domain: shs.eco spi sde

text:
Marion Real
email: m.real@estia.fr

Iban Lizarralde

How to facilitate social entrepreneurship for developing circular economy into territories? Feedbacks from systemic design methodology applied to the Nouvelle Aquitaine Region

How to facilitate social entrepreneurship for developing circular economy into territories? Feedbacks from systemic design methodology applied to the Nouvelle Aquitaine Region

Marion Real, Iban Lizarralde

To cite this version:

Marion Real, Iban Lizarralde. How to facilitate social entrepreneurship for developing circular economy into territories? Feedbacks from systemic design methodology applied to the Nouvelle Aquitaine Region. Exploring a changing view on organizing value creation: Developing New Business Models

Introduction

The shift toward a circular economy is initiated at different scales by a strong diversity of stakeholders (policy makers, industrials, designers, citizens…), approaches (eco-design, industrial and territorial ecology, cradle-to-cradle, systemic design…) and participate to the emergence of new business models (sustainable product-services systems, makerspaces and repair café, resourcebased local networks…). The proximity between circular economy and a recent archetype of sustainable business model (Bocken, 2014), the "social enterprise" is high and the processes of social innovation (Ceschin, 2014) and entrepreneurship [START_REF] Verstraete | Une théorie conventionnaliste du Business Model en contexte de création d'entreprise pour comprendre l'impulsion organisationnelle[END_REF] are gaining interest to be studied in both meso and micro levels.

Social enterprises have heterogeneous forms and status (cooperatives, associations, unions, SMEs…). Their business models could be defined by 4 criterions (Le Mouves, 2013): (1) the creation of an economic or entrepreneurial project, (2) a social or societal purpose, (3) No or limited lucrativeness (profits reinvested in the project, limited remuneration of capital, and a supervised wage scale) and (4) a democratic or participatory governance. Social entrepreneurs are perceived as catalyzers of change [START_REF] Faivre Tavignot | Le social business, laboratoire d'apprentissage des stratégies de rupture[END_REF]. As any innovators, they navigate in complex environments and are facing numerous difficulties all along the lifecycle of the project and the evolution of their organizations. European commission are encouraging actions to improve the visibility, the access to funding, the legal environment and the international expansion of social enterprises [START_REF] Eu | Social enterprises and the social economy going forward -A call for action from the Commission Expert Group on Social Entrepreneurship[END_REF].

In this paper, we explore how social entrepreneurship could become a key component to foster circular economy into territories and discuss about the support that could offer regional intermediary structures (Howell, 2006)(Agogue, 2012) like public institutions, agencies, incubators, schools….

Methodology

Our findings are based on a current action-research coming from the Interreg Europe project entitled RETRACE (interregeurope.eu/retrace/), which aims to promote circular economy into five regions through a systemic design methodology. Systemic design regards the study of industrial and agricultural processes as complex networks that transform the output of a process in a chain mechanism whose goal is the total elimination of manufacturing waste [START_REF] Bistagnino | Systemic Design to Develop Local Distributed Economies[END_REF]). At regional level, the methodology of the project consists in different steps:

-A holistic diagnosis is framing the metabolism of regions through different dimensions (politics, geographics, urban centers, cultures, flow resources, economics and good practices) so as to identify potentialities and critical issues in different sectors. -Then, regional and local stakeholders are participating in the co-design of regional policies for circular economy within a systemic vision that will be analyzed and implemented.

The Nouvelle Aquitaine is one of the region involved in the project and is the main focus of our analysis. The participation of the researchers in this ongoing project allowing to both capture the actual structure of social economy in Nouvelle Aquitaine but also to impulse new policies, rules and type of supports in direct relation with circular economy. Currently, our research material consists in:

-An analysis of actual political instruments for social and circular economy in Nouvelle Aquitaine that we realized in the holistic diagnosis of the Retrace project. -The business models for 15 social enterprises plus 3 intermediary supporting organizations were observed thanks to the interviews with project owners and to the regional platform RECITA. -Three stakeholder meetings aimed to respectively framing the actual lacks of supports for circular initiatives, transferring knowledge through good practices and sharing around three sectors (agriculture, wood and textile).

The stakeholder meetings were co-designed and organized by the authors of the paper with industrials, social entrepreneurs, policy makers, and NGOs.

Key findings

Two kinds of feedbacks are highlighted by this action research. They concern (1) the process of social entrepreneurship and (2) the role of regions in supporting it.

(1) Social entrepreneurs are overwhelmed by dialogisms [START_REF] Morin | On complexity[END_REF] [START_REF] Real | A cognitive approach to complement support practices for the maturation of eco-innovations[END_REF]: they face individual and collective decisions [START_REF] Todres | Exploring the 'Social' In Social Entrepreneurship: Applying the Concept of Network Sociality To Social Entrepreneurs[END_REF] through horizontal or vertical management for both short and long term visions and share the double objective of job creation and ecosystem healthcare. It exists two different logics for such business models: the traditional social organizations offer social jobs and training for people in difficulty. They depend on public funds and are built around a strong turn over. A new wave is emerging through the empowerment of citizens and other stakeholders which experiment new forms of participation (cooperatives of citizens, producers or consumers, holacracy management, sharing platforms…) and dare taking responsibility or investing time and money to collectively answer to social & environmental needs. Most of emergent successful business models are hybrids and combine both market revenues, subventions and member fees.

(2) Within the actual political context, regions remain central stakeholders to make visible the needs for the territory and develop local circular economy. In France, the perimeter of social economy need to be redesigned so as to shape to territorial potentialities and criticalities.

Regions need to offer a structural and coherent plan for both inspiring and supporting social and circular initiatives in a more transparent and participative way.

Guided by territorial resource-flow evolutions and by a frequent elicitation of stakeholder needs and uses, regions are up to design adapted tools (platform, maps, directory), supports (R&D, equipment, investment) and collaboration mechanisms with local stakeholders (agency, schools, incubators, NgO…) for facilitating the development of social entrepreneurship for grassroots initiatives as well as top-down innovations.


Lizarralde Iban

A set of systemic design tools for the design of flourishing local fashion systems

Context and

Applying systemic design for supporting regional transitions involves the creation of conditions at different scales to help the emergence and the development of active and sustainable communities. It questions policies, resource extraction and valorisation, processes and technologies, business models, social issues and concerns every stakeholder present in each node of value constellations. These actors can be multiples, possess varied internal representations and have heterogeneous powers of action according to their own situations. Thus, selecting design approaches is a real challenge that need to be based on empirical data and rich theoretical foundations considering systems that relies mainly on the ability of stakeholders to act in complex environment and that are able to construct new dynamics and virtuous loops of activities from resources and metabolism of the territory.

In this paper, we propose an operational contribution for supporting territorial regime transitions through systemic design. A set of tools is presented, realized from research materials of an actionresearch dedicated to the development of a sustainable fashion community in the Nouvelle Aquitaine Region.

Methodology

Our research is anchored in an action research approach on the territory of Nouvelle Aquitaine region. This resolutely inductive and empirical approach considers the field as a place for experimenting and confronting the concepts and tools imagined from the observations and situations experienced within this terrain.

From an operational point of view, the action research is based on the intention to endeavour the emergence of activities around the valorisation of local resources, used industrial and individual textiles and clothing. Two type of objectives were highlighted to initiate a complex socio-technical process of design for regional transition:

(1) Different stakeholders are involved all along the process: innovation clusters, the regional circular economy platform, sorting, upcycling and recycling centres, designers, seamstresses, brands and citizens of the territory.

(2) The ideal objective is to facilitating the development of a complete ecosystem that explore all deposits of bio-resources and used textiles on the territory and find solutions of valorisations by co-creating pathways that fight continuously against legislative, organisational, knowledge and technological lock-ins.

The action research consists in the participation of the researcher in two different scale projects: At a regional policy level, the author was an active member of the INTERREG EUROPE Retrace project, dedicated to apply systemic design method [START_REF] Barbero | Systemic Design Method Guide for Policymaking: A Circular Europe on the Way[END_REF] into five regions (Nouvelle Aquitaine included). The actions of this project consisted in:

-Realizing a holistic diagnosis of the territory that analyzed the key features of the territory (geography, urban center, economy, demography and culture), the actual political instruments for circular economy and an input-output characterization for three sectors. The textile industry was one of them. -Analyzing business models of more than thirty good practices. Five local and nine international good practices were observed in the textile and clothing sector. -Managing four regional stakeholder meetings aimed to respectively framing the actual lacks of circular initiatives and transferring knowledge through good practices around three sectors. One workshop of the third meeting was dedicated to the valorization of textile in Nouvelle Aquitaine and co-designed with industrials, social entrepreneurs, policy makers, and NGOs. -The definition of a regional action plan for circular economy built on the previous three steps.

At a niche level, the researcher was engaged in the development of a social entrepreneurship initiative1 dedicated to provide training and upcycling services in the textile sector. This initiative has been supported by an incubator in social innovation since 20162 . Committed to the values of ethical fashion, reuse and citizen autonomy, the ambition of the project is to participate in the animation of local initiatives, in the knowledge diffusion of both industrial and creative upcycling practices and look for fostering the emergence of brands and shared elaboration of upcycled product collections. By experiencing the design and development of these two projects at grassroots and policy level, the researcher has collected and analyzed interesting research materials (participant feedbacks, intermediary objects created and used during projects) so as to propose a first set of systemic design tools for regional circular transitions into the fashion sector.

Presentation of a set of systemic design tools

Three different tools were adapted from intermediary objects collected during the development and analysis of both projects. They were created from existing tools in a hybridization logic (Legardeur, 2010) to respectively answer to the following needs:

(1) To create a visual representation that could sum up the challenges listed at different systemic levels for encouraging the transition toward local fashion systems;

(2) To compare the circulation of product, material and information flows in different scenarios of business models;

(3) To involve stakeholders in a prospective activity based on territorial resource management.

Each tool in their last version will be described by a short presentation of the context of emergence that will be followed by a definition of key components and dynamic of the tool.

Systemic view of local fashion transitions

This tool is the result of a previous analysis [START_REF] Real | A Complementary View on Complex and Systemic Approaches[END_REF] that has defined a new systemic framework from the design a rich picture of the region and the comparison of four models of local fashion systems.

The view is composed by a dynamic socio-technical network surrounded by a triangle of three lenses to consider for impulsing changes: the integration of convivial technologies, the social acceptance at individual and organization level and the activation of beneficial regional policies. In this view, change makers, designers and intermediaries are seen as key stakeholders to catalyze the metamorphosis of such systems and support the interaction between each determinant nodes. Building the systemic view of local fashion transitions consist in identifying challenges for each lens and finally discuss the role of intermediaries during the design of system transformations. The view can be used for occasional workshop or be seen as a managing tool that will be completed all along the maturation of projects and communicated to different stakeholders. [START_REF] Illich | Tools for Conviviality[END_REF] as any instrument, object or institution used by people that will allow them to shape the world according to their own intention, imagination and creativity. Designing such technologies remains to fight against five threats (the biological degradation of the ecosystem, radical monopoly, over-programming, polarization, and obsolescence) in each step of their life-cycle [START_REF] Lizarralde | A framework for the integration of the conviviality concept in the design process[END_REF].

Convivial technologies are defined by

To identify challenges through a convivial technology lens, tool users will define the type of technologies presented in their processes and systematically discuss the autonomy of users within a limited resource environment. Here some examples of questions that emerged during the actionresearch:

 How to find a balance between the automatization of processes, the creation of jobs and human flourishing?  How design and production processes can avoid the obsolescence of products and optimize the maintenance and durability of systems?  How to share and mutualize open tools, technologies, information and knowledge within local networks?

The social lens echoes with a strong background in recent eco-design and social business model studies like the social life-cycle analysis () or the triple-layered canvas (Joyce, 2013). The quest for equity and empowerment is predominant when thinking about local transitions. During the analysis of social entrepreneurship projects research, systematic challenges were at stake concerning the empowerment of users in sustainable behaviors, the fair status of workers and volunteers, the mode of governance and management model needed for transparent processes and participative decision making.

The policy lens is often set aside in design of systems in reason of the omnipresence of top-down processes and a perception of policies as constraints rather than innovation opportunity. The originality of the Retrace project is to involve networks of local stakeholders in the design and regulation of their policies with the objective to find again a cohesion from several scale of actions. Public procurement, participative forms of funding and subsidies, accessibility to land and abandoned places are examples of policies that will be determinant to ensure the development of diversity of local small-scale projects.

Figure 2 represents the canvas of the systemic view for fashion local system.

Business model comparison for local fashion systems

Designing business models consist in the generation of representations of how companies or stakeholder networks can create, capture and deliver value through the development of product, services, or product-service systems. They are conceptualized as systems of interdependent activities that transcends the focal firm and spans its boundaries. They provide a narrative that lays out the activities and structure of the business, improving organizational performance. Business model innovation can be considered as individual or collective action: they are deliberative co-created design in an envisioned social system [START_REF] Jones | Systemic Design Principles for Complex Social Systems[END_REF]. Different tools can use during this activity with a predominant use of canvases like Osterwalder model ( 2004) or Flourishing canvas (2013). A complementary approach consists in modelling the dynamic of systems via different types of flow diagrams that could represent uni or bidirectional information, material, product or money exchanges.

In this line, several diagrams were realized during the maturation stage of the social entrepreneurship initiative and the analysis of Retrace case studies. A collection of three types of closing loop business model were synthetized to generate relevant discussions during business modelling: (1) current model, (2) internal tack-back model, (3) Multi-stakeholder renting model. The two first models are encouraged by the extended producer responsibility (EPR) that has been set up for the clothing, household linen and footwear producers, distributors and importers. These companies are considered responsible by law for providing or managing the recycling of their products at the end of use. They can either organize their own recycling (2) or contribute to an accredited by law to provide for them (1).

(1) In the current model, brands pay a fee to an eco-organism to help in the different steps of textile valorization. Once produced, distributed and used, clothes could be thrown away in landfill or donate in dedicated deposit. Then, charities or sorting centers will collect and sort and redistribute them to users and other stakeholders for four specific types of valorization (direct reuse in different territorial areas, upcycling, recycling in yarn or others applications and energetic valorization. (2) The internal take-back model (see figure 3) illustrates how could brands gradually internalize circular loops and reinject products in the global value chain. Modalities of collections can consist in diversifying customer relationship (buying with deposit, offering discount voucher when customer bring back products) via online platforms or distributors/shops partners or by building strong partnership with new intermediaries specialized of end-of-life logistics. Once sorted, clothes can be reused internally, donated or sold to second-hand shops and charities. Brand supply networks can benefit for collected clothes as new resource in their production processes. New services and products can be offered like repairs, upcycled products, recycled yarn and material use in new products. Processes and networks of suppliers need to be adapted so as to optimize the re-integration of old products in the design of new collections. (3) The multi-stakeholder renting model is not centered on brand development but on renting platform that offers a complete integrated service for customers of dressing management. Customers can pay an adapted monthly or annual fee for the functionality of "clothing". Platforms are like libraries of clothes that have their own use background (new, upcycled, second-hand products). Customers can order, receive and give back clothes. They can be advised on their styles or informed on the provenance and stories of products. Thinking locally, new type of supply networks could emerge through this model with a strong importance given to sorting activity, the concept of micro-manufacture and the development of recycling activities. Inspired by the Scottish Kalopsia collective 3 , the concept of micro-manufacture evokes a custom-made service of designing, cleaning, repairing, disassembling and producing clothes that are integrated in the platform and potential dedicated shops. A logic of co-creation can be proposed for customers, brands and designers to define the orientations of products.

We made the assumption that using these visualizations for comparing and completing business models within an entrepreneurial context or regional sectorial reconstruction can facilitate the effective construction of disruptive visions in process and stakeholder network design.

Territorial Resource Prospective

Applying systemic design in a situated vision of circular economy involves the development of a strong knowledge on local resources and cultures as well as on their transformations. The methodology proposed in the Retrace project [START_REF] Barbero | Systemic Design Method Guide for Policymaking: A Circular Europe on the Way[END_REF] relied on the construction of resource knowledge through regional data collection and visual mapping of key features of the territory and input-output processes for three selected sectors. Infographics were considered as representations of territorial metabolism and act as first inputs to impulse prospective studies and design of futures policies. The availability of data on how resources are circulating into and beyond territories is questionable as well as for the uncertainty of collected data than for the perimeter of their accessibility for all stakeholders.

The tool illustrated here (see figure 6) allows to build a methodological framework during collective and prospective actions within the dialogical necessity to define narratives of wished futures while being aware of local use of resources and territorial metabolism. It encourages tool users to practice back casting while raising awareness of the present situation and discuss around a shared vision of the ratio of importations, exportations and local input/output circulation for each type of resources. The transition toward evolving shared visions consists in identifying mid-term challenges and persisting in defining strategies for data collection along the way. The tool aims to define narratives based on territorial needs while gaining traceability in material and clothing flows.

Conclusion and perspectives

The paper proposes a description of a set of tools for applying systemic design to the development of small-scale territories. More precisely, it looks for exploring through an action research how systemic design tools can be valuable during the emergence of a local community dedicated to circular fashion.

The originality of our work relied on the interaction between effective territorial actions and reflexive research design perspectives so to propose operational tools for encouraging systemic design in the development of territorial transitions. Perspectives are presented related to (1) the development of the Nouvelle Aquitaine regional community of circular fashion and to (2) further systemic design research hotspots.

Related to the regional community

The ambition of the Nouvelle Aquitaine region in circular textile and fashion area will be clearly defined by regional stakeholders through a roadmap that will be effective in the two following months.

Presentation and documentations of the present analysis have been transmitted to referent stakeholders. Next steps will consist in facilitating the implementation of the result of the first tool (systemic view) and create a textile intermediary organization able (1) to source local materials, resources and eco-efficient processes, (2) to facilitate collaborative actions like material design driven approaches or upcycling workshops and (3) to reinforce synergies and business model innovation for social entrepreneurs, industrial and public institutions.

Related to systemic design research

Three tools are presented here to help designers to collectively support the transformation of representations necessary to develop complex alternative projects. They are issued from the hybridization of ideation, prospective and business modelling tools. Further micro-experiments could be realized to compare the efficiency of selected tools with other recently developed tools. In the same line, propagating the use of these tools into different designer practices coming from different sectors and using several mode of animation can bring relevant feedbacks and give us new insights to adapt or customize tools for a better user appropriation.

Another perspective consists in enlarging the scope of analysis reminding that systemic designers cannot be reduced to their methodology and tools they are using. They are part of complex projects, influence them and have specific know-hows that need to be better defined and diffused in practices. [START_REF] Real | A Complementary View on Complex and Systemic Approaches[END_REF] highlights the importance of the complex though developed by Edgar Morin and embedded in a constructivist epistemology for systemic design practitioners. They remembered the key principles (dialogy, self-organization, hologram, regulation, emergence and system) and give some precautions for on ongoing systemic design projects as (1) ensuring the development of collective intelligence, solidarity and reflection on things to do or not to do in both strategical and operational actions; (2) adopting different systemic lenses (from local to global, global to local); (3) engaging discussions on the perimeter of their actions and looking for bridging the borders and creating synergies between them.

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure 1: Action-research methodology making explicit the tensions and synergies of emerging practices and policy design for territories in transition.

Figure 2 :

 2 Figure 2: Systemic view of fashion local system

Figure 3 :

 3 Figure 3: Flow diagram of classic closing loop model

Figure 4 :

 4 Figure 4: Flow diagram of internal take back closing loop model

Figure 5 :

 5 Figure 5: Flow diagram of multi-stakeholder renting closing loop model

Figure 6 :

 6 Figure 6: Territorial Resource Prospective framework

More information about the initiative H.UP can be found here : http://marionreal.wixsite.com/upcycling

Eticoop is an incubators in social innovation : www.eticoop.fr

Relating Systems Thinking and Design 2017 working paper.www.systemic-design.net

http://contemporarytextile.com/

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the INTERREG EUROPE RETRACE project for financing the research and all other stakeholders involved in the action-research.


A complementary view on complex and systemic approaches

Marion REAL, Jean Michel Larrasquet, Iban Lizarralde

In this chapter, we discuss what the theory of complexity can bring to the construction of territorial transitions toward circular economy.

We will first revisit the dynamism of territories within their cultural angle, highlighting the complexity of their metabolisms and the importance of a design with intent. Then, we will introduce in the key notions of the complexity theory, mainly based on Edgar Morin i 's philosophy, underlying new attitudes and modes of governance for research and projects' design: the notion of system, dialogy and emergence will be described. As a conclusion, we will propose notes to pay attention to the Retrace project and the use of the systemic design methodology.

A-Co-construction of territories #1 Territory as an interface between space, people and the need for a new metabolism

According to Raffestin (1986) ii , a territory is a notion which refers to a human labor which has been exerted on a portion of space characterized by a complex combination of mechanical, physical, chemical and organic forces and actions. Territory do not have to be seen as a physical space but is intrinsically related to people who belong to a culture. Thus, the design of virtuous loops necessary to create circular economy directly depends on how people are connected to their territory, on how they know its space, its resources and its limits, the metabolism of the ecosystem, and how they are impacting it. Transitions toward zero waste economies impact on social representations and involve decolonizing and recreating new social imaginations (Castoriadis, C., 2010) iii . The creation of new myths, new beliefs and new utopias around a new territorial vision generates meanings to people and participates in the construction of new social practices disseminated in all strata of the system. In a practical view, territories need to develop capacities to innovate and create activities around new values that involve changes in the way of interacting with each other and managing the territory.

#2 Softening the discourses on the role of infrastructures, highlighting the power of cultural vibrancy

Many studies and policies support the development of new infrastructures and see them as the most important way to foster the inventiveness and dynamism of a territory. This idea need to be counterbalanced: there are many examples to show that peripheral territories that could be heavily enclaved have been able to develop as richer capacities in terms of technical, economic and social inventiveness as other territories that are perfectly equipped with infrastructure. Indeed, the former may turn out to be monsters of inventiveness, while the latter may sometimes tend to fall asleep. Let us take the example of the creation of the Mondragon cooperative group (80,000 employees today) in the 1950s: Mondragon is situated in the heart of a highly enclosed valley in the Basque Country. It is through the commitment for training people, by their cultural identity and their dedication to a local project development that cooperative entrepreneurship emerged and that the territory grew rapidly to become today one of the richest of Europe.

This example shows that the creative and entrepreneurial spirit is directly linked with a desire to live together and build a collective future. The same idea could be illustrated in the recent years through the transformation of industrial wastelands, abandoned farms or rural valleys into new social innovation places: the Darwin ecosystem in Bordeaux, creative recycling centers , the Aldudes valley in the Basque region, etc. are examples of how cultural effervescence is influencing economy. Indeed, if a territory is culturally dynamic, it will be open to novelty. It will be able to give the will to launch itself and even to encourage the emergence of disruptive ideas. Shocking, deviating from conformism or breaking ideas enable the emergence of innovations. Cultural vibrancy is the basis for creativity and the development of new innovative avenues. #3 A need for co-construction by embracing complexity and overcoming positivist approaches.

The activation of such social transformations depends on the organizational impulsion present on territories, with their background, the existing structures and involved stakeholders, as well as their modes of management. In fact, the roads to such transformations are difficult, narrow and blocked. They are often barred by the multitude of selfblocking locks that our society has established (all sorts of technical, organizational, social, ideological, political rigidities in place) and by the ambition of the politicians who operate rather in a short term vision. Working in sharing the intentions and empowering people in the design of collective, sustainable and circular futures remains essential to let the effervescence appear.

Different epistemological approaches could be undertaken to engage territorial transitions.

Classical positivist approaches usually support mid-term and long-term sociotechnical transformations as a problem to be solved by using causal and predictive models. Following these approaches, authorities usually base their decisions on deductive cause and effect logic: building a road infrastructure will increase trade, investing on research will boost innovations, etc. These logics might have been efficient in other territories and contexts but it does not mean that the results will be the same in the applied territory. The positivist paradigm simplifies the concept of 'causality' and rarely takes into account the interrelations and loops between designated causes.

Opposed to the positivist paradigm, the complexity paradigm considers that phenomena emerges from a myriad of causes that are interrelated. During the last century several approaches appeared within the complexity paradigm. On one hand, different techniques to reduce the complexity consider in a determinist way the interrelations between elements. These techniques were supported by the development of computer capacity and the possibility to elaborate models that deal with massive quantities of interrelations between elements. These models allow to simulate non-linear interactions but are often used to perform post hoc analysis or predictive simulations. These simulations, whatever the depth of their uncertainty analysis, will give legitimacy to the best solutions selected within the framework of the model. This approach tends to reduce the complexity of systems and create factual distances between scientists/experts, policy makers and citizens.

On the other hand, a different epistemological approach named constructivism, criticizes this way to deal with complexity and prefers associate these methods to the notion of "complication". For constructivists, such aggregates proposed by experts present the danger of a 'scientific truth illusion' and encourage a "conformist thought" which imposes basic criterions usually used without questioning them. Indeed, we all know perfectly well that we are evolving in the most absolute uncertainty, made up of numerous interdependent factors. These factors that should be taken into consideration are millions, usually interacting in tight recursion, with modes of interaction being quasi-unknown and which are themselves unstable. Although constructivist approaches obviously do not dispense with the rigor of reflection, they open the door to relativism and, thus, to new and fruitful paths for human thoughts and actions in complex environments. (Checkland, 2000) iv criticizes the tendency where scientists, actors and managers consider systems as 'ontologies' ('hard systems') and proposes an epistemological approach named "soft system" based on radical constructivism and giving its whole place to interpretation.

When designing collective actions for territory, stakeholders have to ensure that the process implemented produces collective intelligence, intelligibility and awareness of what is at stake today, solidarity and reflection on things to do or not to do in both strategical and operational actions. Fighting against complexity is a battle lost in advance. Designers and managers must assume that complexity is irreducible. They must develop "metacognitive" skills and new ways of thinking, conceptualizing and intervening in organizations and projects by understanding and assuming the depth of the epistemological change that this implies. They must undertake the "reform of thought" proposed by Edgar Morin through the theory of complexity.

B-Toward a better understanding of the theory of complexity: key notions.

In this section, we try to explain the main principles that structure the "complex thinking" based mainly on Edgar Morin's work, largely integrating concepts by the 'Soft Systemics'. Representations are the only access they have to reality. Claude Bernard, French medic (19 th century), even been a positivist, he once said: "Systems are not in the nature, they are in people's minds". Such representations are therefore evidently idiosyncratic and depend on the values, convictions, habits, methods, situation etc. of everyone. Thus, it is evident that representations that concern a supposed 'same' referent are different from one individual to the others and even in the mind of the same individual at different moments. If the situation is considered as 'complex', it means that nobody is cognitively able to enfold it up completely (Herbert Simon's 'bounded rationality'). Another dimension is about the 'cognitive processes' a person will trigger to build such representations: a person will do it constantly interacting with her environment (perceiving information, triggering complex cognitive processes, and then deciding what to do and acting. Objectivity is therefore a problematic concept. In such a constructivist logic, systems concepts and systems-thinking can only be considered as epistemological tools, proposing good ways for improving intelligibility in complex situations or problems (not building the scientific truth!). They are particularly useful tools for group work. An interesting application of such principles could be found in the ways a community may act to collectively define commons (Ostrom, 2010) v . It should be interesting to find out how the evolutions of mental representations under the effect of collective designthinking oriented methods may lead such a community to social (shared) agreement on the status of a material or immaterial 'good' as a 'common' that will have to be cooperatively managed in the future.

System-thinking provides cognitive tools that allow considering things in their interrelations, how they impact one on each other and how they generate proper effects 'emerging' from these interactions. System-thinking produces mental representations by using systems as epistemological tools! A system must have a boundary (what is in, what is out [its environment]), but generally systems are qualified as 'open systems', which means that they exchange (using different modes) with their environment. Prigogine's finding of "dissipative structures" are good examples of how complex systems can emerge and be in equilibrium exchanging energy and matter with their environment. Inside this boundary, the system is made of elements and relationships (its structure or organization). Also a system may be characterized by its functionalities, goals or finalities, by its history, the way it is evolving and its ability to self-manage itself, as well as autopoietic systems which continue to produce interrelations within the system (Maturana and Varela))) vi . The principle of Emergence consists in having in mind that system-thinking always tries to anticipate or recognize the new properties that emerge from the fact that we are dealing with a system, i.e. with interconnected elements. In other words, « the whole is more than the sum of its parts ». For instance, specialists in different disciplines working together will be able to find new ideas due to interconnections they are able to generate by their common work. This idea is one of the most important bases of the theory of innovation.

Self or hetero-regulation may be defined as taking into account complementarities and interactions in order to avoid drifts and allow provisional homeostatic equilibria. Self-regulation emerges from the effect of internal forces (inside the boundary of the system) and hetero-regulation is the fact of external forces. Both regulation modes may work interacting together For instance, in a territory, managing differently short term tasks and long term considerations is a way to give its place to regulation. But both notions (short term and long term) must also be related, because if we do not do that, we are missing a good part of the relationships we should have to take into account in order to build 'not too poor' representations of the situation So we have to deal with this double idea of separation and interaction. To understand better, we have to introduce the concept of dialogy.

The concept of a dialogy is challenging the binary view of things stating that two contradictory propositions (p; non-p) cannot be true at the same time (p ^ non-p = ). With the concept of dialogy, Edgar Morin proposes to overtake this principle arguing that in real complex situations such two contradictory propositions generally act at the same time and that they are influencing each other. Which means that every basic term (p and non-p) cannot be considered as a constant: it is impacted by the other, which at the same time changes due to the impact of its opposite… It is a fundamental principle of the "complex thinking" that Edgar Morin proposes. A relevant example in our case is the opposition / relation between short term and long term visions. Edgar Morin says that they must be conceptualized separately (in order to manage space to regulation for instance), but at the same time, that they cannot be conceptualized independently, we always have to take their interrelationships into account: as far as our example is concerned, the idea is that any long term situation is necessarily the result of a succession of short terms and, on the other hand, any short term decision should be taken considering long term thoughts.

The Eco-self-re-organization concept is about the fact that in complex situations, resulted actions of the system, are mainly issued from the relationships of the elements of the system that are impacting the proper organization of the system it-self. In the frame of ecosystems, it means that transformations may appear due to free or even hazardous shocks between elements of these ecosystems that are able to selfand reorganize the considered system. Another way to express this property is to use the expression: "order emerging out of disorder". Some re-organizations may produce a self-maintained tendency. An example of this principle is how citizenship initiatives may change the referent system: for instance, the development of design thinking places (co-working, fab-labs, social design, innovation…) may reorganize the functioning mode of a small city-center (eco-self-re-organization), and how this new organization will go ahead by itself (auto-catalysis). The point is that it is impossible to specify in advance such behaviors.

The principle called Ecology of action is also related to this understanding of complex dynamics as chocks between partially-myopic actions-reactions, between the elements of these ecosystems. Management puts a big stress on 'decision making', but ignores what happens when the decision is taken, about its application. As soon as a decision is taken by a person in charge, this decision enters in this game of actions-reactions (some people will obey and try to do well, others will contest or skirt it, others will reinterpret it, others will wait and let time go, etc.). In brief, it is difficult to understand ex-ante what will happen in the phase of application! In the case of territories, the number of decisions taken and that disappear like water in the sands of the desert is incalculable!

The Hologrammatic principle states that a system cannot develop a given behavior if its elements are not in tune with it. The whole system's behavior is engrammed in its elements and the elements' behavior, by the way of internal relationships, generates the system's behavior. Another way to state this idea is: the whole is made of its parts and the whole is in each part (like DNA in human cells). An evident example is the ecological transition in a territory. It will be easier if the inhabitants are convinced and act in tune with the main goal. If it is not the case, the battle is certainly lost in advance. The zero waste thinking can be a strategy for a territory, creating materials loops, etc. but it should also be a way of thinking and acting of each inhabitant (reducing consumption and taking into account the existing dynamics in the territory). Nevertheless, our different principles also state that building hologrammaticity must be understood as a process, the question being to reinforce this self-catalytic interaction between individual and collective levels (another complex point treated by the theories of institution. (Lourau, 1970) vii and structuration (Giddens, 1986) viii ) C-Which impacts on systemic design and the Retrace project methodology? This last part discusses some precaution principles coming from the complex and system thinking that could be applied to systemic design methodology and more particularly to the Retrace project.

# From one to multiple territories: being aware of the borders while connecting them by actions

Systemic design needs to be applied to territories that are understandable and accessible for humans. Each time the process is engaged, designers must engage an analysis of the good perimeter for action. The Retrace project system perimeter are regions. They are complex systems and are also susceptible to be modelled as a large variety of subsystems such as cities, intercommunities, neighborhoods, as well as household, industrial and agricultural processes… Regions are also an intermediate nodes that acts for and is impacted by European and national policies. With decentralization, they tend to have more autonomous competences for managing innovation, environment and waste, which position them as a good frame to impulse circular economy. However, in some countries, such as in France, the perimeter of regions has been recently redesigned involving a huge growth of the territorial perimeter. This could provoke more difficulties in implementing collective actions. Thus, the regional actions will have to be re-appropriated by smaller systems which have to be defined. It could be existing boundaries (city, department…) or new perimeters defined around the notion of basin of life. Note that a basin of life could be modelled for each individual according to the way he/she lives, behaves and is integrated to networks in daily life.

System designers need to be aware of the different systemic levels, discussing about the perimeter of their actions while systematically looking for bridging the borders and creating synergies between them.

# Using models as intermediary objects of design

When designing and developing collective actions, models must be used with parsimony and chosen to increase understanding of the system, its metabolism and futures actions.

Two types of models can be used related to two epistemological approaches dealing with complexity that have been explained here above. On one hand, a systemic approach willing to model a territory based on quantitative data. This systems view can deal with non-linear representations but defines in a deterministic way the interrelations between the elements of a territory (materials flow, economic indicators, social effects...) Examples of these models include tools like "system dynamics". On the other hand, models issued from the constructivist epistemology are accessible and adapted for each stakeholder vocabulary. These models are not predictive models nor explanatory models. They are seen as intermediary objects of design that will endeavor the "translation" of ideas (Akrich, 2000) ix . In this line, tools like infographics, gigamaps, rich pictures (Checkland, 2000) or videos will be used in the Retrace project to integrate both emotional and technical aspects all along the advancement of the project.

# Moving the dialogic forces from top-down toward bottom-up approaches: creating conditions for emergence

The top-down operating mode needs to make much more spaces for the bottom-up initiatives. The territory and human community being at the center of systemic design frameworks, fundamental social innovation can only have its roots here. Therefore, territorial governance cannot generate innovation on its own but must prepare the territory and its actors, facilitate possible synergies and meetings, support the development of projects and professionalize the coaching and support actions. In other words, governance should not seek to be itself the creator of innovation. It must create the conditions conducive to the emergence of innovative experiences (modes of financing, evaluation of experiences, etc.) that require a suitable and fertile framework on which innovation can be expressed (promoting creativity, diversity, networking, etc.).

# Encouraging partners and stakeholders to adopt metacognitive skills when supporting and co-designing circular systems  In the project, each partner is considered as a systemic designer/thinker of its region. Each one has to be aware of the limits of his/her current actions and must be able to know the gap to reach in order to answer to the ambition of the project. He/She needs to navigate through dialogic thinking, manipulate models, and manage a team by fostering the emergence of collective thought by participating in local networks dynamics.

The actions in each region shall not be disconnected from existing territorial actions and need to be integrated in a coherent way within the proximity of stakeholders. On one hand, efforts could be done to go deeper in the knowledge of the history of the territory, its evolution, structure, dynamic and regulation modes and build a strong understanding of the recent actions undertaken toward energy transition and circular economy. On the other hand, systemic designers must act as accelerators and change catalyzers by integrating stimulation mechanisms who will impulse new dynamics, detect initiatives, foster creativity and support the development of projects.  By adopting the posture of action-researchers (Lewin, 1951) x , systemic designers have the opportunities to access to the intimacy of collective actions. Their attitudes will oscillate between participative observations and actions in order to improve their knowledge and relevance to propose concrete actions.

In the Retrace project, the partners of each region will be engaged in different networks and local projects, behaving as bees searching for flowers to forage.

# Monitoring the evolution of value creation and territorial development

Values behind the transformation realized within territories are multiple and cannot be easily managed or measured as they involve either classic economic aspects like job creation or ROI, or other qualitative dimensions (the degree of livability, social aspects and environmental impacts) over different space-time scales.

Attention has to be paid to methodologies used to follow and assess the value creation in such context: which are the indicators? How to assess the actions realized in different time scales? Who participates to the definition, monitoring and assessment of projects? Which mode of governance could be followed?

-Overcome the quantitative reflex: Managers often enclose their reasoning in quantitative logics, using a determined lexical field (use of term like maximize, minimize…). One advice: try to be able to tame this "obligation to quantify", to take distances, to better know its limits and its dangers and to question when it is useful to use quantitative tools and why.

-

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure 1: Key principles of complex thinking Mental representations, Soft-systems-thinking and complexity are basic concepts. The accesses humans have to reality are only their senses. From these perceptions, humans build representations in their minds.Representations are the only access they have to reality. Claude Bernard, French medic (19 th century), even been a positivist, he once said: "Systems are not in the nature, they are in people's minds". Such representations are therefore evidently idiosyncratic and depend on the values, convictions, habits, methods, situation etc. of everyone. Thus, it is evident that representations that concern a supposed 'same' referent are different from one individual to the others and even in the mind of the same individual at different moments. If the situation is considered as 'complex', it means that nobody is cognitively able to enfold it up completely (Herbert Simon's 'bounded rationality'). Another dimension is about the 'cognitive processes' a person will trigger to build such representations: a person will do it constantly interacting with her environment (perceiving information, triggering complex cognitive processes, and then deciding what to do and acting. Objectivity is therefore a problematic concept. In such a constructivist logic, systems concepts and systems-thinking can only be considered as epistemological tools, proposing good ways for improving intelligibility in complex situations or problems (not building the scientific truth!). They are particularly useful tools for group work. An interesting application of such principles could be found in the ways a community may act to collectively define commons (Ostrom, 2010) v . It should be interesting to find out how the evolutions of mental representations under the effect of collective designthinking oriented methods may lead such a community to social (shared) agreement on the status of a material or immaterial 'good' as a 'common' that will have to be cooperatively managed in the future.

Use participative management tools to redefine the commons and decentralize decision: several

  tools (OECD, 2010) xi exist to facilitate the involvement of people in taking part to the definition and assessment of projects and decisions. Here some examples: self-assessment grids, vote by consent, non-verbal communication, interactive user feedback systems… i Morin, E. (2007) On complexity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. ii Raffestin, C. (1986) "Ecogénèse territorial et territorialité", dans F.Auriax et R.Brunet (dir), Espaces, jeux et enjeux, Fayard. iii Castoriadis, C. (2010) A Society Adrift. Interviews and Debates, 1974-1997. NY Fordham University Press. iv Checkland, P. (2000) Soft Systems Methodology : A thirty yaer retrospective, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Volume 17, Issue Supplement 1, Version of Record online: 15 Nov 2000 v Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University Press. (see commonstransition.org) vi Maturana, H and Varela, F. (1970) Autopoiesis and cognition, the realization of the living, Boston Studies on the Philosophy of Sciences, D. Reidel publishing Company. vii Lourau, R. (1970) L'analyse institutionnelle, Paris, Les Éditions de Minuit, 1970, viii Giddens, A. (1986) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, University of California Press. ix Lewin K. (1951) Field Theory in Social Science, New York, Editions Harper and Row, 346 pages.

x Akrich, M. (1988) A quoi tient le succès des innovations ? Annales des Mines.

xi OECD, (2010)

Step 4: ensuring stakeholder participation guidance on sustainability impact assessment.

http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/48305795.pdf