The global realities addressed in the special call of organizational education (Ecer network 32) refer to the global crisis of ‘imperial living’ (Brand & Wissen 2017), calling for another ‘great transformation’ (Polanyi 1944; WBGU 2011). Organizing as well as organizational learning is of crucial importance for such complex transitions towards social and solidarity economies.In this context, organizational education does not only focus on classical organizations understood as defined entities, but is interested, too, in complex settings of networked organizing, towards the ‘common good’ (Daly & Cobb 1990), towards Commoning (Helfrich & Euler 2021), towards De-Growth (Jackson 2017; Paech 2015; Wiefek 2021) and refers to social and ecological movements as actors and specific types of organizations and organizing. As movement organizations (Schröder 2018) and visionary social forces they formulate political claims for alternative futures and re-imagine society and economy (Elsen 1998, 2018). Accordingly, their design practices idealize egalitarian self-organization (Paslack 1990: 289) and their grassroots may envision what Fung & Wright (2003) call a ‘deepening’ of democracy, Hardt & Negri (2017) call ‘assembling’ and Lorey (2020) calls a ‘presentist democracy’.

These movement organizations intend to establish social innovations for sustainability (Moulaert 2000). This implies new and better solutions, new actors and new institutional arrangements. They intend to re-invent organizing (Laloux 2011) regarding interorganizational cooperation, multi-stakeholder processes and multi-layered governance. They re-imagine a social and solidarity economy, regional economical circuits, solidarity and equity-oriented societies at a global scale (Kühn 2021, Gibson-Graham et al 2013; Utting 2015; UNRISD 2016).

Organizational education research perspectives are interested in questions of collective learning. How can dialogue, learning and coordination between individuals, groups, organizations, and networks support societal innovations in the field of a social and solidarity economy? What are the lessons learnt in those horizontal and democratic forms of governance linked to collective action and active citizenship? How do those approaches insert life-centered norms and values into the economic sphere and countervail the lack of transparency, accountability, democracy and eco-social responsibility?

Our symposium from an organizational education perspective discusses theoretical concepts, empirical research as well as strategies of organizing social innovations towards societal alternatives. As system innovations, Social and Solidarity Economies (SSE) comprises many fields like solidarity agriculture (Haubendorfer 2010), socio-ecological circuits and many others. The first paper problematizes new approaches to eco-social development and SSE in urban and rural areas (Elsen 2007; 2018). SSE belongs to the wider conceptual framework of ‘diverse’ or ‘plural’ economy, where we might imagine ourselves as economic actors, who can reshape economies towards environmental and social well-being (Gibson-Graham et al 2013: 3). Putting eco-social solutions into action, SSE is a forerunner of sustainable economies and an instrument for implementing the agenda for sustainable development (UNRISD 2016). The topic of eco-social Innovations and Social Solidarity Economy does especially refer to vulnerable local communities. This is why the second author explores the Black Social Solidarity Economy in Europe.

The third presenter discusses ecosocial innovations as models for inclusive and sustainable societies. As sustainability issues are complex, controversial and often without clear organizational responsibility, these 'wicked problems' require design-oriented research and transdisciplinary methodological approaches. The fourth presentation therefore refers to the potentials of a metacommunication approach. Can the new 'pattern language of commoning' (MdC) as a 'creative program' support innovation processes towards SSEs? We reflect on opportunity structures in contextual embeddings and discusses potentials for the mobilization of resources and strategies to achieve goals (Weber 2018a, b). We connect to movement research (Schröder 2018: 819f) and from an organizational education perspective transgress them focusing on potentials and strategies of collective learning towards social and sustainable economies.

Brand, U. & Wissen, M. (2017). Imperiale Lebensweise. München, oekom verlag. Elsen, S. (2018). Eco-Social Development and Community-based Economy. New York: Routledge Daly, H. & Cobb J. (1990). For the Common Good. London: Green Print Fung, A.; Wright, E.O. (2003). Deepening Democracy. London: Ver-so. Gibson-Graham, J.K.; Cameron, J.; Healy, S. (2013). Take back the economy: . Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press. Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2017). Assembly. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Helfrich S., & Euler J. (2021) Die Neufassung der Commons. Zeitschrift für Gemeinwirtschaft und Gemeinwohl, Jg. 44, Heft 1. Jackson, J. (2017). Prosperity beyond Growth. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge Lorey, I. (2020). Demokratie im Präsenz. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Kühn, C. (2021) Wirtschaftswandel als Kulturwandel? Zeit-schrift für Volkskunde 117. J. 2021, H. 2, S. 163–191 © 2021 Waxmann https://doi.org/10.31244/zfvk/2021/02.03 Moulaert, F. Social innovation and community development. 2010. In: Moulaert F., Martinelli F., Swyngedouw E., González S. 2010. Can Neighbourhoods save the City? London and New York: Routledge Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons. New York: Cambridge University Press. Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation. New York: Farrar & Rinehart. Schröder, C. (2018). Soziale Bewegungen als Orte organisationspädagogischer Praxis. In M. Göhlich, A. Schröer, & S. M. Weber (Hrsg.), Handbuch Organisationspädagogik (S. 817-829). Wiesbaden: Springer.