We have now provided a substantive elaboration on the Natural Social Contract (see section 3), and how contract formation takes place in polycentric ways at different levels (always context-specific and path-dependent). More specifically, we have provided more detail on transformative social-ecological innovation (see also the new figure 1 on TSEI), on the mutual gains approach and institutional design principles (see new table 1).
A second point is the limited elaboration of the social contract, including the natural aspect. A social contract, as explained, consists of a consensual, value-based deal underpinning an institutional governance arrangement. Fig2. moreover, details many aspects. What remains unclear and implicit, however, is the form and operationalisation of such contract. How is the social contract articulated; how is consent manifested? How does one conceive and apply natural ‘design principles’ (669)? This also involves a question of scale: how do agreements at project level chime with societal notions of Social Contracts? How does a project mission contribute to a broader social contract? Much of the joining forces in the hybrid sphere between institutional domains may be primarily instrumental (pooling resources, aligning interests, preventing holdups), below the scope of an (aspired) social contract. What kind of hybrid practices gave shape to the latter? And how then is the aspect of nature taken on board?