Måns Nilsson 6910264057 Sustainable Innovation Governance Bilaga A Bilaga A Forskningsprogram Sustainable Innovation Governance Måns NILSSON1, Annika RICKNE2, Ari KOKKO3, Ivar VIRGIN1 1. Introduction and aims of the study Innovation of technologies and the quest for a knowledgebased economy have become “holy grails” of public policy in Sweden and worldwide. However, despite political rhetoric to the contrary, the policies and processes set up to facilitate or foster innovation remain more or less disconnected from sustainable development considerations. How can innovation be governed in order to effectively be brought in line with environmental policy and sustainability objectives? This proposal describes a research project on sustainable innovation governance It explores the “greening” of the innovation-systems approach by analyzing how the governance of sectoral innovation systems, broadly defined, has changed under pressure of environmental concern and how this has influenced sustainable innovation The research addresses two overarching questions: how do sustainable innovations come about and how can they be influenced by governments and other actors? The study aims to provide conceptual and empirical insight into the emerging interface field of technology innovation policy and sustainability, in particular regarding the relation between governance and sustainable innovation, and how governments and other actors could strive to make these fields more coherent The project will provide empirical lessons about how to best device the governance of innovation towards sustainability in different technological domains. The first step to enhance the governance of sustainable innovations is to understand the processes of innovation It is today widely recognized that innovation involves not only technological changes, but also changes in user practices, regulations, industrial networks, infrastructure and culture, and that innovation is a process involving interactions public and private actors (Geels, 2005). The analytical focus is on the institutional structures and procedures that shape the potential for sustainable innovation Lessons will be learned from case studies in three sectors: biotechnology, automotive fuels, and paper & pulp, where sustainable innovations of industrial processes and products have been or are ongoing. The case studies will look at innovation systems and governance arrangements in Sweden and in selected other countries. The ultimate aim is to develop relevant insights from these case studies to enhance our understanding of how innovation systems and to inform policymakers and other actors in Sweden but also to transfer lessons to other countries, concerning how they can promote and advance innovation governance, and in particular what mechanisms are needed to ensure that innovation policy is coherent with broader sustainable development aspirations Hence, the project will focus on environmental sustainability as its normative objective “function” but will through the research design pay considerable attention to social and economic sustainability as well. The economics of innovation and the politics of policymaking both imply a necessity for balancing these dimensions 2. Background and rationale Economic development has many dimensions, but the major determinant as well as the most outstanding source of structural change is arguably technological change (Schumpeter, 1934). In the North, the quest for Stockholm Environment Institute, Box 2142, 10314 Stockholm, Sweden, email: mans.nilsson@sei.se Lund University, CIRCLE, Dahmen Institute and IMIT Stockholm School of Economics, International Institute of Business The application of the innovation research agenda to the developing world is just emerging with some generic first steps Juma, C & YeeCheong, L. (2005) Innovation: applying knowledge in development, London, Earthscan. Still, application in the South is pivotal as the global markets put new pressures on economies and regions to find a niche and a role in the market that can bring wealth and welfare. To this end, the project is linked to, and will provide support to, a Sidafunded programme led by SEI for establishing a research and policy network in Africa on Africa’s potential as an innovative and competitive “bioresource economy” Måns Nilsson 6910264057 Sustainable Innovation Governance Bilaga A economic growth has more and more become a quest for cuttingedge technology and knowledge (Blomström et al., 2002, Pierre, 2004). In the developing world it has been found that technology change can help to combat poverty and raise life expectancy and quality dramatically (UNDP, 2001). The European Union’s Lisbon Agenda gives testimony to the importance attached to innovation in modern society. The Lisbon Agenda aims at “stepping up reform for competitiveness and innovation” towards “the most competitive and dynamic knowledgebased economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion” (European Commission, 2002). Innovation is not only at the forefront of the mainstream economic policy discourse but also emerging as an increasingly salient issue in relation to achieving a more sustainable development Achieving sustainable development depends on technological and social innovations coupled with organizational and institutional change geared towards environmental sustainability. (NorbergBohn, 1999, Pearson et al., 2004) One salient example is the climate policy arena, in particular in relation to “post 2012” discussions, where in light of global difficulties in reaching political agreement, technology is nowadays widely considered the key solution out of the dilemma of getting national governments to agree to ambitious carbon reductions while at the same time safeguarding economic development and welfare (Nilsson and Nilsson, 2005) Sustainable innovation will be critical in the search for renewable resources and steering away from the fossil fuel economy Great hopes are attached to the promise of sustainable technology innovation also in other fields of resource use and environmental impact, such as, for instance, nonrenewable and renewable resource use, energy conversion, and chemicals. Indeed, some of that promise has also been delivered in certain domains. However, the policy and research domains of innovation systems and technology are to a large extent disconnected from those dealing with sustainable development (Kivimaa and Mickwitz, 2006). There is an emerging literature on sustainable innovation and a number of research networks are ongoing 5 (Moors and Mulder, 2002, Foxon et al., 2004, Smith et al., 2005) However, the dominant rationale for innovation systems still seems to be in terms of socio-economic effects such as growth, employment and competitiveness of countries and regions By exploring the sustainability aspects of innovation systems, this proposal will make an original contribution to the field of innovation systems studies, in particular in view of the relative lack of empirically grounded analysis. With a strongly empirically grounded approach will be able to draw out both contextspecific and more generic lessons relating to sustainable innovations. In innovation processes, governmental policy actors have an important role to device policies and institutional arrangements to create incentives and mechanisms to promote and facilitate innovation as well as steer it in sustainable directions (Moors and Mulder, 2002, Foxon et al., 2004). However, conventional R&D policies have often proven ineffective in supporting innovation, and as a result most analysts today reject a focus on R&D support for innovation as an outdated “linearhierarchical” model (OECD, 2005a) Recent literature emphasizes that governments can, and should, take a leadership role in managing innovation, but argue that its role is different from the traditional one, concerned with both process and substance, and covering much broader domains than R&D, entailing, e.g. public investment in downstream adoption and learning, publicprivate partnerships, supporting arenas for niches to develop and grow, and sustained political support over long time periods (Kok et al., 2002) Such a modern conception of “innovation policy” is relatively new, and emerged in Swedish governmental documents for the first time in the late 1990s. Literature has made several propositions about governance for innovation For instance, an emerging literature on strategic niche management is concerned with nurturing “sociotechnical” experiments for learning about innovations, and creating networks between producers, users and governments (Schot et al., 2002, Weber et al., 1999). It has been suggested that the government’s role will be changing from step to Such as in the EU: Sustainable transformation network: http://www.sustainabletransformation.net/; in the US/Harvard: http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/?program=STPP; and Initiative on Science and Technology for Sustainability of Harvard’s Science and Technology Programme.http://sustsci.harvard.edu/ists/. Måns Nilsson 6910264057 Sustainable Innovation Governance Bilaga A step in the innovation process. Following a technology “learning curve”, in the takeoff phase, there is a need for actor mobilisation. In the acceleration phase, governments can stimulate learning by forming agendas and visions. In the stabilisation phase, their role shifts to one of controller and consolidator (Neij et al., 2003) Foxon et al (2004) argue for an objectivesdriven innovation governance as: a) the formulation of a clear long term vision and goals; b) understanding of innovation as systemic processes c) advancing the institutional and procedural basis for policy delivery, and c) the incorporation of policy learning processes. It has been suggested that three components may determine the innovation potential: first, the system pressure and its articulation towards particular problems or development trajectories; second, the availability of resources; and third, the coordination of responses to regime pressures across actors within the regime (Smith et al., 2005) However, the empirical bases of these conceptions are somewhat piecemeal and scattered. This proposal is based on the assumption that to advance our conceptual understanding about sustainable innovation and its governance we must now turn to indepth analysis of realworld experiences. Policy prescriptions must rely on both sound theory and solid empirical evidence. It is not enough to rely on international benchmarking exercises, such as the European Scoreboard of Innovation (European Trendchart on Innovation, 2005), the OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard (OECD, 2005b) These are very popular and interesting in themselves but do not add much causal insight. This proposal is set up to learn empirical lessons about the potential and limitations of governance arrangements in stimulating sustainable innovation, and what are appropriate institutional support mechanisms to these arrangements. The issue of sustainable innovation is highly relevant to the Swedish context. The project has the explicit objective to learn lessons from the Swedish experiences in sustainable innovation As a consequence of this Swedenanchored departure point, the project will also support the further development of Swedish governance of sustainable innovation systems 3. Key concepts and theoretical departure points This proposal has an innovation systems and governance perspective Innovation systems refer to those institutional and organizational structures that support technological change (Lundvall, 1985). It has been defined as “The network of organizations, individuals and institutions which determine and shape the generation, diffusion and use of technology and other knowledge, which, in turn, explain the pattern, pace, and rate of innovation and the economic success of innovation” (Marklund et al., 2004). Hence we view innovation as a complex process of multiple actors, frames and interests, institutional regimes and markets. Innovation is subject to a rich literature and has been fruitfully studied from several disciplines. Much of the innovation systems research to date has a technologysystems approach which focus on the study of a technologyspecified innovation system and how actors interact with specific technological systems bounded by institutional rules (Carlsson et al., 2002). There is also a considerable literature taking a departure point in the business economics of innovation (Tidd et al., 2005, Kokko and Blomström, 2001). This tends to lean on factors such as qualified demand, capacity supply, risk capital and incentive structures (Marklund et al., 2004). From a policyanalytic or public management perspective, innovation has been analyzed as a policy coordination problem between industrial policy and research policy (Edler et al., 2003, Thorslund et al., 2005). Sustainable innovation, in turn, can be considered a further coordination between environmental and innovation policy domains (Kivimaa and Mickwitz, 2006) These different perspectives all enrich our understanding of innovation processes. Indeed, a departure point of this study is that the organizational, social, economic and technological domains of innovation are highly related and cannot be meaningfully separated in the real world (Ashford, 2004). Also within a socialscience focused project such as this one, it is necessary to draw upon insights gained from technological and economic perspectives. In our view, the quest for sustainable innovation is basically one of dealing with technological, political, institutional, economic and social value change in an integrative fashion, and this constitutes the key multidisciplinary ambition of the project. For this reason, the project links in particular to the call’s theme on “systemic problem descriptions”, in relation to issues that cover several sectors of society that need to interact for environmentally sustainable innovation systems to develop. The relevance of such a systemic view as been Måns Nilsson 6910264057 Sustainable Innovation Governance Bilaga A demonstrated in the study of historical technology transitions (Schot et al., 2002). This is a partly managed and partly chaotic process, but has often included the development of a shared vision by dominant actors in a network and evolutions of the institutional landscape in ways that makes it open for change (Kaijser, 2001, Kemp et al., 1998) Governance and institutions The common denominator across the disciplines in innovation studies is very much the issue of institutions (OECD, 2005a). Within the systemic perspective, we are particularly interested in understanding the role of institutions in the governance of sustainable innovations. This study embraces the nowadays mainstream understanding of institutions and the wellestablished distinction between institutions and organizations: institutions represent the “rules of the game”, that is the formal and informal norms that guide and constrain behaviour of actors and shape interactions between them whereas organizations are the actors that are submitted to institutional rules in their pursuit of their objectives (North, 1990) Institutions includes both informal institutions such as ideas, cultures, practices and relations between actors, and more formal norms, rules and procedures in sectors shaping this governance (March and Olsen, 1989) The proposed project focuses specifically on how institutional structures and procedures can be geared so that governance arrangements facilitate sustainable innovation. An important empirical question here is to what extent sustainable innovation can be governed, that is to what extent and under what circumstance is there a role for policy? The concept of innovation implies a framing shift concerning the state’s role in technological change, different from both traditional stateinterventionist approach and a laissezfaire liberalist perspective A governmental innovation policy is based on the recognition of market failures inherent in the process of technological change, but differs from the neoclassical perspective in that it focuses on the system failures. What is clear is that the role of the government needs to be dynamic and focusing on governance rather than hierarchical implementation. As discussed by Pierre and Peters (2006) governance represents coordination between the political system and other systems The concept of “governance” usefully captures major dimensions of actor relationships in innovation systems: including the institutional landscape, power relations, procedures for decision making and coordination, mechanisms for evaluation and learning, as well as broader contextualising factors such as history and culture, frames and perspectives, and major drivers of change. The term governance is sometimes portrayed as an alternative, or contrast, to traditional government, depicting a shift from hierarchical relationships and topdown decision making to a network relationship with horizontal interactions shaping decisionmaking (Lundqvist, 2001) However, in our research traditional “government” will not be excluded a priori since, in principle there is reason to expect that also such mechanisms can play an important role in shaping sustainable innovations The main point however, is that actors beyond the state are instrumental to the process of policy formulation and implementation With our interest in governance, we consider outcomes as a result of the coordination of many actors and their resources. The research design relates to this coordination through formal and informal publicprivate interactions in the system, but also to the steering capacity of the state and its institutions in relation to other actors to influence the system in generating sustainable technology (Pierre and Peters, 2006). This gives rise to two sets of research questions Research questions What do we know about how sustainable innovations go through different stages and develop, conceptually and from empirical example? o What roles can be attributed to different actors, including researchers, businesses, governments and consumers, and their interactions and relationships? o To what extent and in what order are regime changes in the cognitive, social practice and physical realms contributing to sustainable innovation? o How niches bring about transformation on a wider scale? Which scale connections are vital to success? Måns Nilsson 6910264057 Sustainable Innovation Governance Bilaga A o In what ways do substantive environmental issue characteristics influence the innovation process, including sociopolitical conflict, ideology, uncertainty, and possibility to resolve through technology? In what ways policies and stateled governance arrangements contribute to sustainable innovations? o What formal and informal institutional arrangements govern the interactions: in what ways are processes of negotiations, market exchanges or hierarchical (power) relations dominant? o What have been the intentions, outcomes and effects of past policies and governance arrangements in stimulating sustainable innovation processes? o What institutional structures and procedures can facilitate a more effective process of sustainable innovation at different levels and in different sociotechnological regimes? 4. Empirical method and approach The study is broadly concerned with understanding the relationships between institutional regimes, innovation systems, their governance and the outcomes in terms of sustainable innovations (Figure 1). The project will use a multidisciplinary empirical framework for comparative analysis that aims to identify the driving forces for sustainable innovations and the causal links between the key variables in this system. This framework will be translated to a research protocol in which the variables can be operationalized The research will be largely qualitative and longitudinal, combining the study of slow and fastmoving variables In particular overall institutional arrangements generally change slowly. Furthermore, historical and cultural contexts are important determinants of institutions (Steinmo et al., 1992). At the same time, environmental sustainability as a “regime pressure” is a relatively new phenomenon. We will trace innovation processes over a time period of at least 10 years, examining the coevolution of technologies, markets and actor networks within their institutional context. The dependent variable is broadly characterised as the performance of the innovation system regarding its ability to foster more sustainable technologies. The measurement of this depends on levels of analysis as well as the maturity of the system (Carlsson et al., 2002) and will therefore be developed casespecifically (see below) Indicators should cover criteria such as flexibility, performance and cost, market diffusion and environmental performance. We do not envision quantitative measurements or any single indicator but a qualitative characterisation supported by quantified data relating to diffusion, market penetration and environmental improvements. The objective is to reach a more thorough understanding of what is sustainable technology innovation. This objective will be part of the first stage of the project. To understand the causal processes underlying sustainable innovation, our unit of analysis is the innovation system This is composed of actor aspects, market aspects and technology aspects. This can be said to constitute our independent variable. Thus we are interested in the relationship between the constituency of an innovation system and sustainability of innovations. We are however, also interested in the governance of this relation, and therefore introduce governance and institutions as an intermediate variable. Governance can be composed of four types of procedures; objective setting, decisionmaking, coherence and steering (Pierre and Peters, 2006). In addition, contextual factors shape these relationships: international policy and domestic political pressures, overarching institutional frameworks, sudden events shaping public opinion, market changes or scientific knowledge may prompt responses in the system. Governance Figure 1: Simplified account of analytical framework for sustainable innovation governance system Objectives Decisionmaking Coherence Accountability Policy regime pressures Institutional frameworks Innovation system Market aspects Actor configuration Technology aspects Sustainable innovations Uptake /diffusion Contribution to sustainability Long term Competitiveness Måns Nilsson 6910264057 Sustainable Innovation Governance Bilaga A The study will triangulate data, relying on a) existing qualitative and quantitative assessments of the technologies under scrutiny, their market development and sustainability features at present and over time; b) interviews with agents and stakeholders related to the technologies, within both private and public organizations; and c) assessment of policy documents that describe the “programme theory” behind the innovationsystems governance. A simple “inputoutput” evaluation framework will be deployed to organize data about the impacts of policy and governance instruments (Dunn, 2003) (see Figure 1). This framework takes into account intended policies and activities as well as contextual factors and unforeseen events in the analysis of the causalities of institutions and policies Figure 2: Policy evaluation framework (adapted from Dunn, 2003) Inputs Processes Outputs Outcomes In1 In2 Ini P1 P2 P Q1 Q2 Qi O1 O2 O i Preconditi ons Pc1 Pc2 Pci Unforesee ns Un1 Un Un i Impacts E1 E2 Ei Case studies We acknowledge that innovation policy “onesizefitsall” does not work (Pavitt, 1984) and therefore adhere to the notion that governance of sustainable innovation needs to be context dependent and related to, for example, particular stakeholder configurations, technologies, types of environmental concerns and institutional arrangements. To grasp this contextual complexity, the project will carry out indepth empirical case studies into particular technological domains. The research strategy is therefore to study very specific technological applications within different domains We will examine three cases at different stages of sustainable technology development and uptake in order to understand how governance relations may differ in these different stages; biotechnology, automotive / biofuels and paper / pulp These reflect different stages of innovation: “closing the loop” in paper/pulp is a relatively mature innovation, biofuels is in a start-up/take off stage and sustainable biotechnology is a technological niche not yet in a take-off phase The case sectors also reflect different actor-interest configurations, environmental sustainability concerns and institutional arrangement, resulting in different sectoral patterns of innovation However, they are also connected in several ways: for instance biotechnology reaches into both bio fuels and paper and pulp, and the forest resource base of paper and pulp is also an increasingly tangible resource base for automotive fuels The case variation allows us to draw comparative lessons on these factors while certain overarching contextual variables are “fixed”. For instance, these sectors are subject to strong international competition Måns Nilsson 6910264057 Sustainable Innovation Governance Bilaga A and they concern primarily large industrial sectors meaning they are subject to similar overarching policy and institutional regimes of environmental governance from the state. With the same analytical model we will also examine innovation processes and governance in one or two other countries that have advanced sustainable innovation in each of the selected case study sectors. By going outside Sweden we are able to control for factors that of particular Swedish political or cultural nature. In other countries, case studies compare some aspects of the innovation system or its governance rather than a full data collection and analysis that we do in Sweden. We will draw upon existing and new work by our network of partners in e.g Finland, Norway, Germany, Japan and USA (choice depending on sector application which will be more narrowly defined in the project inception phase). Hence, the study is comparative in two dimensions: across sectors and over country contexts. Project case a): Automotive fuels for the future Much R&D has been undertaken during the last decade on how to transform the transportation sector to become more sustainable. Innovation in alternative fuels such as biofuels, natural gas and hydrogen has been explored, as well as the development of new and more efficient energy transformation technologies such as hybrid engines and fuel cells Country specific differences exists both in the type of policy instruments that is used as well as choice of technological pathway. An example is for instance Japan and Toyota which has lead the way in creating and diffusing hybrid engines, while Sweden has developed a leading position in biofuels, both on the supply side of fuel as well as in biofuel vehicles Biofuel development also creates synergies as well as coordination needs between several sectors, such as: automotive, agriculture, forestry and biotechnology. The case constitutes the most complex product system of multiple endusers, actors and supply infrastructures. Project case b): Biotechnology for industrial change Many regard biotechnology as a crucial generic technology for industrial change and an important driver of innovation. Moreover biotechnology will be critical in the search for renewable resources and steering away from the fossil fuel economy into a safer, more stable biobased economy In the application of biotechnology for the processing and production of chemicals, materials and energy; Europe has not fallen behind its global technological peers USA and Japan (Lorenz and Zinke, 2005) Crop based metabolic engineering technologies convert agricultural commodities and crop residues into petrol and diesel, but also into lubricants, enzymes, fibres and polymers. As a result, industrial agriculture, where crop production is used for non-food purposes, is growing world wide and clearly becoming more competitive The strong research base, increasing levels of interest of the European chemical industry, growing numbers of dedicated biotechnology firms entering the field and political support have created favourable conditions to support sustainable innovation in this field. However, relatively little is known about the mechanisms and knowledge dynamics by which industrial biotechnology is being adopted in existing industrial sectors and transforming its products and processes. The case constitutes the most scienceintensive system, often driven in symbiosis with academia, and with both small and large actors. Project case c): Closing the loop in paper and pulp Since the 1980s, the paper and pulp industry has undergone dramatic shifts in markets, policies and technologies. Sustainable innovations have led to both incremental energy efficiency improvements and the elemental chlorinefree bleaching technology, in the leading Northern paper and pulp exporters Sweden, Finland and Canada, three leading countries also when it comes to innovation and sustainability more broadly. Water, energy and chemicals remain major environmental challenges, but with major advancements being made towards “closing the loop” in the production process. Future innovation challenges are on the horizon in the intersection with biotechnology (see above). The case constitutes the most resourcedriven and traditional productionintensive industrial system with only a few large actors 5. Brief implementation and publication plan (indicative) The project consists of three main phases, first, a conceptual and literature study from which an analytical framework will be developed; second parallel case study analysis in three sectors in Sweden as well as Måns Nilsson 6910264057 Sustainable Innovation Governance Bilaga A application of the framework with international partners; and third, a synthesis and integration phase where we synthesise our results from the case studies and draw out the comparative conclusions as well as develop both generic and contextualised policy recommendations. Phase 1, Conceptual framework: August 2007 to December 2007 Phase 2, Case studies: January 2008 to September 2009 Phase 3, Synthesis phase: October 2009August 2010 We plan to launch an international multiauthored book on our finding at the end of the project (2010) and to prepare 56 international journal publications, including: one on comparative framework with illustrative cases (2008) three indepth papers on case studies (2009) one synthesis paper (2010) In addition there will be regular seminars and dialogues with industry and policymakers both within the case studies, as part of the research design, and through the reference group. Particular care will be taken to disseminate the research results to potential users, i.e. policy makers, corporate decisions makers, and other civil society actors involved in the innovation system for sustainable innovation 6. Multidisciplinary team and partnership The project departs from an analytical framework and empirical studies combining several disciplines including environmental systems analysis, industrial economics, organization and political sciences as well as biochemistry The disciplinary competence is secured through the core partnership: Stockholm Environment Institute (Policy & Institutions Programme) (Sustainability, environmental systems analysis, institutions and governance and environmental politics) Lund University (Centre for Innovation, Research and Competence in the Learning Economy CIRCLE) (Innovation studies and biotechnology), and Stockholm School of Economics (Institute for International Business) (Organizational strategy and innovations). Through recruitment of two postdoc positions (at Lund University and Stockholm School of Economics) necessary sectoral competencies will be secured. We have already possible postdoc candidates listed (Stian Nygaard and Lars Coenen). The team will not divide the sectors between them but will work together on the case studies. The proposed research will also emphasise a connection to practice, through the empirical work involving industrial sectors and through the establishment of a reference group of both researchers and “innovation practitioners” in industry and policy in the case study sectors. Contacts have been initiated for this purpose but the group will be constituted at the inception of the project. For the international part of the project, the team has an existing network of partners for participating in this work (Preparations have been ongoing for some time.) However, the grant will not be deployed to finance our international partners. For new empirical work cofunding will be sought for those partners that need it However, several institutions in our existing network are already committed to and able to engage in the study without further concerns 7. References Ashford, N. (2004) Pathways to sustainability: evolution or revolution? Greening of policies interlinkages and policy integration, 2004 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, 34 December 2004. Berlin, Free University Blomström, M., Kokko, A. & Sjöholm, F. (2002) Growth and innovation policies for a knowledge economy: experiences from Finland Sweden, and Singapore, Stockholm, Stockholm School of Economics Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., Holmén, M & Rickne, A (2002) Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues. Research Policy 31, 233245 Dunn, W. N. (2003) Public policy analysis an introduction, Englewood Cliffs, PrenticeHall Edler, J., Kuhlmann, S. & Smits, R. (2003) New Governance for Innovation: The need for horizontal and systemic policy coordination, Karlsruhe, Fraunhofer ISI Måns Nilsson 6910264057 Sustainable Innovation Governance Bilaga A European Commission (2002) Communication from the Commission to the Spring European Council in Barcelona The Lisbon Strategy Making change happen COM(2002)14, Brussels, European Commission European Trendchart on Innovation (2005) 2005 European Innovation Scoreboard: comparative analysis of innovation performance, Brussels, European Commission Foxon, T., Makuch, Z., Mata, M & Pearson, P (2004) Towards a sustainable innovation policy institutional structures, stakeholder participation and mixes of policy instruments Greening of policies interlinkages and policy integration, 2004 Berlin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, 34 December 2004. Berlin, Free University Geels, F. (2005) Technological Transitions And System Innovations: A Coevolutionary And Sociotechnical Analysis, London, Edward Elgar Juma, C. & YeeCheong, L. (2005) Innovation: applying knowledge in development, London, Earthscan Kaijser, A. (2001) From tile stoves to nuclear plants the history of Swedish energy systems. IN Silveira, S (Ed.) Building sustainable energy systems: Swedish experiences. Stockholm, AB Svensk Byggtjänst and Swedish National Energy Administration Kemp, R., Schot, J & Hoogma, R (1998) Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 10, 175195 Kivimaa, P & Mickwitz, P (2006) The challenge of greening technologies environmental policy integration in Finnish technology policies. Research Policy, 35, 729744 Kok, M. T., Vermeulen, W. J. V., Faaij, A. P. C. & De Jager, D. (Eds.) (2002) Global Warming and Social Innovation, London, Earthscan Kokko, A. & Blomström, M. (2001) Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Spillovers Views on Japan and Asia Pacific. International Journal of Technology Management, 22, 435454 Lorenz, P. & Zinke, H. (2005) White Biotechnology: Differences in US and EU approaches? TRENDS in Biotechnology, 21, 570574 Lundqvist, L (2001) Implementation from Above: The Ecology of Power in Sweden's Environmental Governance. Governance, 14, 319337 March, J. & Olsen, J. (1989) Rediscovering institutions: the organizational basis of politics, New York, The Free Press Marklund, G., Nilsson, R., Sandgren, P., Thorslund, J. G. & Ullström, J. (2004) The Swedish National Innovation System 19702003: a quantitative international benchmarking analysis Stockholm, VINNOVA Moors, E. H. M. & Mulder, K. F. (2002) Industry in sustainable development: the contribution of regime changes to radical technical innovation in industry. International Journal of Technology Policy and Management, 2, 434454 Neij, L., Andersen, P D., Durstewitz, M., Helby, P., HoppeKilpper, M & Morthorst, P E (2003) Experience curves: a tool for energy policy assessment, Lund, Lund Institute of Technology, Environmental and Energy Systems Studies Nilsson, M. & Nilsson, L. J. (2005) Towards climate policy integration in the EU: evolving dilemmas and opportunities. Climate Policy, 5, 363376 NorbergBohn, V (1999) Stimulating 'green' technological innovation: an analysis of alternativ policy mechanisms. Policy Sciences, 32, 1338 North, D. C. (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Oecd (2005a) Governance of Innovation Systems, Vol. 2: Case Studies in Innovation Policy Paris, OECD Oecd (2005b) OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2005 Paris, OECD Pavitt, K. (1984) Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13, 343373 Pearson, P., Foxon, T., Makuch, Z. & Mata, M. (2004) ESRC Sustainable Technologies Programme Project Progress Report (End Year 1), London, Imperial College ESRC Sustainable Technologies Programme Måns Nilsson 6910264057 Sustainable Innovation Governance Bilaga A Pierre, J (2004) En samlad tillväxtpolitik? (A coherent growth policy?), Stockholm, Institutet för Tillväxtpolitiska studier Pierre, J. & Peters, G. (2006) Governing Complex Societies, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan Schot, J., Verbong, G., Geels, F., Green, K., Kemp, R., Elzen, B & Weber, M (2002) Transitions to Sustainability through system innovation, Eindhoven, Twente University Schumpeter, J. (1934) The theory of economic development, Cambridge, Harvard University Press Smith, A., Stirling, A. & Berkhout, F. (2005) The governance of sustainable sociotechnical transitions Research Policy, 34, 14911510 Steinmo, S., Thelen, K. & Longstreth, F. (Eds.) (1992) Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Thorslund, J G., Elg, L & Sandgren, P (2005) En lärande innovationspolitik (A learning innovation policy), Stockholm, Vinnova Tidd, J., Bessant, J & Pavitt, K (2005) Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change, 3rd Edition, New York, John Wiley Undp (2001) Human Development Report 2001, New York, Oxford University Press Weber, M., Hoogma, R., Lane, B. & Schot, J. (1999) Experimenting with sustainable transport innovations: a workbook for strategic niche management, Seville, IPTS 10