Community Wealth Building beyond the city
Insights from economic geography and multi-level governance in the UK
Max Lacey-Barnacle & Siobhan Stack-Maddox (Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex)
Introduction: moving beyond the “local”
Community Wealth Building (CWB) has begun to ascend globally as an international policy and practice movement promoting local development that advances economic democracy. At the heart of CWB lies five core pillars which inform a transformative political economy for broader economic systems change. These pillars are: [1] Inclusive and Democratic Enterprise, [2] Locally Rooted Finance, [3] Fair Work [4] Progressive Procurement, and the [5] Just Use of Land and Property. Place-based “anchor institutions” – such as local government, universities, hospitals, social enterprises, credit unions and housing associations – have a key role to play in advancing these principles by using their local and regional economic power to strengthen local supply chains, redirect procurement spend, and support cooperative and social enterprise ventures. Anchor institutions are large, established organizations with significant procurement budgets responsible for substantial local spending. They are also rooted and fixed in place by virtue of their organizational design. Using a CWB approach and drawing on the five pillars outlined above, anchor institutions can work with organizations such as local, grassroots and community enterprises to switch their service contracts and partnerships from multinational to local supply chains. Simultaneously, capacity is built up in local cooperatives and other types of social enterprises, with an emphasis on more democratic ownership of and engagement with the economy. The broader aim here is to democratize the economy with the long-term support of anchor institutions, recirculating wealth and diversifying ownership.
These ideas build on a variety of older traditions that experiment with alternative forms of economic development, ranging from municipal enterprise to cooperatives and civil society forms of economic organization and support (Barnes et al. 2020). Building on this strong history, CWB can be understood as a response to the failures of mainstream economic development models to revitalize and regenerate local economies, whilst also having deep ties to the global cooperative movement. Key US and UK pioneers of CWB, in Cleveland and Preston respectively, were inspired by the cooperative sector and particularly the Mondragon cooperatives in Spain’s Basque region, demonstrating the significant influence of the global cooperative movement on the development of CWB internationally.
As a largely place-based phenomenon and having significant ties to place-making and place attachment (Webster et al. 2021), as evident in its successful implementation in Cleveland and Preston, it can be argued that CWB is a also a distinctly geographical phenomenon with its emergence in various locations across the world already supporting a new geography of CWB. Insights from economic geography, particularly evolutionary economic geography (EEG), illuminate the fact that many of the processes driving evolutionary economics are geographic in origin. Moreover, EEG shows that where economic activity happens matters deeply. Places evolve from what they already have – skills, institutions, networks – and this history shapes what they can become. Innovation occurs in locations with dense capabilities, and new industries can grow from related ones that are already historically rooted. Geography, in this view, is fundamental to economic evolution: it actively shapes how regions adapt, diversify, and respond to economic change. This framework has strong parallels with the place-based nature of CWB, but the overlaps between the two have been infrequently and insufficiently explored in academic literature to date.
In this piece, we look at how EEG approaches can enhance our understanding of anchor institutions and their growing networks as the primary vehicles for the expansion of CWB into new spaces and places. We also look at developments in multi-level governance in the UK that demonstrate how CWB can be implemented at new scales, reflecting the dynamic evolution of the CWB field. We finish by considering how our paper’s insights connect to some of the universal principles of CWB as outlined by The Democracy Collaborative.
Insights from Evolutionary Reconstruction and Economic Geography
One of the pioneers of CWB, Gar Alperovitz, developed a theory of “evolutionary reconstruction” that proposes a transformative pathway beyond economic orthodoxy that avoids both traditional reformism and revolutionary antagonism. Instead, it emphasizes a gradual, cumulative reshaping of the political economic system through the expansion of democratic, community-rooted institutions, such as cooperatives, community land trusts, public utilities, and municipal enterprise, that together constitute the foundations of what he terms a “Pluralist Commonwealth” (Alperovitz 2017a). These institutional forms gradually displace, rather than regulate, corporate power, by creating viable, socially-oriented alternatives that embed equality, ecological sustainability, and democratic participation directly into the organization of economic life. As these institutions multiply and accumulate collective power, they strengthen the capacity of local economic actors and make deeper systemic shifts possible over time (Alperovitz 2017b). Alperovitz’s ideas here are key to the evolution of CWB.
This approach aligns closely with contemporary debates in Evolutionary Economic Geography (EEG), particularly its emphasis on path dependency and how new economic trajectories emerge from the gradual diversification and restructuring of regional economies (McKinnon et al. 2009). EEG theorists trace new regional “paths” through incremental innovation and the creation of alternative institutional ecosystems, while evolutionary reconstruction similarly conceptualizes systemic change as the cumulative evolution of organizations and institutions that can eventually reorient development pathways. Evolutionary reconstruction is therefore a strong conceptual bridge towards EEG, as both frameworks highlight that transformative change is rarely abrupt; in the case of CWB, it emerges through the slow consolidation of new institutional forms capable of redirecting economic evolution toward economic democracy and community ownership and empowerment.
Building on these theoretical insights, we argue that EEG approaches can develop our understanding of the central importance of anchor institutions, their growing networks, city-region connections, and regional governance innovations as the key drivers for the expansion of CWB beyond city boundaries and municipal jurisdictions: the classic sites, spaces and places from which CWB has evolved thus far. The importance of EEG engaging with other fields has been highlighted (MacKinnon et al. 2009; Binz et al. 2025), however, connections have not yet been made with CWB and its core focus on anchor institutions. EEG has a number of important synergies with CWB and therefore provides a useful lens through which to consider how cities interact with their wider regions to build community wealth and scale and grow this activity over time.
Firstly, EEG’s focus on place and space is reflected in the central role of place in CWB (Goodwin et al. 2023), an approach which seeks to retain economic benefits in an area via initiatives which reflect the unique history, strengths and priorities of a particular community. CWB activity originated in specific geographical places of urban industrial decline (Cleveland) and economic neglect (Preston). CWB policy agendas and programs are often bounded by local, city, and municipal government territories and jurisdictions. This adds a unique, place-based character to the application of CWB principles to a specific geographic area. However, cities themselves, alongside anchor institutions, are very often connected to and implicated in the development of the regions around them. Martin and Sunley (2023) emphasise the importance of interconnections between different players in the regional economy in change over time, and how these connections feed back into shaping both the components of the economic system and the wider system itself. This has implications for how CWB may begin to take on a more regional character.
Secondly, the expansion of CWB to new levels of governance has clear implications for policies that seek to advance wider systemic change, as both economic and political systems are inherently active at multiple levels of governance and activity – from the local to international. Developing and coordinating successful CWB initiatives which contribute to more systemic economic changes as they scale requires collaboration and coordination among a wide range of local actors and stakeholders across broader scales of implementation far “beyond the local” or beyond cities. Coalitions of actors collaborating around shared goals and incentives is particularly key when scaling more novel and ambitious initiatives, such as sustainability transition solutions (Lambin and Leape 2020), which is a growing area of interest in the CWB movement (Lacey-Barnacle and Boucher 2025). Furthermore, Binz et al. (2025) argue that combining EEG and sustainability transitions perspectives enables a deeper understanding of the different factors involved in creating opportunities for transformative change, especially the role of institutions and actor networks in shaping new geographies of energy transitions. Lacey-Barnacle et al. (2023) point out that growing demands for just transitions in research, policy and practice have deep synergies with CWB, particularly around civil society-led transition pathways and the development of local and community energy schemes that can be both supported and scaled up by anchor institutions.
Critically, this is where anchor institutions are vital to scaling up CWB to new levels of governance and implementation. Anchor institutions – and emerging networks of anchor institutions – have a central role to play in establishing, developing and finally scaling CWB in a local area, strategically, practically and financially (Jackson and McInroy, 2017). Strategic actions can include establishing CWB strategy plans and collaborations aligned with the Five Pillar objectives; while examples of practical and financial actions include establishing progressive, locally-focused procurement and recruitment practices, and investing pension funds locally. Anchor institutions can also operate at different scales: hospitals and universities may have economic impacts beyond their closest urban conurbations and contribute to the wider economy of their surrounding regions. As anchor institution networks continue to emerge in places such as the UK (London and Birmingham) and Canada (Toronto), demonstrating evidence of city-region applications of core CWB activities, new governance approaches are needed to more effectively coordinate collaboration between these institutions across different scales and move CWB beyond its conventionally bounded city or municipal focus. Such approaches must recognize the importance of institutions and power, reflecting a broader geographical political economy understanding of regional economic growth and change which incorporates both evolutionary and institutional concepts (MacKinnon et al. 2009). Centering the role of institutions and power when considering CWB and its five core pillars as it evolves over time and space highlights another important aspect of anchor institutions’ role in building community wealth. It involves supporting local businesses and citizens to reclaim ownership and participation in their regional economies, thereby helping to redistribute power and control as many regional economies exist on the periphery of cities, often in peri-urban or rural locations. This process can be considered particularly key for scaling CWB out beyond cities, where power and wealth can often be concentrated, while wider regional economies and populations may be comparatively left behind. A key challenge here, for both researchers and policymakers, will be understanding how city-based anchor institutions with regional economic influence might also empower communities, cooperatives, and social enterprises in such peripheral locations. To successfully move CWB beyond cities and widen its appeal, this will be integral to its economic evolution.
By highlighting the role of institutions and the central role of place in successful CWB via an EEG lens, we can further illuminate our understanding of The Democracy Collaborative’s core CWB principles. In particular, the importance of stakeholder coalitions and partnerships in a collaborative ecosystem, the systems-level nature of CWB work, and the redistribution of power and ownership are key in scaling CWB beyond cities, as we will explore further through empirical examples in the following section.
Multi-level governance developments in the UK
As CWB scales out beyond cities through its integration into multi-level governance, collaboration at broader scales will be vital to its evolution. Such collaboration will also be key as governance structures undergo significant changes, such as via the devolution process in the UK. This process sees powers transferred from central government in London to the UK’s devolved and regional governments. This will involve establishing new governance structures in several areas, with cities and regions collaborating across larger geographical areas.
It is important to note that the well-known Preston Model arose from a context of institutional constraints and economic decline in the northern UK town. The socioeconomic impacts of industrial decline since the 1970s were compounded by the 2008 financial crash, subsequent austerity, and a failed local regeneration project (Jones and Leibowitz 2019). Despite these setbacks, by working with the Center for Local Economic Strategies (CLES) and establishing partnerships between the city council and local anchor institutions, the Preston Model has managed to successfully redirect procurement spend from anchor institutions into both the urban and regional economies it is connected to: up to £74m more has been redirected towards the urban economy in Preston and £200m has been redirected towards the wider Lancashire region (Ibid). Though the model is named after the city of Preston, collaboration between Preston City Council and anchor institutions from the wider Lancashire region – including the county council, education providers and a housing association – has been key to its CWB impact (Preston City Council n.d). Changes to anchor institution procurement processes have supported local businesses with positive multiplier effects on local jobs, health and wellbeing, as well as economic growth. Such impacts have contributed towards broader changes such as improved social mobility and reduced deprivation rankings, lower unemployment, and improved educational outcomes (Jones and Leibowitz 2019).
In the UK, power is being devolved and reorganized from central government to local regions via devolution and local government reorganization processes. Earlier in 2025, Lancashire’s new Combined County Authority was officially launched to receive devolved powers. Separately, a proposed Local Government Reorganization (LGR) is also being developed to replace the existing 15 local councils with a smaller number of larger unitary authorities. Embedding actions which reflect the CWB pillars, as in Preston, in these new governance structures could, at least theoretically, provide the opportunity to scale CWB and its impact over greater geographical areas and larger populations.
CWB approaches have been adopted at a regional level by Combined Authorities in England, but there is skepticism about whether the nature and extent of devolved powers and autonomy really enables meaningful progress towards these goals. English devolution leaves Combined Authorities with minimal fiscal autonomy, as HM Treasury retains control over revenue, borrowing and long‑term investment. Instead of stable settlements, they rely on fragmented competitive funds that limit their strategic capacity. By contrast, the devolved nations operate with established fiscal frameworks, annually updated block grants via the “Barnett Formula” and varying tax powers. This asymmetry weakens the ability of English Combined Authorities to govern Community Wealth Building effectively: without predictable financial powers, they struggle to embed long‑term CWB strategies, scale community ownership or shift procurement and investment in transformative ways. Despite these inherent structural limitations, combined authorities are advancing CWB in different ways.
In recent years, an existing Combined Authority in Greater Manchester in Northern England has been developing a Community Wealth Hub for the region, which is home to 2.8 million people (Greater Manchester Combined Authority n.d). Establishing the Hub was recommended by the Greater Manchester Independent Inequalities Commission to support plural economic ownership and better support local employee-owned businesses, cooperatives and social enterprises, as part of a more inclusive regional economy (CLES n.d. b). The aim of the Hub is to “support and grow cooperatives, mutuals, social and community enterprises, staffed by people from the cooperative and community sector who understand the market” (GM Consult, 2022). This follows work in the city since 2009 on progressive procurement, from which Preston City Council drew inspiration when developing its own CWB initiative (Centre for Local Economic Strategies n.d; Preston City Council n.d).
Additionally, the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority has recently developed its own Community Wealth Building program. The program makes grant funding available to organizations to meet its objectives of raising awareness of CWB; enhancing local economic resilience by supporting community ownership and control of assets; and supporting social enterprise (York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority n.d. a). Meanwhile, the region’s mayor, David Skaith, has convened a commission with representatives from community organizations, academia, trade unions, and social enterprises who will develop practical recommendations to embed CWB objectives in the region (York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority n.d. b). Given the relatively recent nature of these interventions, it is difficult to establish the extent of their practical impact from the information which is currently publicly available. The lack of larger scale policy and funding programmes reflects the limitations of English devolution more broadly.
In Scotland, however, there is substantial evidence of CWB being embedded in local practice and policy at the regional and national level. After leading the way with regional successes, CWB is now emerging at the national level in Scotland. CWB was initially pursued in North Ayrshire in 2019 by a collaboration of council services, Community Planning Partners and wider regional partners aiming to tackle socio-economic challenges, with the region publishing the nation’s first CWB strategy in 2020 (North Ayrshire Council n.d.). Five CWB pilot areas were subsequently established by the Scottish Government in 2020/21, expanding the movement across the country and building the case for further action (EDAS n.d.). Strong collaboration between anchor institutions and public, private and third-sector partners has been key to CWB’s success and momentum (Scottish Government n.d.). The Community Wealth Building Bill, passed by the Scottish Parliament in February 2026, is the world’s first national level CWB legislation (Scottish Government 2026). The bill requires the government to publish a statement of its intentions across the five CWB pillars, report on progress, and issue CWB guidance for public bodies (McInroy 2025). It also makes building community wealth a requirement for all Scottish local authorities: in addition to publishing a statement outlining the CWB measures they intend to take, local authorities will be required to work with local anchor institutions publish a Community Wealth Building action plan and implement the measures it sets out (Scottish Government Economic Development Directorate 2025). Work is already underway to understand the impact of ongoing CWB regional initiatives in Scotland (Glasgow Centre for Population Health 2025). This will be crucial to inform the evolution of CWB as it scales to the national level, since a lack of monitoring and evaluation data can be a barrier to advocating for and designing successful new CWB initiatives.
The emergence of CWB at the regional and national scales in these examples reflects the insight from evolutionary reconstruction and EEG that as economies change slowly over time, local level developments can contribute to broader systemic changes (Martin and Sunley 2023). This is clearest in Scotland, where regional developments informed and motivated the adoption of national CWB legislation. Reflecting the central role of place and institutions in EEG, anchor institutions were a driving force in each of these regional cases, with shared goals of addressing interlinked socioeconomic issues and inequalities, enhancing economic resilience, and tapping into unique place-based characteristics while building inclusive local wealth. When continuing to scale CWB approaches at broader governance scales, the core elements of successful CWB will undoubtedly continue to be key. These include enabling conditions in the form of specific place-based factors, political windows, agents and organizations – as well as a commitment to keep the key CWB pillars and principles at the centre of new initiatives (McInroy et al. 2025).
Conclusion
Our piece has demonstrated several ways in which CWB is being scaled up beyond the city to both regional and national levels of implementation. Drawing on insights from evolutionary reconstruction and EEG theory, we have shown that CWB can be integrated into broader evolutionary shifts in governance and economic systems over time. As local and regional economies develop, anchor institutions, stakeholder collaboration, political leadership, and a strong sense of place and community can all be considered key to the successful implementation of CWB principles.
Furthermore, we have shown that regional anchor institutions are emerging as important actors for scaling CWB that are redefining and challenging contemporary CWB geographies by expanding the scalar focus of CWB out beyond the city. Whilst regional anchor institutions, such as universities and hospitals, have connected cities to their broader regional economies for decades, Combined Authorities in the UK are relatively recent phenomena that provide regional governance functions across multiple cities, or between cities and their wider region. Our empirical examples from the UK, ranging from the classic example of Preston to less widely known and more recent examples in Greater Manchester and the Yorkshire region, demonstrate the potential for regional evolution of CWB. Meanwhile, Scotland is leading the world through developing the first CWB legislation, alongside the first integration of CWB principles into a system of national government. Within this, we highlighted that the collaboration across different governance levels, from cities and regions to the national scale, has been, and will continue to be, fundamentally important to embedding CWB successfully into new governance structures.
Throughout this piece, we have highlighted that The Democracy Collaborative’s universal principles around the importance of stakeholder coalitions and partnerships in a collaborative “ecosystem”; the systems-level nature of CWB; and the redistribution of power and ownership are key to successfully scaling CWB from the city to the regional and national level. These principles will continue to be pivotal as CWB scales up across new governance structures and simultaneously evolves to encompass new issues. This includes just net zero transitions, which are highlighted by the Democracy Collaborative’s universal principles as being “at the core of CWB practices and outcomes,” since they are intrinsically linked with building holistic and sustainable community wealth. A key challenge going forward will be for CWB’s original principles and pillars to adapt effectively whilst CWB is implemented at broader scales of governance by various new actors and policymakers across the world.
References
Alperovitz, G. (2017a). The possibility of a pluralist commonwealth: Evolutionary reconstruction toward a caring and just political economy. Interdisciplinary Journal of Partnership Studies.
Alperovitz, G. (2017b). Evolutionary reconstruction and displacement. The Next System Project. https://thenextsystem.org/evolutionary-reconstruction-displacement
Barnes, M. C., Walker, C. D., & Williamson, T. M. (Eds.). (2020). Community Wealth Building and the Reconstruction of American Democracy: Can We Make American Democracy Work?. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Binz, C., Coenen, L., Frenken, K., Murphy, J. T., Strambach, S., Trippl, M., & Truffer, B. (2025). Exploring the Economic Geographies of Sustainability Transitions: Commentary and Agenda. Economic Geography, 1-27.
Centre for Local Economic Strategies (CLES). (n.d. a). Community Wealth Building in Manchester. Centre for Local Economic Strategies. https://cles.org.uk/community-wealth-building-in-practice/community-wealth-building-places/community-wealth-building-in-manchester/ (last accessed 24.10.2025).
Centre for Local Economic Strategies (CLES). (n.d. b). Greater Manchester Community Wealth Hub. Centre for Local Economic Strategies. https://cles.org.uk/community-wealth-building-in-practice/community-wealth-building-places/greater-manchester-community-wealth-hub/ (last accessed 13.02.2026).
EDAS. (n.d.). Community Wealth Building Scotland. EDAS. https://edas.org.uk/community-wealth-building-scotland/ (last accessed 13.02.2026).
Glasgow Centre for Population Health (2025). Community Wealth Building Evaluation Learning Lessons from Scotland. Glasgow Centre for Population Health. https://www.gcph.co.uk/our-work/1262-community-wealth-building-evaluation-learning-lessons-from-scotland (last accessed 24.10.2025).
Goodwin, T., et al. (2024). This must be the place: A new vision for community wealth and power. Centre for Local Economic Strategies. https://cles.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Building-community-wealth-and-power-FINAL.pdf (last accessed 03.10.2025).
Greater Manchester Combined Authority (n.d.). Who we are. Greater Manchester Combined Authorityhttps://greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/who-we-are/ (last accessed 03.10.2025).
GM Consult (2022). Developing a Greater Manchester Community Wealth Hub. GM Consult. https://www.gmconsult.org/strategy-team/developing-a-greater-manchester-community-wealth-h/ (last accessed 03.10.2025).
Jackson, M., McInroy, N. (2017). Community Wealth Building through Anchor Institutions. Centre for Local Economic Strategies. https://cles.org.uk/publications/community-wealth-building-through-anchor-institutions/ (last accessed 03.10.2025).
Jones, F., Leibowitz, J. (2019). How we built community wealth in Preston: Achievements and lessons. Centre for Local Economic Strategies and Preston City Council. https://cles.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/CLES_Preston-Document_WEB-AW.pdf (last accessed 03.10.2025).
Lacey-Barnacle, M., Smith, A., & Foxon, T. J. (2023). Community wealth building in an age of just transitions: Exploring civil society approaches to net zero and future research synergies. Energy Policy, 172, 113277.
Lacey-Barnacle, M., & Boucher, M. (2025). Community Wealth Building as a catalyst for just transitions? The role of anchor institutions in supporting co-operative and community-led decarbonisation in the UK and Canada. Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law, 43(3), 449–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646811.2025.2540702
Lambin, E. F., Kim, H., Leape, J., & Lee, K. (2020). Scaling up solutions for a sustainability transition. One Earth, 3(1), 89-96.
MacKinnon, D., Cumbers, A., Pike, A., Birch, K., & McMaster, R. (2009). Evolution in economic geography: institutions, political economy, and adaptation. Economic Geography, 85(2), 129-150.
Martin, R. L., & Sunley, P. J. (2023). Why an evolutionary economic geography?: The spatial economy as a complex evolving system. In Routledge Handbook of Evolutionary Economics (pp. 117-135). Routledge.
McInroy, N. (2025). Community Wealth Building Bill is published! Economic Development Association Scotland. https://edas.org.uk/2025/04/02/community-wealth-building-bill-is-published/ (last accessed 24.10.2025).
McInroy, N., McKinley, S., Shastry, N. & CWB Community of Practice. (2025). Enabling Conditions for Community Wealth Building. The Democracy Collaborative.https://www.democracycollaborative.org/whatwethink/enabling-conditions (last accessed 13.02.2026).
North Ayrshire Council (n.d.). Our CWB journey. North Ayrshire Council. https://www.north-ayrshire.gov.uk/council-voting-elections/community-wealth-building/our-community-wealth-building-journey (last accessed: 13.02.2026).
Preston City Council (n.d.). What is the Preston Model? Preston City Council. https://www.preston.gov.uk/article/1339/What-is-Preston-Model (last accessed 03.10.2025).
Scottish Government Economic Development Directorate (2025) Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill Fairer Scotland Duty Summary. Scottish Government. https://www.gov.scot/publications/community-wealth-building-scotland-bill-fairer-scotland-duty-summary/ (last accessed 24.10.2025).
Scottish Government Economic Development Directorate (n.d.) Cities and regions: Community Wealth Building.Scottish Government. https://www.gov.scot/policies/cities-regions/community-wealth-building/ (last accessed 13.02.2026).
Scottish Government. (2026). Investing in local economies. Scottish Government. https://www.gov.scot/news/investing-in-local-economies/(last accessed: 13.02.2026).
Shastry, N. (2024). Global Academic Researcher Network for Community Wealth Building. The Democracy Collaborative. https://www.democracycollaborative.org/blogs/global-academic-and-researcher-network-for-community-wealth-building(last accessed 22.10.2025).
Shearmur, R., & Doloreux, D. (2022). Innovation, scaling-up, and local development in peripheral regions: do establishments scale-up locally?. ZFW–Advances in Economic Geography, 66(4), 185-200.
Webster, A., Kuznetsova, O., Ross, C., Berranger, C., Booth, M., Eseonu, T., & Golan, Y. (2021). Local regeneration and community wealth building–place making: Co-operatives as agents of change. Journal of Place Management and Development, 14(4), 446-461.
York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority (n.d. a). Community Wealth Building Programme. York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority. https://yorknorthyorks-ca.gov.uk/project/community-wealth-building-programme/ (last accessed 24.10.2025).
York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority (n.d. b) New group takes first step towards community wealth building. York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority. https://yorknorthyorks-ca.gov.uk/community-wealth-building/ (last accessed 24.10.2025).
Dr. Max Lacey-Barnacle is a senior research fellow in the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex Business School. He has worked as a researcher, consultant and policy specialist focusing on energy and climate policy. He currently leads international research on how Community Wealth Building can drive just transitions to net zero. His work explores place-based strategies that link decarbonisation with inclusive economic renewal, whilst advocating for greater economic democracy in the green economy.
Siobhan Stack-Maddox works on research and engagement at the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex, UK. She has been involved in a range of projects bringing social science perspectives to energy and climate issues. Her research interests and experience include just transitions; co-benefits of energy and climate policies, including building community wealth; energy demand; comparative international studies; and political feasibility and institutions for impactful policy making.