainability transitions, as has indeed been highlighted in recent discourses ([57], p. 105). The majority of LLs are embedded in single ports. In contrast, this research perceives LLs from a systematic, holistic, and trans-local perspective, designing a macro-regional LL concept for SMSPs and applying it to sustainable innovation development. Therefore, this research contributes to the marginalized LL discourse on conceptualization and theoretical foundations [58,59,60]. Finally, LLs are studied from the project-related innovation management perspective, the research thereof being also very scant [61] and essential in overcoming transitional barriers [62].

The developed BSR-wide LL framework showcases both research-driven and practical enabler-driven responses, encompassing aspects of stakeholder interactions and their motives, domains of intervention for cooperation, open innovation, and competition, which all together lead to a shared sustainable value creation in trans-local (macro-regional) environments, not only enabling transition, but also providing a transformative potential for the entire port ecosystem. As a result, a holistic sustainability approach considering the whole port system is needed [63,64,65,66,67]. Indeed, involvement of the entire system is seen as a necessity to implement significant change in the scope of business [68,69,70]. Sustainability transition concerns changing behavior and becomes less of a technical challenge, thus making stakeholder consideration and system perception essential [71,72,73,74]. Adopting a multi-stakeholder perspective at a system level becomes a key to value creation [75,76,77,78,79]. To enable the socio-technological transition in SMSPs, a Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) approach is used as a theoretical nexus [80,81,82,83,84].

In this vein, this research aims to fill in the research gap of marginalized innovation performance for sustainability transitions in SMSPs and system discourses [85]. Despite the fact that, in general, there is a need to increase the research base on SMSPs and to bridge the gap between the research results and SMSPs’ decision-makers ([26], p. 255), this contribution joins the recent research streams on sustainability orientation and sustainability transition in ports, by focusing only on SMSPs and their pathways in this transition. Here, the research is very scant [17,23,27,32,41]. The researchers therefore pose the following research question: how can LLs support sustainable innovation development and, thus, pave the way for sustainability transition? Subsequently, this paper is structured as follows: After this introductory section, the theoretical background of the research is offered, with a focus on sustainable paradigms and their interrelations with SMSPs. Afterwards, the applied research methods and data used as the backbone of this paper are introduced, leading to the results indicated in Chapter four, followed by a discussion of presented results and their elaboration within another research in the field. The paper concludes with a summary and outlook.

2. Accelerating Sustainability Orientation and Sustainability Transition in Ports through Living Labs

A recent record track on Living Labs (LLs) has shown their increasing deployment in sustainability research, in particular pertaining to sustainability transition [86,87,88,89,90,91,92]. Indeed, LLs developed as a response to drive innovation and economic development by more effective leverage of public investment in research, thus supporting closer exchange and collaboration [93,94]. In the present research context, the concept of LLs is therefore very suitable, bearing in mind effective and efficient use of public investments (here—European funding) in the frame of applied research projects. Starting from 2006, LLs have been utilized as an approach, a methodology, or a model for collaborative and transdisciplinary incentives addressing complex phenomena, specifically in the realm of sustainable, resilient, and adaptive societies [95,96]. Similarly, LLs are not seen solely as laboratories for testing and validating techno-scientific solutions, but also as living systems supporting social learning as well as understanding complexity and uncertainty by providing room for stakeholder engagement, learning, and co-creation [97]. Overall, LLs can be characterized by five key principles—value, sustainability, influence, realism, and openness along the systemic innovation process [98].

Sustainability research encompasses two main research strands—sustainability orientation, and sustainability transition. Sustainability orientation is deployed in the strategic and entrepreneurial literature and refers to a strategic construct that embodies the integration of natural environmental considerations into the firm’s business strategy [5,99,100]. Despite the recent upsurge in this research stream, the literature on ports has not utilized this concept. No specific research entries were found. Surprisingly, sustainability orientation is a strategic priority [101,102,103] that includes market, entrepreneurial, technology, and stakeholder orientation. In addition, sustainability orientation has been studied at different levels—micro, meso, and macro—with less attention on its impacts on economies, societies, and environments ([104], p. 1012). Notably, this is particularly important for ports as actors crossing all levels of economic and social interactions. In addition, sustainability entrepreneurship can be strengthened through mentoring and education [105]. In this sense, sustainability orientation becomes pivotal for SMSPs, which rather lack resources. Finally, it has a positive effect on enterprises, especially micro- ones, and on the economic, social, and environmental performance thereof [106]. In the following text, the potentials of sustainability orientation and sustainability transition for SMSPs are discussed from the processual and system perspectives.

Sustainability transition is rather a process-based construct implying fundamental changes in systems of provision coupled with radical shifts in ways of organizing structures and operating practices in a given place (space), including altering assumptions and perceptions towards a more sustainable way in a long-term perspective ([107], p. 407). In addition, sustainability transition deals with the co-evolution of new technologies, changes in markets, user practices, policy and cultural discourses, and governing institutions in a systemic perspective [108,109,110]. Unfortunately, there has been much less attention paid so far to sustainability transition in peripheral regions and in regional studies ([108], p. 368), thus making the present study of SMSPs in the BSR a topical one. In addition, since experimentation and institutional change are at the heart of sustainability transition ([111], p. 1), experimentation includes instruments and processes that revolve around networks, expectations, and learning. This, again, links sustainability transition to social processes. In a port nexus, this consideration enables the perception of sustainability transition in two ways—how those social processes shape port actors with which they engage on the one hand, and how ports themselves shape the transitional work on the other ([10], pp. 1–2). In the same vein, transitions are context-dependent and, thus, result in different transition pathways toward sustainability [112,113,114]. As a result, since ports are bound to different contexts—in particular, with SMSPs having different geographical positions, scopes, and scales of operational and strategic settings—it is also worth enhancing the sustainability transition literature on SMSPs next to that pertaining to their bigger counterparts. Since SMSPs are bound to decarbonization by 2030 and 2050, sustainability transition is one of the key approaches to use for decarbonization [115,116].

2.1. Sustainability Transition as a Process-Based Change

Ports are increasingly being discussed in terms of the need to develop sustainably [17,117,118,119]. However, the theme of sustainability transition has largely ignored ports and their investigation in this context ([10], p. 1). In this regard, the topic of sustainability transition in ports can be enhanced theoretically with this contribution by aligning several concepts that share similar or the same conceptual meetings. As a result, this investigation of SMSPs in the realm of sustainability transition is grounded in a Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) deploying an LL approach. This can be approached both from system and processual perspectives. Since sustainability transition entails multi-phase, multi-level, multi-pattern, and multi-actor processes, its study is based on an MLP, in that sustainability transition is linked through processual understanding of change and through its experimental nature to innovation management ([114], pp. 246–247). It can also be perceived as a shift or system innovation between different socio-technical systems/configurations (regimes), involving knowledge, technologies, skills, production, markets, users, policy, culture, and institutions ([115], p. 965; [120], p. 338). MLP analyses innovation within socio-technical systems consisting of different configurations. The socio-technical transitions are, therefore, a result of interactions within and between the three levels—incumbent regime, radical niche innovations, and socio-technical landscape. Whereas regime refers to socio-technical systems, niche innovations are disruptive innovation spaces that bring radical change to those systems, in particular landscape–contextual developments such as trends and shocks, which are external to that regime. As a result, the transition itself occurs through the alignment of processes between those three levels ([81], p. 225; [121], p. 365). Notably, sustainability transition requires changes along the entire production–consumption chain and its flows, multi-level architecture, institutions, and structures, not only focusing on behavioral change ([122], p. 1). Multi-level governance frameworks offer a clear entrance point of integration around issues spanning different jurisdictions ([114], p. 241) and deal with different levels of decision-making in terms of opportunities for and actors influencing the innovation process. In this sense, those three levels can also be regarded as micro, meso, and macro levels, respectively. The MLP studies sustainability transition from both the systemic (regime) perspective [123] and the processual perspective [10].

2.2. Sustainability Transition as a System Change

First, from the system perspective, ports can be perceived in sustainability transition from the systemic dimension. Through their embeddedness into local, regional, and national contexts, they generate a holistic systematic thinking ([9], p. 1). Furthermore, ports pave the way for regional economic development and social inclusion, in that seaports become important nodes of social, environmental, and economic activities—markets, and to articulate in modern terms, ecosystems. Ecosystems integrate operational, environmental, economic, technological, social, and legal dimensions [124,125]. Since this study addresses transdisciplinary issues concerning natural resource preservation, economic activities (waterborne and port operations), technologies used, and social impacts (e.g., workplace, public health) in a specific place, the ecosystem approach helps to explain how nature and economic agents (ports and their hinterlands) interact with their environment [126,127]. The umbrella term of ecosystems is very suitable for the analysis and design of the sustainability transition in SMSPs. This is because, first, the ecosystem is characterized by resource allocation in a bounded area, i.e., a specific and limited geographical space. This is essential for ports regarding their geographical position and location in urban or rural populated areas. Second, efficient and effective resource allocation enables twin creation for environmental, economic, technological, and societal benefits. Third, an ecosystem implies causality and independencies since, like in nature, people and agents (ports, shipping companies, hinterland logistics providers, multinational enterprises, SMEs, other actors) co-exist, co-create, and co-evolve in the common setting—geographical region, economic agglomeration, and bounded social sphere—of port regions. Interdependency also includes aspects of physical and intangible assets (infrastructure), institutions, sources of knowledge, human–capital interactions, spillovers, and network effects (superstructure) [128,129,130,131]. As a result, ports act not only as ecosystems but as clusters of interrelating actors [132], with different people, materials, goods, and activities under different governance [127]. Indeed, port clusters are seen as important future contributors towards circular economy [133], as well as those dealing with uncertainties in changing environments [134,135].

Port ecosystems therefore enable the development and growth of dynamic, goal-driven communities, characterized by complexity, dynamism, adaptation, and emergence perspectives [136]. Furthermore, ecosystems are based on the interplay of strong relations that presuppose collaboration, trust, co-creation of value, and sharing of complementary technologies and competencies [137]. Ecosystems are also essential from the systemic point of view. They bring all affected agents together for interaction that leads to goal achievement, involves several domains, and integrates their peculiarities. The ecosystem includes environmental, technological, legal, economic, governance (policy), and socio-cultural dimensions. The recognition of an ecosystem approach is crucial in the context of SMSPs, as sustainability transition should achieve environmental, technological, legal, economic, and governance (social) feasibility and value creation. Indeed, all dimensions in an ecosystem are intertwined to propose environmental benefits, technological feasibility, business economic considerations, governance (regulatory frameworks, legal compliance, coordination, collaboration, internationalization), and social quality (public acceptance, social responsibility, interactions, exchanges of practices, knowledge, and competencies).

From the processual perspective, through an ecosystem approach, which encompasses different actors of a system as well as their interaction and collaboration, ports are linked with the MLP and, thus, experimentation and innovation. In this sense, LLs are a promising approach. LLs bear a processual understanding because they are referred to as a collaborative innovation approach [138,139,140]. Indeed, since LLs co-create, co-produce, and co-disseminate [141], they share the same or similar processes within the innovation development nexus. For this, a Design Thinking approach can be deployed in an LL, which facilitates co-creation of knowledge in a multi-stakeholder environment, thus paving the way for sustainability transition and unleashing transformative potential within an LL ([142], p. 1). Indeed, since ports are seen as networks and ecosystems composed of diverse public and private actors, LLs can streamline co-creation [61,143,144]. In addition, due to the fact that LLs serve to solve innovation challenges under realistic use conditions [145], they can provide a place for co-creation [146,147] as well as develop new knowledge [148,149], both of which are utilized for innovative products, services, or process development. Since LLs facilitate generation of both tangible outcomes, such as products and services, prototypes, solutions, etc., and intangible ones, such as ideas, concepts, and knowledge ([58], p. 2), they might well serve to support sustainability transition in pilot projects, such as the present study relies on. Indeed, due to their strong properties in spurring innovation and sustainability transition, LLs have received prominent attention in the European Union [150,151,152,153]. For this reason, LLs appear to be well suited for finding new ways, tools, and methods to support SMSPs in their sustainability transition in both top–down (EU regulation-driven) and bottom–up ways (user needs-driven). In this paper, LLs are used as an innovation methodology, applying the co-creation process as a space in which innovation occurs through diverse social interactions of multi-level stakeholders, and as a system comprising a part of the whole socio-technical system.

3. Methodological Choices

The present research article claims to be highly exploratory due to its nature in elaborating an underdeveloped topic [154] and pinpointing different impacts for the objects of interest [155]. This is essential, bearing in mind the proposed research gap and aims. In this study, a qualitative research methodology was applied based on the approach to explore and understand a phenomenon that has little attention in the existing research and/or where crucial variables to examine remain unclear [156,157], both of which are valid for the particular topic of this research. Indeed, the rationale for choosing the Baltic Sea Region (BSR) was twofold: On the one hand, research is demand-driven. For instance, the BSR is known for its role in modelling innovation and sustainability transition achievements, high economic performance, and rich institutional thickness. However, at the same time, this is not evenly distributed across this macro-region, since peripheral marginalization, low proximity, and scarcity of resources is affecting regional development, particularly in coastal semi-urban and rural areas. Here, a high number of SMSPs are situated, which are the research focus of this joint authorship. In addition, around 66% of the BSR’s ports are small and face huge challenges [30,158,159]. As a result, on the other hand, the present work is interest-driven, combining scholarly and managerial views with the aim of improving the positioning and sustainability transition of such marginalized SMSPs. Moreover, this research attempts to strengthen the coherence and harmonization of potential innovation actions for SMSPs by providing access, open innovation, and exchange opportunities.

The research path is mainly based on two core strategies: case studies, and action research. When it comes to the perception of case studies, it is not sufficient to apply single-case views for the proposed research question, as the research path elaborates real-life constructs and boundaries between the phenomena of research interest, whereas the context is not controllable by the researchers [160,161]. Moreover, case studies can be defined as specific institutions or social (economical) constructs [162], which is also applicable to SMSPs being understood as ecosystems, modern markets, and institutions [163]. Consequently, this research utilized multi-case studies covering 11 Baltic SMSPs in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, and Sweden. The selection of the case study ports was demand-driven, as these ports participated in applied research projects/proposals and took part in LL incentives and/or port pilot preparatory and pilot implementation projects. Since we issued a public call inviting all potentially interested ports to take part, no exclusion or marginalization was generated in this research. Throughout the research path, the action research approach was capitalized on [164,165], which is based on recalling and reshaping iterative results to yield new results and insights as well as opening new research pathways [166]. In addition, action research puts the researchers into the center of all affected actors, being directly involved in the ongoing research and objects of interest [167] and, thus, able to observe and assess the phenomena concerned. Finally, action research fits well with the transitional nature of this work [168,169,170].

The cases were elaborated through port pilot development and application within the Connect2SmallPorts project, partially financed by the INTERREG VA South Baltic Program 2014–2020 (c.f. www.connect2smallports.eu, accessed on 5 May 2024). The process included scenario analysis for innovation tool application during workshops, simulations, and testing, as well as actual tool application and validation in close cooperation with respective port representatives and the researchers of this paper. Furthermore, in the same funding program, within DigiTechPort and DECADE2030 Seed Money (preparatory) projects, semi-structured interviews were conducted with port representatives, with a focus on future innovation potentials for the sustainable transition of SMSPs in the BSR. In this specific research task, the interviewees were identified by project partners. Criteria such as the availability of sustainability transition plans and sustainability strategies of SMSPs, the availability of interviewees, and equal distribution among smaller and bigger port perspectives to be integrated were maintained. In addition, both core and comprehensive port representatives were invited to the expert interviews.

Obtaining insights and experiences is a crucial backbone of LLs’ conceptualization and practical application. Participatory action research strongly deploys participatory methods, such as participatory modelling and prototyping, feedback loops, and learning cycles (e.g., pilot development), which were also conducted in this work. By doing this, the theoretical and conceptual framework is underpinned by practical and practice-based innovation application and tacit knowledge derived from SMSPs. Finally, preparatory pilot actions were also incorporated from two project design phases, in which—in co-creation with port, industry, and academic representatives for the BEPort2030 project application—interviews were conducted, and pilots were designed for ports in the BSR. They also represented some of the lighthouse ports in terms of sustainable transition, who were invited to join the intended cooperation platform with SMSPs (e.g., Gothenburg and Klaipeda).

Table 1. Research setting.

Research Design	Statement
Research Scope	Interreg VA and VIA South Baltic projects: Connect2SmallPorts, DigiTechPort, DECADE2030, DigiTechPort2030 Interreg VI B Baltic Sea Region project applications BEPort2030
Geographical Coverage	Baltic Sea Region (BSR), South Baltic Area (SBA)
Research Scale	11 SMSPs—Gdynia, Gothenburg, Karlskrona, Klaipeda, Lubmin, Pietarsaari, Rostock, Stralsund, Vordingborg, Wismar, Ystad
Research Time Scope	07/2021—08/2022
Research Approach	Inductive
Research Types	Qualitative, exploratory, practice-based
Research Methods	Multiple case studies, action research
Research Actions	Desk research, data analysis, expert interviews (semi-structured), cross-case synthesis, participatory research, learning loops, workshop result examination

Source: compiled by the authors.

summarizes the entire research journey.

The researchers were directly involved in all stages of the cases (action research). Potential bias during the research was reduced by the involvement of external experts and port representatives, as well as due to a compilation of authors from different institutions and research streams, thus allowing independent perception of the implemented research pathways. Hence, the research was carried out to the best of all researchers’ knowledge, respecting research ethics and compliance. In terms of the case selection, open calls were issued with the invitation to participate in pilot development and application as well as the research discourse. Hence, any market distortion was avoided, and available knowledge and tools were freely offered to ports for them to utilize. The knowledge and insights gained from the cooperation with SMSPs were expanded by deep literature review and desk research within the applicable fields. In this, the researchers aimed to increase the quality of results yielded from practical cases by combining them with theoretical concepts to achieve a substantial research level, as well as to provide both theoretical and managerial implications for featuring SMSPs.

4. Results—Living Labs as a New Governance Horizon for Sustainability Transition in SMSPs

Sustainability transition is set as a long-term goal for ports aiming at initiating, legitimizing, and continuing sustainable practices and behaviors across organizational and institutional change. For this to happen, a bulk of knowledge stemming from different actors needs to be pulled together to achieve an equilibrium combination of environmental, economic, social, and institutional interests and needs. As a result, the present research introduces new formal and informal collaboration modes in the given context (port locations and port ecosystems) to test the magnitude of their impact on the sustainability practices and behaviors of ports. Following the action research in eleven ports, which engaged in collaborative action and co-creation over the borders in the BSR along different temporal limitations—such as short-term, e.g., pilot preparation and pilot sustainability use-case scenario building on the one hand, and long-term, i.e., lasting throughout the project lifetime, such as port sustainability pilot implementation or port sustainability road-mapping on the other—three dynamics of Living Labs for port organizational and institutional changes leading to sustainability transition can be grasped: (1) Living Labs as a trans-local learning space enabling transformation within port ecosystems, (2) Living Labs as a trans-local co-creator of sustainability transition through joint actions in port ecosystems, and (3) Living Labs as a trans-local system changer grasping new development horizons and paving the way for new sustainability practices to emerge in and outside port ecosystems. In the following text, these new/upscaled governance forms are discussed separately and supported by interview extracts.

4.1. Trans-Local Living Labs as a Learning Broker—Developing Sustainability Transition Views in Port Ecosystems

The implemented projects on the micro-scale, i.e., port pilots in given localities of the BSR, yield that SMSPs, once engaged with the ecosystem in the LL, undertake a strong learning journey. This happens particularly due to the strong interplay of actors coming together from different fields, such as academics, SMSPs, other businesses, policymakers, and society at large—the so-called quadruple-helix stakeholders. For example, first, SMSPs might enhance their capacity by engaging in business-to-business (B2B) or business-to-customer (B2C) relations in a given LL. To illustrate this point, port pilot projects and their development enable SMSPs to connect to either local or transnational businesses acting as suppliers, service providers, or customers. For instance, in the pilot designated for digital capacity building, B2B cooperation takes part on the level of knowledge supply to and absorption by SMSPs. To echo the port representative (PR) from the DigiTechPort workshop results,

“This trade, known as B2B, is often facilitated by small ports. Because of their geographic constraints, many small ports businesses have limited trading capacity. As a result, they often act as a gateway to the global economy. Businesses in other ports often find it difficult, expensive, or impossible to trade with those in small ports. Small ports are particularly suited to facilitating B2B trade.”

(PR1, DigiTechPort workshop)

As for service provision, SMSPs acquire new knowledge and/or competencies through services they receive from other businesses in, for instance, digital compliance and cyber security pilot projects taking place in the LL. In this sense, the LL acts as an essential door -opener for new digital technologies that are needed by ports. As the DigiTechPort workshop and interviewed port representatives (PRs) confirm, engagement in a cross-border and transnational LL enables SMSPs to increase their digital literacy and to accumulate the state-of-the-art knowledge. Subsequently, this leads to other economic, social, or environmental advantages. In particular, because of transnational collaboration and community engagement in the given LL, following key learning- and capacity-related advantages might accelerate SMSPs’ sustainability transition, as was articulated by PRs of the participating SMSPs during the DigiTechPort workshop. Therefore,

Table 2. Living Labs as a (digital) learning broker for sustainability via learning, knowledge, and competence generation patterns.

LL Type in Learning Brokerage	Anchorage of Knowledge/Competence Gains in SMSPs
LL as a Counsellor	- Facilitated compliance with digital and environmental (twin) transition requirements. - Cost sharing on cyber security through distributed testing of diverse security aspects among involved partners. - Covered the full range of learning facets in digital transition through diverse learning practices of different SMSPs.
LL as a Coordinator	- Reduced resource allocation through simplified work processes/workload in SMSPs. - Increased control within isolated virtual environments for testing SMSPs’ operations. - Facilitated transition towards automation, increasing the scalability of infrastructure and cost management.
LL as a Connector	- Advanced B2B and B2C collaboration in virtual and physical spaces. - Facilitated bridging to quadruple helices to increase sustainability footprint. - Linking up with bigger counterparts on a trans-local level.
LL as a Collector	- Heterogeneous knowledge accumulation from different fields into one pool. - Idea screening and factoring based on a common decision-making process/set of criteria. - Hub for smart city platform testing and development of a sharing economy.
LL as a Visionary Creator	- Virtual assets as testing spaces (trial and error). - Reduced demand for resources through shared control (information) mechanisms. - Coordinated information maintenance and data processing. - State-of-the art knowledge on planning and resourcing sustainable development. - Improved technology integration and compatibility. - Increased excellence (in sustainable port performance) benchmark.

Source: compiled by authors.

below identifies different cognition and learning roles that the LL itself can take over. Specifically, the LL becomes crucial in the face of growing demand for digital skills, since it provides an accumulated pool of knowledge, skills, and practices to absorb and take over.

During the empirical work carried out, five categories of learning and capacity building can be distinguished in the macro-regional LL established under the project’s scope, as shown in Table 2. Depending on the levels of interaction within the LL and individual (initiative/pilot-based) learning shared across the trans-local collaboration modes, the LL can serve as a significant learning brokerage. In particular, it might take the role of a counsellor, coordinator, connector, collector, or visionary creator. Concerning individual roles, counselling is associated with the LL when theoretical and practical knowledge that might advance SMSPs in operational and strategic positioning is shared. Usually, the LL serves as a pool of heterogeneous knowledge, which is accumulated from individual SMSPs involved in the LL. Consequently, the information and knowledge can be applied in different scopes and at different scales. For instance, knowledge on digitalization in port operations in one SMSP can be applied to another SMSP and even transferred to another port ecosystem segment, e.g., hinterland connections or ports receiving waterborne transport-related infrastructure initiatives (rf. Table 2 and

Table 3. Template for validation of innovation solutions developed by SMSPs within the BSR LL.

Performance Domain	Key Indicators
Communication and Documentation of Solution Development	- Availability of information on the development process. - Integration of research approaches. - Integration of ports as a key target group. - Transparency of the process. - Integration of digital transformation aspects.
Target Group Outreach and Result Presentation	- User-friendliness of results. - Interactivity of result presentation. - Accessibility of result information. - Added value for ports in the region. - Added value for the maritime sector.
Innovation and Sustainability	- Usability of the solution. - Integration of the latest data and information. - Long-term applicability. - Credentials for environmental potential.

Source: compiled by authors.

). Similarly, knowledge and information from one initiative/pilot can be transferred to another one within the same SMSP. Finally, knowledge and advice on cyber security issues can be shared and integrated into port practices concerning the whole port ecosystem. Therefore, the LL can be used not only to disseminate and guide SMSPs in their operational transition, e.g., environmental compliance as well as digitalization and technological literacy projects, but also for the competitive capacity purpose of (re)training, (re)skilling, and guidance. In this sense, the LL can be used as a knowledge and information pool to accommodate and distill the complexities of sustainability transition. In this sense, the LL provides access to tested/piloted knowledge and information. This role of LLs is specifically important to SMSPs, which, due to lower or limited resources, tend to have less access to knowledge and information. Their access to knowledge pools and information exchange also remains rather limited, as due to their lack of resources they are less active in development programs and collaborative research and innovation actions [31] (p. 2).

The level of learning complexity is increasing with the coordinator role that the LL can take. In this sense, the LL acts as coordinator in two ways—providing access to knowledge and learning opportunities related to simplifying operational and managerial procedures at SMSPs (port ecosystem per se), or engaging as a management body for the purpose of, for instance, applying for additional funding, sharing initiative/pilot-related costs among several SMSPs involved in pilot development (e.g., digital twin), conducting control actions, or delivering reporting and compliance documentation to authorities and other control bodies. In terms of the former, the coordination role is highly linked to knowledge and information pertaining to automation in SMSPs, thus making the coordination function a domain- and system-based one. Domain-based coordination can be referred to as coordination within a sub-system, such as operational or environmental domains, where actor interactions are concerned within a system, among the system and its surroundings [171], (pp. 1059–1060). In terms of the latter, the LL acts as a coordinator in the theme-based perspective (e.g., environment, water, transport, climate, R&D, technology, waste, investments, trade accessibility, etc.). In this particular function, coordination role of the LL can also be linked to the goal-based initiatives/pilots, for instance, “in order to implement a Digital Twin or to improve logistics processes” (e.g., Gdynia, Poland) or “to establish safe working environment and to increase efficiency of operations while minimizing environmental footprint” (Klaipeda, Lithuania), or to “build-up an energy and data driven monitoring system” (Rostock, Germany).

When coordinating initiative-based learning practices among the SMSPs involved in the LL, the LL itself also becomes a connector and gateway to other networks, external connections, and surroundings. Due to the involvement of SMSPs in the DigiTechPort Excellence Centre, which serves as an LL platform, SMSPs’ visibility on a cross-border and international level increases; thus, SMSPs can engage in new exchange and collaboration interactions. For instance, SMSPs access new expert networks based in countries other than the country of origin of a particular SMSP. Connection via the LL also takes place in the form of external experts outside the SMSP concerned, engaging in initiative/pilot development on an external basis. The LL connects with external experts and provides knowledge and information for the purpose of digital twin pilot evaluation, or it provides feedback to the results achieved outside of the pilot’s implementation. In addition, due to the heterogeneous nature of the LL expert pool, SMSPs may also benefit from the expertise outside their domain (business, port operators) by connecting with experts from academia, policymakers, and local communities (society representation organizations). Bridging to those actors known under the quadruple helix umbrella term is of paramount importance once such sustainability-oriented and holistic initiatives are planned, like the Digital Twin of Port-City Ecosystem pilot (Karlskrona, Sweden) or local heat grid connection with the city in the framework of hydrogen development and upscaling projects (Rostock, Germany). As echoed by the interviewed expert,

“Due to the large amount of additional power required, we see that it is extremely important to establish the cooperation with the city, still that is only the plan. The infrastructure development costs will be huge, so it should benefit all the parties.”

(PR2, DigiTechPort interviewee)

In this manner, the LL serves as a gateway when establishing new collaboration patterns between ports and cities in the region/country (individual entities)—e.g., Klaipeda (Lithuania), Rostock (Germany), or Karlskrona (Sweden). LLs can also support mediation between entities in a network oriented towards a certain goal (renewable energy production and supply on a regional or trans-local scale). Likewise, the LL can act as a connector spanning across networks of different entities, which represent different domains of specialization, like renewable hydrogen energy, energy storage, solar energy, or wind power networks. Finally, the LL can connect different networks, actors, and institutions on regional or trans-local levels, crossing domain or geographical boundaries [172]. This is particularly important considering compliance with regulations and harmonization of standards and rules when implementing sustainability transition initiatives—for instance, in the fields of alternative fuels, renewable energy, electrification of port ecosystems, or energy and emission monitoring systems. In these kinds of initiatives/pilots taking place on trans-local and transnational levels, a high degree of transferability and dependability of the developed solutions is expected. In this sense, the LL is flexible in terms of roles undertaken for connection or intermediation, both from the systemic activities point of view [173,174] and the processual (pilot-based) perspective [175] In the case of the latter function, the LL transforms into a strong connector once it provides new resources and grasps new funding horizons resulting from the solution development phase. Overall, the LL helps to connect different actors and practices that can be useful for the implementation of the specific initiative/pilot in the given SMSP or port ecosystem. In this sense, the LL plays a paramount role in connecting information, benchmarking it, and analyzing information flows and interactions between actors within and across the ecosystem [176] (p. 11). This empirical observation within the BSR LL can be supported by the corresponding expert statement, claiming the following:

“Deficit in digitalization and status of implementation in other ports, as no benchmark study is available.”

(PR3, DigiTechPort interviewee)

While connecting with appropriate experts is a function of the LL, LLs also serve as a learning, knowledge, and information-gathering pool. The LL acts as a collector by gathering all essential challenges and ideas related to SMSPs’ sustainability transition. Once collected, those challenges or ideas are shared among the LL actors. According to the empirical data, the existing LL expertise pool is circled around the themes of digitalization: digital twins—Karlskrona (Sweden), Klaipeda (Lithuania), and Ystad (Sweden); IoT-based sensor modelling—Lubmin, Stralsund, Wismar (Germany), Klaipeda (Lithuania), and Pietarsaari (Finland); data-driven energy monitoring—Rostock (Germany); IT systems for cargo handling—Swinoujouscie (Poland); cyber security—Vordingborg (Denmark); and electrification of port infrastructure—Gdynia (Poland) and Gothenburg (Sweden). Due to the nature of the trans-local LL, SMSPs in the region can receive many different approaches and varying practices once shared via the LL. Consequently, SMSPs are able to evaluate them as well as to transfer best practices based on the joint evaluation criteria or auditing structures established for the purpose of the initiative/pilot implementation and, thus, sustainability transition. In turn, this contributes to the learning impact and positive diffusion of knowledge across different networks of the involved SMSPs.

Finally, by undertaking those different functions as depicted above, the LL serves as a visionary creator—an intermediary, state-of-the-art pool for knowledge, actions, and relations needed to kick-start or accelerate sustainability-related projects in port ecosystems. In this manner, the specific trans-local BSR LL for SMSPs’ decarbonization and digitalization-driven sustainability becomes a sustainability creator for individuals, SMSPs within the LL, and the collective organizational learning—SMSP clusters across the Baltic Sea Region. In doing so, the developed individual approaches or solutions pertaining to individual SMSPs (local-based) are transferrable and, thus, beneficial to all. While some SMSPs struggle with the expensive and time-consuming search for technologically feasible solutions in electrification and energy transformation (large-scale), others are coping with energy- and emission-related monitoring. Similarly, while some local initiatives/pilots are of macro-level magnitude, affecting the whole region and its hinterland, as in the case of hydrogen project design in Rostock (Germany), other pilots target micro-level product and service innovations, for instance, Onshore Power Supply (OPS) installation and electrification of cranes in Klaipeda (Lithuania) and Gdynia (Poland).

Co-working in LLs enables learning-by-doing in many ways. For example, collaboration on digital twins increases learning capacity and reduces failure frequency in the future. In addition, collaboration in an LL related to digitalization in ports increases access to stakeholders as well as enabling future decisions to be made based on the data collected and business interactions analyzed. Digital twins might serve as a template and a backbone—a virtual port asset—that can be used as a pattern to test new designs in ports, analyze changes and reciprocal impacts (digital twin model—port), examine performance, or maintain assets. Indeed, smaller ports usually show lower levels of digitalization [31] as due to their size and scope they must instead cope with adoption strategies [177]. In contrast, learning journeys need to go beyond simple adaptation or absorption of knowledge and instead target adaptation to new conditions, thus creating new innovative uses of traditional knowledge [178] and giving opportunities to respond to external disruptions and pressures [179,180]. As echoed by port operators present in the DigiTechPort workshop, digitalization means increasing work efficiency and reducing costs, thus aiming at overall operational excellence. But at the same time, intangible assets in the LL are associated with service customization and experimental, shared, and mutual value creation [46] (p. 3). In this context, the LL acts as a shared digital platform, a learning broker [181], and a broker undertaking a function of a learning model—a network for sustainable development based on TBL transitions [182,183].

Bearing in mind the high potentials associated with the given LL for trust building, which can naturally be linked with shared resources and obligations in a project-based working environment, the future brokerage role of the LL might grow, since aspects of enhanced trust, functional profiles, and proactive initiatives of brokers in building collaborations and relationships in ports need stronger focus in the future [46] (p. 7). By means of the LL, SMSPs are able not only to access digital technologies, but also to improve collaboration. The exchange of data and information via the LL and its trans-local interface enable the streamlining of business processes and inter-organizational relations [184]. In the digital world, this particularly happens via digital platforms. In the present research context, the introduced LL for SMSPs acts as a network and platform community—the DigiTechPort Excellence Centre, which serves for future visionary thinking and action (rf. Table 3). In this sense, the further development of this LL connecting SMSPs across the BSR is in line with the policy discourse in the EU on establishing super-labs across regions to achieve climate neutrality.

First, overcoming boundaries—geographical, social, economic, and institutional—is at the heart of successful collaboration, which also applies to collaboration within and outside the LL. SMSPs become service providers themselves in cases of digital twinning projects with cities or hinterland connection pilots implemented within LLs. Taking the role of service provision also refers to sustainability transition projects pertaining to port operations’ digitalization and port services’ greening. In doing so, the LL provides room for SMSPs to test and uptake next-generation (sustainable) services for their customers. Indeed, ports maintain their competitive advantage and bring it to their customers if they (re)act quickly and take decisions increasing the attractiveness of the ports, such as digital readiness or environmental compliance [14,185]. Sustainable transition enabled within the LL also brings higher credit ratings and lower equity costs [186,187].

Second, owing to engagement in LL and port ecosystem projects, which are showcased in Table 3, SMSPs can grasp new collaboration opportunities with other businesses from a Multi-Level Perspective. On the transnational level, however, the potential of new collaboration patterns might multiply, as LL actors from different regions or countries congregate under the umbrella of the particular LL for the purpose of port pilot or project implementation. This is particularly true for emerging digital economy pilots and projects in SMSPs, given the short physical distance and applicable digital standards involved. Since many small businesses have limited trading capacity, engaging in an LL, which is active on not only a local but also a trans-local level, might facilitate B2B trade and serve as a laboratory to test and deploy digital technologies, e.g., Blockchain. This, in turn, increases the operational (e.g., tracking of trade shipments) and strategic (matchmaking opportunities, increased automation facilitating decision-making) potentials of ports, since actors bound by the LL within its boundaries (formally through the institutionalized LL or informally by means of inter-pilot/inter-project collaboration) gain a more transparent overview of who and to what extent are engaged in that LL. In turn, this might increase trust levels and readiness/willingness to exchange once actors involved in the LL are known or introduced to each other. Similarly, practices exchanged within a given LL can increase the learning capacity of participating SMSPs, since they are more willing to pursue a goal or to solve a problem by trial and error, which becomes possible due to the nature of the pilot or project that the LL offers. As a result, the worst/best practices or proven methods can be transferred to other actors engaged in the given LL.

Indeed, internal training and learning is seen by the SMSP representatives we interviewed as one of the most important preconditions to kick-start and support sustainable twin transition in ports, expressed through digitalization and decarbonization measures. For example, the Rostock (Germany), Klaipeda (Lithuania), and Karlskrona (Sweden) SMSPs’ representatives chose internal skills and training as one of the most important pillars paving the way for sustainable development, among infrastructure, investments, policy support, regulation compliance, and external resources. In contrast, participating ports in the BSR LL like Swinoujscie (Poland) and Ystad (Sweden) ranked the importance of internal skills and training rather low. Finally, some of the SMSPs, like Gdynia (Poland) or Karlshamn (Sweden), find it difficult to assess the main driving forces for sustainability transition in their own ports, as knowledge needs to be backed up by money and time resources. In addition, since so many different things apply to port transition in the future, it becomes challenging to prioritize.

In sum, with these facets and magnitudes, the LL is capable of capacitating SMSPs in building up transformative qualities, such as awareness of new environmental, technological, social, economic, and institutional changes, open-mindedness and readiness to new technologies, creativity, flexibility, critical and change mindsets, determination, agility, leadership, and dependability. Overall, the LL can be seen as an intense collaboration journey with high learning outcomes—in particular, new and tested knowledge, practical hands-on experimentation spaces, virtual and in-between actor interactions on different scales and room for experimentation and future sustainability projection based on strong relations, trust, and interactions. As a result, the empirical work conducted here clearly supports the latest existing research records pertaining to SMSPs’ needs, as they lack sufficient resources and practical tools [188]. Nevertheless, the present work substantiates SMSPs’ sustainability transition from the system perspective within a given collaborative and learning space, going beyond a simple monitoring tool.

4.2. Trans-Local Living Labs as a Co-Creator—Undertaking Sustainability Transition Actions in Port Ecosystems

Next to social learning and competence building, as depicted in Table 2, it is already evident that the LL in the BSR also supports internal and external innovation development from the processual point of view. The process perspective is linked to innovation development. For example, the trans-local LL can be used as a comprehensive framework including specific steps or stages to be undertaken, as shown in the figure below.

Once proceeding, all stakeholders, actions, competencies, and pathways merge together and envisage future development pathways. On the one hand, the LL framework from the processual perspective (Figure 1) shows how a specific SMSP problem, challenge, or idea can be addressed step by step. All steps can be subsumed under sustainability transition actions in the LL, as shown on the left side of the figure below. On the other hand, it demonstrates what and how transformative capacity can be accumulated by SMSPs in line with the sustainability transition paradigm and domains of absorption, adaptation, responsiveness, and expansion, as shown with four individual columns on the right side of Figure 2. Overall, either induced or emerging processes might help SPSMs to build up important capabilities, thus guiding them in future development projects, as shown on the bottom line of the figure below.

As the empirical inquiry demonstrates, mainly, all initiatives/pilots pertaining to SMSPs were implemented following innovation ideation and exploitation frameworks, which were also borrowed from the scholarship of innovation and Cultural and Creative Industries (CCIs). The strength associated with the BSR LL lies within the promotion, co-creation, facilitation, coordination, capacitation, diversification, and promotion of innovative SMSP solutions. The empirical analysis reveals that the main change (transition) practices can be divided into a six-step process to track the breakdown of the accumulated sustainability processes in the given SMSPs. Each of the individual steps, as shown on the left side of Figure 1, implies different transformative capacity of a particular SMSP. Overall, within each individual practice of SMSPs leading to increased sustainability, four main change pathways can be differentiated. Individual options are briefly discussed and empirically underpinned in the following text.

Sustainability Transition Action 1—Joint pooling: Within this first step, the trans-local LL serves as a joint pool of knowledge and information, thus linking up with the learning and capacity-building perspective, as discussed in the preceding section. However, SMSPs meet in the LL to share a specific problem, challenge, or idea, the solution to which cannot be found by the SMSP itself. Since the twin transition is a challenging endeavor, which requires pooling of environmental and digital resources, SMSPs are searching for new ways and novel solutions. The majority of interviewed SMSP representatives confirmed that they engage in the LL for the purpose of new knowledge, training, and digital literacy opportunities, or for the facilitation of project management. In terms of the most important and highly prioritized challenges, problems, or ideas within the port ecosystem, most of them center around port operations and target short-term measures such as electrification of operational port infrastructure—mainly mobile infrastructure like locomotives and tractors—thus contributing to the environmental transition. From the digital transition perspective, the SMSPs’ envisaged measures appear to have a rather long-term character, requiring intensive and strong collaboration with stakeholders, e.g., digital port–city twinning projects, digital outlining and blueprinting, or simulating port operations (digital twins) for cost-saving and energy transition purposes, as well as for digital monitoring, compliance, and security initiatives. The majority of the SMSPs link the improvement of internal capacity with the co-creation opportunity that the LL offers them. At first step, most of the actions and interactions lead to higher absorption potentials, meaning that information and knowledge need to be shared, anticipated, and absorbed in regular terms. At this particular step, the LL provides a space to share and absorb useful information related to the twin transition as much as possible. The most suitable formats to do this are speed-dating among SMSPs, dedicated/specialized training, lighthouse practice sharing, and proofs-of-concept, supported by online training and port auditing opportunities for SMSPs. Here, the exchange and absorption of knowledge and information can occur formally, e.g., via LL platform events and workshops, or informally, e.g., via bilateral exchange enabled by the LL—a set of job-shadowing and study visits. In this way, SMSPs can learn conditions (entire ecosystem) for change by questioning, criticizing, and analyzing existing good or bad practices, searching for alternatives, or mobilizing resources and inspiration.

Sustainability Transition Action 2—Ideation and conceptualization: In this step, SMSPs can apply the absorbed information and adapt it for their own related purposes. For this purpose, the LL enables the connection of different SMSPs’ representatives into a digital working space (LL platform) to work on concepts or blueprints that would help SMSPs to kick-start or continue transformation. In this sense, the LL acts as a joint space for experimentation and in which SMSPs can draft ideas and ideate profiles of the desired solutions. In particular, the intermediation provided by the LL can lead to co-creation of the short-term measures planned by SMSPs up to 2030. According to the interviewed and counselled SMSPs, the majority of the short-term measures are associated with the following anticipated practices leading to change by 2030:

(A).

Changing energy paradigms in port operations:

-

Infrastructural upgrading of mobile and small-scale infrastructure, like Onshore Power Supply (OPS) stations for cargo vessels (Rostock) or cruise ships (Gdynia, Klaipeda);

-

Local energy production and distribution by using solar (photovoltaic systems) and wind energy, green hydrogen, and other biofuels (Karlshamn, Karlskrona, Klaipeda, Rostock, Ystad);

-

Energy efficiency control and optimization measures by using LED lighting systems and smart traffic management systems (Swinoujscie, Rostock).

(B).

Changing paradigms in B2B and B2C interactions for port customer servitization:

-

Port dues reduction measures based on the Environmental Ship Index (ESI) (Rostock);

-

New zero-emission cargo handling or zero-berthing services for port customers (Klaipeda);

-

New tax strategies and incentives (Karlshamn).

Compared to large-scale infrastructure development or upscaling projects, which enable twin transition, small-scale regional development projects, like those serving for action research in the present context, mostly focus on developing softer, i.e., business development-related solutions for SMSPs—practical hands-on tools that would enable them to kick-start change at ports immediately, as shown above. In the present empirical context, given the limited resource availability of SMSPs, the majority of them aim at developing digital solutions or digital tools, like digital twins, for the digitalization of port operations and simulation of port layout/landscaping for future energy transition projects, i.e., optimizing the use and exploitation of available port land in terms of interoperability of different systems (storage, handling, and energy production, combined with energy modelling through IT-driven sensor installation and data tracking), as also exemplified in Figure 3 below. Since most of the participating SMSPs ideate tailored (placed-based) solutions, the LL is used for sharing the costs of techniques and methods applicable to innovation processes, such as ideation, profiling, and evaluation, or for the purpose of tracking and exchanging ideation progress based on the individual learning practices of the involved SMSPs. In doing this, SMSPs can develop such transformative and sustainability-oriented capabilities (qualities) as critical thinking, change mindset, and determination, as shown in Figure 1. This so-called ideation is usually formalized as a solution concept or a blueprint.

Sustainability Transition Action 3—Digital capacity building: According to the empirical data available, most of the participating SMSPs aim at finding new methods (strategic and tactical level) or at improving their operational capacity (operational level). The concerned trans-local LL enables them to do this by means of improving their digital literacy and, thus, their digital capacity. Capacity building, however, takes place not only in digital terms. SMSPs can improve their resource base, better understand and track interactions with their colleagues, customers, and other external stakeholders, and better perceive and utilize both internal and external enablers of sustainability transition. Indeed, this is in line with the latest discourse on taxonomy of internal and external enablers, through which the LL can be seen as an internal enabler (IE) encompassing team, vision and strategy, processes, partnership, and resources, as well as products/services and market position [189]. Bearing this in mind, SMSPs are capable of kick-starting innovation development and entrepreneurial discovery internally, and later adapting to the externalities (customer demand, market conditions). This brings them into a favorable competitive position, since the improved capacity allows them not only to absorb (anticipate, recognize, and prepare), but also to react, respond, and adapt to both internal and external conditions, which, in turn, leads to new growth prospects and provides expansion opportunities. For example, with short-term digital piloting measures (digital twin development), physical and virtual exchange possibilities, learning by doing, and exchanging enabled by the concerned trans-local BSR LL, SMSPs are able to respond more quickly to changing customer demands (e.g., OPS, renewable energy, electrification of port handling equipment installation), as well as to adapt the best practices and existing feasible solutions from other LL participants and their SMSP counterparts to the place-based (local SMSPs) setting. In addition, increasing SMSPs’ capacity allows them to reorganize and reconfigure their intended solution development in the short and long term, principally by means of finding tools, activities or processes, and resources to respond to the new modalities on the market. Mainly, SMSPs are expected to respond to changing support market conditions. Principally, this means that with their (digital) capacity improved, SMSPs can adapt their plans to new market entrants, rules, or institutional changes (e.g., new certification, standardization). This is of value for SMSPs considering the new regulatory frameworks and sustainability performance requirements that are fixed or upcoming in the next years (2030 and 2050) to be issued by international or EU bodies for port operations. Finally, the portfolio of capabilities and capacities accumulated by the LL provides SMSPs with opportunities to grasp new business modelling (e.g., greener and cleaner), new sustainability qualifications and, thus, investment attraction. In doing this, the trans-local LL can provide SMSPs with possibilities to develop capacities that might lead to the highest resilience and sustainability impacts. As shown in Figure 1, capacity building benefits all four delineated transformative capacity pathways of SMSPs. With this potential, SMSPs can create both business and environmental value and increase their network competitiveness [86,180]. This is true for the given construct of the BSR LL.

Sustainability Transition Action 4—Piloting concepts and solutions: To deploy and sustain capacity, real experimentation is needed. In this sense, the trans-local LL provides room for hands-on experimentation, which can take place in a virtual or physical environment. Indeed, the LL serves to facilitate and shape or initiate transition-oriented activities [190]. Furthermore, like in the given project context, the LL provides tools and room to engage in real innovation development—initiative/pilot-based processes [62,92,191], which can be kick-started or accelerated via piloting or test beds [192]. As the field observations demonstrate and the empirical data underpin, the LL enables connection and exchange by means of gathering SMSP stakeholders for piloting via dedicated specialized formats, such as innovation sprints, port hackathons, or idea prototyping workshops, taking place in both virtual and physical environments. Physical piloting can take place in the short term (like hackathons) or the long run (over several months). To exemplify the long-term process, within the frame of the EU project “Connect2SmallPorts”, the piloting phase required nearly 10–16 months to conduct. All pilots of the participating SMSPs were built upon and undertaken based on specific concept development for the particular SMSP. All individual pilots were connected in the trans-local BSR LL through shared common progress-tracking procedures (auditing tools) and evaluation templates. Access to them was provided via the digital LL platform. for example, the following processes were implemented during the piloting process: (1) ideation and brainstorming; (2) stakeholder sensitization and engagement; (3) action plan drafting and specification; (4) ensuring regulatory and enabling procedures; (5) pilot conceptualization and realization; (6) connecting the pilot into the port ecosystem operational/technological domain; (7) pilot monitoring and evaluation; and (8) pilot reporting, documentation, and ramping up. All participating SMSPs underwent these initiative/pilot development steps. One of the examples can be seen in the figure above, showing how the port of Stralsund has planned the implementation of a pilot related to the establishment of a data-driven and IoT-based emission (sound, particulate matter) (Figure 2) monitoring system, aiming at not only developing synergies on the operational level but also generating positive impacts on the entire port ecosystem, e.g., facilitating port–city dialog, transparency, and exchange in terms of environmental compliance.

Similar pilots were implemented in Klaipeda, focusing on five air quality monitoring stations and data integration into the PortGIS system later used internally by the port authority and shared externally with port customers (terminal operators) and the city. Beyond environmental monitoring pilots, other SMSP pilots were oriented towards improving logistics transactions (e.g., developing Blockchain solution (ecosystem) for the Western ship agency in Klaipeda port) with the purpose of improving logistics document automation, control, and monitoring. For this purpose, a specific operation—transshipment of steel pipes from Turkey to Norway via Klaipeda—was chosen for the pilot, with 12 different connected nodes within the logistics process that involved both public and private institutions. Finally, digital port simulation and emulation pilots were also focused on to improve SMSPs’ readiness for digital transition and to grasp opportunities for value-added services’ development. Here, simulation and emulation pilots were implemented in Karlskrona, Lubmin, Vordingborg, Ystad, and Wismar by deploying drones for data collection and monitoring purposes, for the purpose of port services’ advertisement (Lubmin), or for regulatory compliance and facilitation of trading/customer interactions (Vordingborg). In addition to the operational (environmental), economic (operational efficiency and value creation), social (port–city linkage and multi-level collaboration strengthening in and outside port ecosystems) sustainability domains within the port ecosystems addressed within the piloting phase, an institutional sustainability dimension can also be delineated.

The institutional aspect is linked with the vocational education and training of port employees, which was enabled through data-driven simulation of port operations and projection of simulation contents for training/examination purposes via Virtual Reality (VR) glasses. The data collected via the drone within the inside and outside areas of the port of Wismar allow for a reality-based walkthrough of the port, enabling anticipation and learning of different port operational scenarios. Overall, it can be stated that SMSPs’ concepts and solutions piloted via the LL—in which all involved stakeholders exchange learning/piloting practices, tools for monitoring, and control and evaluation of pilots—address a holistic sustainability transition, which covers the operational, economic, social, and institutional dimensions. This is in line with the scholarly insights supporting perception and growth of LLs as iterative collaborative platforms for co-creation and experimentation [193,194,195]. In this sense, SMSPs are well equipped to adapt pilot processes and activities to their own port ecosystems and, thus, to enable contribution to or development of sustainable outputs, outcomes, and impacts. This, in turn, allows SMSPs to better respond to systemic changes, as adapted procedures, activities, and processes can be transferred to other port operational domains or other initiatives/pilots and, in this way, enable a competitive edge and new future growth perspectives.

Sustainability Transition Action 5—Proof-of-concept and solution uptake: In this particular step, transformative impacts of the initiative/pilot development can be grasped by means of proof-of-concept or so-called solution development. As a result of the comprehensive innovation process within each individual SMSP concerned, proofs-of-concept are exchanged, analyzed, benchmarked, and validated for capitalization within the BSR LL. Proofs-of-concept are validated either formally (external expert validation) or informally (peer-to-peer level, expert circle, group consultations, and study visits). For example, within the “Connect2SmallPorts” project, SMSPs’ pilots were evaluated by independent experts based on the developed joint and shared template and indicators. For instance, three domains were indicated for external evaluators, as shown in Table 3.

Bearing this evaluation matrix in mind, the developed solutions were benchmarked by using a Likert scale of 1–7, as well as based on the evaluation reports. As echoed by external evaluators, such benchmarks facilitate the verification of subsequent dimensions and factors—for instance, in the digitization and digitalization levels in SMSPs. In addition, they provide easy access to self-assessment, given the fact that SMSPs usually suffer from limited resources that could be dedicated to such validation and feasibility activities of the developed solutions, such as this one. In addition to such tools, like the verification matrix shown in Table 3, external verification of the developed solutions within the BSR LL can be carried out through LL events like port hackathons or pitching of a series of ideas/solutions. For instance, in the given context, the developed port solutions from the pilots, like the Blockchain solution in Klaipeda or IoT-based emission monitoring systems, were used for further ideation and development of sub-solutions within the idea competition (Portathon 2022) in Klaipeda, Lithuania. In this sense, a specific aspect from the developed solution was chosen for ideation, like the expansion of the monitoring system to the rainwater/stormwater outlets to identify pollution cases using water quality or visual recognition systems. Similarly, the solutions developed during the project were introduced within the port hackathon to acquire alternative solutions and/or to test feasibility of those solutions within more diverse hackathon teams and among people outside the project consortium. Indeed, this latter fact supports a more creative and open innovation approach facilitated by the LL. In addition, the BSR LL enables SMSPs not only to adapt the developed solutions, but also to expand and diversify the developed solutions and/or conceptualize alternative, new, or additional co-creation opportunities (add-on solutions). Moreover, this particular processual step implemented within the BSR LL supports SMSPs, project developers, and other related stakeholders in responding to end-user needs, since the uptake of innovative solutions involves the demonstration of use cases to end-users and stakeholders in the form of workshops, feedback rounds, and pitches.

Whereas external validation provides higher credibility, internal validation of the developed initiatives supports the improvement of internal processes and opens up new collaboration opportunities. In this sense, the engagement in the BSR LL also enabled project beneficiaries to seize and unlock future large-scale funding or collaboration projects as a result of the demonstration of solutions and specification of use cases. Feedback gathered from end-users enabled us to identify future challenges, burning needs, and missing functionalities within the operational and strategic realms of the participating SMSPs. The agile approach, using close collaboration and integration, also efficiently collects inputs and knowledge from end-users and clients early in the future project development stage. For instance, the automatization processes in the seaport of Wismar paved the way for co-developing and submitting the application on the establishment of the 5G campus “PORTABLE 5.0” for port equipment automation, the first two authors being the idea and content owners of this application. Similarly, IoT solution development for the port of Klaipeda enabled reuse of the toolbox for developing simulations of changing energy systems in ports or monitoring energy efficiency in ports (“BEPort2030—Baltic Energy Ports on Sustainable Energy Transition towards 2030 through Co-Creation and Integration of Green and Circular Energy Hubs” application, submitted by the main author of this paper in March 2023 to the Baltic Sea Region Program, Second Call). Finally, the established LL and the “DigiTechPort Excellence Centre” were transformed into the follow-up application “DigiTechPort2030—Decarbonization of Small Ports Ecosystems for Efficient Environmental and Energy Management towards South Baltic Fit for 55”, approved in June 2023. In this sense, the existing knowledge and innovative solutions are transferred into the knowledge and excellence of the LL, which uses digitalization not as a goal, but rather as a means on the way towards decarbonization of SMSPs by 2030 and 2050.

Sustainability Transition Action 6—Diversification, cross-pollination, and transfer of innovative solutions: In this step, the LL is able to support participating SMSPs, along with their clients and stakeholders, towards integrating the developed solutions into daily port or business operations, so as to diversify business models and identify competitive or niche markets. This action can lead to two different outputs: (a) organizational sustainability practices, where the organization uses the developed and adopted solutions to upscale or diversify existing practices; or (b) value-added focused outputs (e.g., business models) generated from the developed solutions. In the former, the BSR LL supports the sustainable reuse of developed project ideas, e.g., reusing them in other applications, upscaling test beds, or adding additional test fields (e.g., BEPort2030). Similarly, the developed solutions can be deployed as feasibility proofs for attracting large national or EU investments. In the latter, the developed solutions become a quality denominator and open up opportunities for coupling value generation beyond only port stakeholders [196], e.g., in port–city or port–land interactions, where reciprocal benefits emerge for both businesses (ports) and society or businesses and public (policy) stakeholders. Here, SMSPs are also able to generate synergy effects and new circular business practices [197]. In this sense, the approach and model of an LL becomes particularly crucial, since the LL enables co-creation of shared value. To underline, future research is also needed to explain how coupling of resources among the environmental, economic, social, and institutional dimensions of sustainability can generate sustainable value and resilient capacity [196,198].

Indeed, new ideas, forms, outputs, and transformations are created through an aggregated approach, going beyond interdisciplinary boundaries, with implementation and exploitation on the market. Consequently, positive effects are expected on the operational, tactical, and strategic organizational levels that account for economic, environmental, social, and cultural dimensions of evolving (eco)systems [199,200]. Similarly, the processual perspective supports an innovative discovery mindset, mainly through social interactions creating social value, and through open and experimental interactions of quadruple helices creating shared value in (eco)systems (quintuple perception). Overall, this contributes to entrepreneurial discovery of regional actors, like SMSPs [201,202,203], and makes the LL a future strategic action field [204].

4.3. Trans-Local Living Labs as a System Changer—Upscaling and Legitimizing Sustainability Transition Horizons

Having positioned and underpinned the BSR LL as a learning broker and co-creator, a synoptic summarizing overview is now given on how the BSR LL enables sustainability transition for SMSPs in a systemic way. This helps to facilitate understanding and utilize the potentials of the LL, since ports organized as ecosystems are mainly explained through the establishment, capitalization, and maintenance of relationships among ecosystem actors, in line with the findings of [205] In addition, as the preceding analysis has shown, the BSR LL has also opened up unconventional and new approaches or methods to be tested in the SPSMs, as well as providing more freedom for experimentation and better access to multidisciplinary knowledge and expertise across local, regional, or national borders. This also supports systemic change [206] and strengthens network engagement, thus leading to better and faster access to knowledge, expertise, and best-practice exchange, as well as enabling sustainable experiments and demonstration projects, as similarly perceived by Leminen et al. [207] and Paskaleva et al. [208] resulting in better collaboration among different helices and improved governance structures for managing stakeholders, resources, and sustainability processes, as also highlighted by topical scholars [209,210].

For this purpose, the authors developed a systemic future representation of the BSR LL, which can be referred to as a port (eco)system change map, depicting the typology of transition pathways and identifying the scope and scale of different transformation (change) levels. By coupling the frameworks for systematic change connected with the AAER framework (Adopt–Adapt–Expand–Respond) [211,212] on the one hand, and LL-related systematic depictions of stakeholder involvement and different levels of co-creation [213] on the other (LL as a location, LL as a testbed, LL as a research and co-creation network, and LL as a real-life collaboration and knowledge environment construct), the following sustainability transition and, thus, system change map for the SMSPs can be proposed (Figure 3). All individual building blocks integrate different aspects, namely, stages and actions of participating actors and SMSPs, and the system change horizons (pathways) that the SMSPs might pass during their sustainability transition or might acquire. According to the actions that SMSPs undertake/might utilize within the LL sustainability horizons—(1) anticipation/absorption/adoption, (2) adaptation, (3) responsiveness, and (4) expansion—potential outcomes of interactions and collaboration within the LL, such as horizons, including visioning and impact, can be achieved, e.g., (A) knowledge creation horizon, (B) innovation horizon, (C) resilience, and (D) regeneration horizon. In sum, different actions lead to different degrees of sustainability and transformation capacity, as shown on the vertical and horizontal axes, respectively (Figure 3).

Finally, the plotted names of the cities/towns refer to the evaluation of the participating SMSPs in this research based on their analysis in the preceding two sub-chapters, as well as the overall port performance analyzed during this work. According to this breakdown and the analysis carried out, SMSPs can accumulate different levels of sustainability on the vertical axis (sustainable practices), while having different paces of transition on the horizontal axis, implying different levels of transformation. In total, different levels indicate different levels of capacity and competencies that SMSPs might attain. For instance, achievements in sustainability and transition are each ranked with one “+”, whereas achieving two steps in each pathway (either vertically or horizontally) yields an additional “+”. With this evaluation matrix, however, there is no intention within this research to impede the competition among the SMSPs. On the contrary, those four stages are thought to serve as a guideline and a compass to check how bigger counterparts can overrun SMSPs or include them in collaboration (e.g., finding market niches, relying on trustworthy partners, etc.). Therefore, Figure 3 can serve as a comprehensive holistic map to audit and evaluate one’s own organization, and potentially to initiate endogenous change (sustainability pathway). Indeed, this seems to be easier, given the fact of existing or evolving BSR-wide LLs for SMSPs. For that reason, the following evaluation is based on the observed practices during the research phase. The evaluation of the participating SMSPs is also supported by the discussed conceptual understanding and can be summarized as follows:

(a)

Grassroots knowledge creation + burgeoning sustainability (+ +). In this realm of the entire plotted map, SMSPs are referred to as acting within the knowledge creation horizon and, thus, laying the groundwork for the sustainability transition. According to the observed practices, SMSPs engage in the LL and take advantage of their participation. Potential future pathways can be drawn based on the actions implemented (here, pilots), yet no regular uptake or upscaling opportunities are utilized, since the SMSPs are at the grassroots level of the transitional process. This process might involve recognition and absorption of rules, compliance needs, context analysis, and analysis of one’s own change perspective. In this step, anticipated actions (pilots) are used within the LL to test multiple models and modes of operations, identify constraints, or seize opportunities for further uptake. In this particular step, the piloted practices support knowledge creation and diversification but do not lead to innovation generation when taken up to the market.

(b)

Shared knowledge creation + sustainable innovation footprint (+ + +). In this realm, participating SMSPs generate innovations, which can take the form of a product, service, or internal organizational improvement. In this step, the action (piloting) phase results in tangible change for participating actors across the entire ecosystem, usually underpinned by strong stakeholder interactions maintained within the LL and their integration into the anticipated change incentive. In contrast to the previous step, this implies strong and coherent internal perception and recognition of anticipated or occurring change in the organization. In addition, the piloted solution is supported by the developed business model and value map creation, thus again involving and benefiting diverse stakeholders of the concerned ecosystem.

(c)

Shared knowledge creation + burgeoning responsive capacity (++). In this area, respective portfolios of knowledge, skills, and expertise are used to strategically address the changes in the SMSP ecosystem, which might directly affect the future performance of the organizations (here, SMSPs). In this sense, the LL plays a pivotal role, since all changes happening in the entire ecosystem can be better traced and understood through the LL and the interactions therein. In this step, SMSPs engaged in actions (pilots) test developed or emerging innovative solutions in close collaboration with the target groups (users) and those who might affect solution acceptance or refusal (e.g., policymakers, authorities, niche markets, new industry trends, norms, etc.). In this step, innovative solutions are extensively tested for their feasibility in open innovation formats (e.g., port hackathons, design sprints, or similar) to gather and evaluate the inputs and perceptions of target groups, users, and the entire market. In addition, those responding SMSPs are able to increase the upscaling of innovation by using the LL, either through mainstreaming innovation among the LL actors or through feedback loops for gathering potential change.

(d)

Shared knowledge creation + shared sustainability endeavors (+++). Once positioned within this field, SMSPs are using developed innovative solutions on the market and utilizing ways of upscaling them, e.g., by means of adding a service or support function to that solution (for instance, in the case of port emission monitoring system, a data maintenance or environmental auditing service can be introduced). In this stage, SMSPs fully utilize the potentials of the LL and increase the levels of collaboration among the involved actors within the LL. SMSPs also find ways not only to achieve sustainable performance in terms of ecology, economy, and social inclusion, but also to implement proactive leadership and introduce incentives or projects bringing not only port organizations, but the entire SMSP ecosystem and regional systems into a strategic and dynamic partnership benefitting the community and nature—for instance, by means of innovations aimed also at the restoration of natural ecosystems (e.g., fisheries, forestry, social well-being). In this step, SMSPs are transitioning beyond their traditional role as transport and logistics service providers and moving towards strong energy, education, business incubation, and co-funding intermediaries and actors, thus taking on a central role in the LL.

To provide and maintain understanding, the four building blocks on the vertical and horizontal axes are explained in

Table 4. Outcomes of institutional positioning of LLs and sustainability pathways.

LL System Changer ID	LL System Changer Stage	LL System Changer Guidelines and Indications (Achieved Change)
1A	Anticipating Absorbing Adopting	- Co-created and exchanged knowledge in piloting. - Established and/or engaged within topical networks. - Costs shared for idea/solution feasibility/validity. - Established inner motivation through engagement in LLs. - Established co-ownership and co-sharing mechanisms.
2B	Adapting	- Long-term usability and deployment of successful practices internally (prioritization of projects/initiatives; structured compliance and overview of applicable policies; team spirit improvement). - Improved innovative endeavors (customer satisfaction, efficiency and competitiveness map of attempted solutions; market analysis; corporate (port) footprint optimization). - Trial and error of the anticipated solution in an LL. - Tailored tested practices for future organization (port portfolio). - Improved future sustainability investment-related decision-making process. - Gained/improved sustainability transition management capacity.
3C	Responding	- Improved ability to recognize changes and adopt necessary practices, solutions, products, or services. - Enhanced ability to respond to changes/shocks and become an early adopter. - Defined ability to find solutions for changes and shocks in case of being a late adopter (from the competencies and best practices LL portfolio). - Tested ability to recognize potential efficient improvements to the product/service portfolio or internal operations (reconfiguration, adjustment, and intermediation ability).
4D	Expanding	- Designed and delivered competitive responses resulting from the pilot (solution implementation stage and diversification of original idea/solution). - Involved multipliers for solution cross-pollination and transfer. - Initiated collaboration with new partners, enabling functional solution upgrades, testing, or mainstreaming. - Changed mindset of decision-makers through multi-stakeholder communication and exchange. - Improved understanding of the flexibility of regulatory and policy compliance through access to different use-case scenarios as tested within the LL environment. - Improved changes in management capacity for self-organization by means of evaluating gains and pains of sustainability transition and sustainability compliance. - Accumulated body of tacit knowledge to understand potential future sustainability transition scenarios for self-organization.

Source: compiled by authors.

below. In terms of the interpretation, the authors defined that the higher the letter (e.g., C, D), the higher the level of sustainability and transformative capacity. This table can therefore be used as a guideline for understanding and measuring the impact of engagement in the LL and evaluating the interactions of involved stakeholders for their own organizations (SMSPs). As a result, the following table presents a roadmap—a guide to how the integration into, interaction within, and capitalization from the LL could benefit individual organizations (SMSPs).

The plotted matrix of potential sustainability pathways below therefore provides a systemic perspective integrating the desired and measurable future performance of SMSPs (Figure 4). It can also be used as a tool for other bigger ports to audit and evaluate themselves, to identify new opportunities, and to understand processes, interactions, and stakeholders that affect sustainability practices and decision-making processes. Indeed, system thinking is referred to as one of the key tenets for a future circular economy [214]. The synthesis presented above in Table 4 refers to the potential institutional positioning of organized port stakeholders in networks—formal or informal. Based on the level of institutional thickness and bearing in mind the analyzed LL in SMSPs compared with port authorities, port clusters, and port ecosystems, it can be assumed that port LLs bear rather informal potential for sustainability but keeping in mind the achieved sustainable results in time and scope, they bear huge future potential.

In cases where port authorities are rather formal organizations responsible for port management and operations, they bring huge sustainability in the organizational and social dimensions, but they show rather lower potential in adaptability to new trends and transformation pace, thus reducing business opportunities and environmental gains. Similarly, port clusters are organized as formal organizations, but due to weaker interactions within the network and higher independencies of port cluster members, they rationally bear lower sustainability potential than port authorities. Finally, port ecosystems emerge as networks of businesses, infrastructure, and equipment around ports, and due to this complexity they are less able to show unified and harmonized sustainability. However, due to this complexity and differentiation, they bear huge potential to speed up the transformation in ports. In contrast, port LLs enable us to embed, translate, and scale up real-life experimentation into innovation, as the empirical data showcase. In this case, the authors see LLs as more advanced than port ecosystems.

To trace the attempted division of actor interaction and intermediation levels, it can be concluded that port LLs can be regarded as the most promising space (currently) for sustainability generation in SMSPs. They can be used as informal constructs of social and expertise interaction among involved stakeholders, e.g., utilizing co-creation and innovation formats, such as hackathons, design sprints, or co-creation maps. They can also be utilized as a formal platform, e.g., the “DigiTechPort Excellence Centre”, representing the competencies, skills, and best practices of SMSPs engaged and accumulated under one umbrella. For this purpose, Figure 4 shows that according to the present research, port LLs are prominent social constructs for piloting, crowding-in, and capturing shared value for the entire ecosystem.

5. Discussion

The present research takes an alternative approach towards enhancing the understanding of port sustainability transition. Effectively, it utilizes the LL approach to accelerate and enable sustainability transition. As a result, it serves as a first attempt and experiment agglomerating the LL approach in a port nexus. So far, sustainability transition in ports has been discussed from the MLP, thus supporting the experimental nature of internal and external system interactions. Due to shared conceptual foundations, LLs represent a promising approach to study transition in ports. In particular, LLs support cooperation among SMSPs, since they introduce roles, steps, and processes that facilitate the engagement of SMSPs in projects and innovative actions (pilots). As a result, this research is in line with the work of Bjerkan and Ryghaug [10]. However, in contrast to those scholars, the sustainable transition pathways of SMSPs in the BSR were explored from the LL perspective. This research does not explicitly distinguish between networks, expectations, and learning. In this paper, those constructs are already embodied within the LL approach. To date, an LL applied from a processual innovation perspective already implies interaction with multiple stakeholders, considers expectations, and includes learning cycles. Thus, it also revolves around systemic and holistic perceptions. For instance, an exploration of sustainability problems in ports requires a holistic understanding and involvement of actors from the quadruple helix—academia, business, policymakers, and society at large. The scrutiny also needs to be applied at different levels—micro (firm level; firms operating in ports), meso (port ecosystems), and macro (intervention with regional, national, or global socio-technical systems). As a result, relevant stakeholders interact with their needs and expectations and start their learning journey at the very inception of the LL itself, after defining a problem, idea, or goal, as shown in Figure 1.

With this research, the authors also support policy experimentation in terms of the MLP [111]. Policy experimentation literature usually draws on climate policies. Here, transition in SMSPs enhances our understanding of the impacts of climate-related policies on ports. As a result of the regulatory package “Fit for 55”, exploration of ports’ concerns with respect to implementing top–down regulations and laws might be facilitated by utilizing the LL approach. With this approach, an open-minded collaborative approach is initiated, rather than putting pressure on ports and urging them to comply with sustainability goals. Moreover, the presented LL framework also considers an interplay of different sustainability dimensions, such as operational/technological, socio-environmental, economic, and institutional ones. With this systemic perception, the present research also encapsulates critical debates on the interplay of environmental, social, and economic components in today’s business, resulting in conflicting interests known as the Triple Bottom Line (TBL). Therefore, the LL framework acknowledges the significance of harmonizing business endeavors for achieving sustainability in those three dimensions [215,216,217]. Finally, with this framework proposed, the present work takes a step towards conceptualizing LLs and facilitating understanding of their structures [58] and processes [218]. Due to the complementary characteristics of LLs—such as LLs acting as catalysts and brokers for transition across institutional and geographical boundaries, using networks to share and spread knowledge, designing joint innovation implementation for shared value co-creation, and developing sustainability methodologies and evaluation indicators—LLs bear huge potential for innovation co-creation in SMSPs through strong experimental characteristic. Thus, SMSPs accumulate genuine bargaining power for future funding, resulting from the successful implementation and feasibility of pilots and initiatives implemented and proven within the LL. SMSPs then become more visible and attractive, and thus more competitive.

However, LLs’ application also poses potential barriers and challenges for SMSPs. Despite their informal character, a certain actor alignment is necessary. Potential diverse interests within an LL are not unlikely. Thus, sufficient moderation of the actors within an LL is necessary, which poses another challenge to distribute such responsibilities among the LL actors. Consequently, engaging all actors and stakeholders, as well as maintaining their interest and participation over time, might be difficult. Another drawback of the informal character might be the least possible bureaucracy. Even in the case of common interests and goals, certain aspects might require legal contracting to avoid conflict between actors in an LL, especially issues like intellectual property rights or data sharing.

From the industry perspective, the present research supports increasing sustainability consciousness in SMSPs. Next to existing contributions mainly referring to big ports, this work enhances the importance of the existence and development of SMSPs in a sustainable manner. Only with sustainability orientation are smaller ports able to compete on regional, national, or international markets. For this, this research provides SMSPs with a framework that can support their pathways in terms of sustainability. Advancing the existing literature, this contribution goes beyond sustainability performance in ports from the operational perspective and supports burgeoning research building upon competence portfolios and supporting decision-making in ports [219]. This study contributes to the existing literature on smaller ports in the BSR, such as the studies of Bjerkan et al. [220] Bjerkan and Ryghaug [10], and Damman and Steen [221], who scrutinized Norwegian ports in sustainability transition. However, one of the advantages of the present research is that it yields sustainability transition on the macro-regional scale, by studying ports in different countries of the BSR and their sustainability transition pathways. In addition, this work does not explore stakeholder expectations and the roles of actors, thus underpinning the role of social interactions and the impact of behavioral changes. Still, it sheds light on the entire port ecosystem and deploys multiple empirical foundations, going beyond interviews. In doing this, however, the authors connect to the preceding research and acknowledge the lessons learnt in previous research undertakings, by advancing the research with a framework configuration, leading to a more structured and systematic perception of sustainability transition in the given geographical setting.

6. Conclusions

The results of this are twofold: First, the present research developed a trans-local LL model, which aims at supporting sustainability transition in ports through shared governance structures on a macro-regional (beyond the border) level. Here, the LL model for sustainability transition supports SMSPs in utilizing diverse arrangements of actors, deploying intertwining settings of networks, and using varying institutional contexts and spaces (both physical and virtual) for the purpose of ideation, co-creation, and exploitation of innovative solutions. By creating a shared governance model on a macro-regional level—in the Baltic Sea Region—experimentation with sustainability transition and innovations can take place smoothly. This is because the LL model provides access to shared knowledge, generates bargaining power through strong macro-regional institutional arrangements, and engenders short-term or long-term forms of technical and infrastructural interventions (e.g., sharing/building joint infrastructure). As a result, the LL for sustainability transition provides a space for experimentation and supports the achievement of sustainability at different sizes, scopes, and scales. By engaging in and deploying multi-actor interactions through the LL paradigm, actors enable innovative port dynamics expressed through innovative collaborative actions, joint practices, objectives, and initiatives, which advance the current organizational and institutional settings and contexts in which ports operate.

This is particularly important in the policymaking context, since small-scale experimentation (e.g., pilot phase) provides room for improvements, adaptations, and potential alternatives for bigger future investments into port infrastructure, to mention just a few examples. Moreover, LLs prove to provide a substantial basis and impetus for remote and rural areas, in which agglomeration of public funding and investments is rather limited compared to urban areas. When it comes to SMSPs, most of them in the BSR are acting as gateways or hubs for rural accessibility and development. In addition, such SMSPs are engaged in a rather tough competition over public or European funding, which, in turn, makes them rather unattractive to potential customers. Thus, LLs can span the organizational and institutional distance and increase social, institutional, and organizational proximity. Finally, LLs can enrich decision-making processes among policymakers, since hybrid knowledge, exchanged social learning, and synergies provide a solid basis for decision-making in volatile and ambiguous environments. Similarly, due to the experimental nature of LLs in SMSPs, cross-sectoral and cross-border exchange of best practices supports the sustainability transition perspective, since diverse practices can distill the most efficient and effective patterns in SMSPs. These, in turn, can be fused into future legislative, regulatory, financial, or organizational guidelines based on collaborative, sustainability-oriented, and resilient approaches, driven by shared value creation, multi-stakeholder perception, active user involvement, co-creative thinking and action, and a holistic understanding of the environment.

Building upon the LL model for sustainability transition in SMSPs, specific sustainability pathways at ports might be enacted at the micro-scale (local level). This is particularly crucial for SMSPs, which per se struggle more in adopting new practices, changing behaviors, or accessing new knowledge, networks, and clusters compared to their bigger counterparts. Indeed, based on their complexity and intertwining at the global, national, regional, and local scales, as well as across different types of organizations, institutions, behaviors, and practices, bigger ports can be treated as (super) Living Labs by nature. Therefore, the developed LL model empowers SMSPs to launch and roll-out innovative practices situated at the micro-level by initiating local-scale pilots (port projects) in given locations, scaling them up through the trans-local exchange in the LL, continuing with the development of innovative solutions, legitimizing them through upscaling, and finally incorporating them into ports’ regular operational and organizational practices. In addition, this leads to more effective and efficient orchestration and coordination of internal and external (inter-organizational) resources and processes, as well as other interdependencies.

By providing those two results, the present research reveals how the LL model for sustainability transition in SMSPs enables building innovative capacity through pilot (initiative)-based learning, multi-actor interactions, and institutionalization of those innovative interactions, thus leading towards tangible and intangible sustainability transition and impacts starting at the micro-scale, i.e., port ecosystems, port practices, and the magnitude of the impact of those practices on sustainability transition. Thus, this research explores and conceptualizes the ways in which trans-local collaboration in an LL leads to transformative impacts at the local level (port ecosystems), as well as incorporating practices at the trans-local level in the form of shared and transferred collaborative patterns.

The present work is a response to both scientific and managerial concerns raised by the authors dealing with sustainability paradigms in the port industry. The main advantage is that this research advances the scant existing literature on SMSPs, and in particular on their sustainability transition pathways. Here, the research is young and needs further investigation. In addition, this work recalls the growing need for transdisciplinary research and aligns concepts that have not yet been intertwined, revolving around institutional, evolutionary, and social sciences. LLs become a methodology, a space, and a system approach within port ecosystems and the socio-technical transition nexus. The authors have not recorded deployment of LLs for ports in the scientific literature so far. The use of LLs has so far been a proven practice in practical considerations—EU projects. This can be traced back to the fact that LLs have gained great importance in the EU and in the transport, logistics, and port industry-related fields. The present work, therefore, contributes in the first sense to the scientific community by enhancing conceptual understanding of LLs in a given port industry. The provided frameworks of sustainability transition in SMSPs serve as a conceptual approach that can be used in developing, implementing, evaluating, and capitalizing on LLs for both policy and managerial considerations.

From the practical point of view, the frameworks and sustainability transition pilots designed for SMSPs can help sustainability planners and port decision-makers in successfully imitating LL practices, thus enabling them to save diverse resources for any design and feasibility concerns related to port sustainability transition projects. With the proposed LL frameworks and LL system change maps, underpinned by exemplary sustainability transition cases across the entire port ecosystem and its domains, port actors can utilize this toolbox step by step and deploy it for the purpose of attracting any investments/funding on the local, national, EU, or global scale. The use of the toolbox might also provide SMSPs with additional resources, granting them a competitive advantage. In the coming years, not only big ports will be forced to transform their entire operations into sustainable ones; smaller ports will be also forced to engage in sustainability transition sooner or later, as a result of survival concerns or of regulatory frameworks imposed on port operations. However, bearing in mind the notion of the BSR as a role model in transition, SMSPs—which constitute the majority of ports in the BSR—should also take a big step now, bringing them closer to sustainable practices. It is expected that more projects will follow that will pilot sustainability solutions in SMSPs in the region by deploying the LL concept. For that, they will need to rely on existing concepts and approaches, being at the grassroots or advanced networked level. What will count in the rapid pace of sustainability transition in ports will be the utilization of existing tools, pilots, prototypes, and tested solutions. In this way, the present work can serve as a principal guideline underpinned by subsequent research. Future contributions will need to test the applicability of the LL methodological tools for sustainability transition in order to make them easy to transfer and to adapt into similar socio-technical regimes. This also implies that more networking and exchange among sustainability researchers will be needed across regional boundaries to share, transfer, capitalize on, and boost feasible tested solutions. Learning, sharing, and adopting such solutions across different regions in the EU and other SMSPs might facilitate synergistic effects and speed up the EU’s achievement of sustainability goals.