Måns Nilsson 691026-4057 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 knowledge-based 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 on-going. 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.4 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
economic growth has more and more become a quest for cutting-edge 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
1
Stockholm Environment Institute, Box 2142, 10314 Stockholm, Sweden, email: mans.nilsson@sei.se
Lund University, CIRCLE, Dahmen Institute and IMIT
3
Stockholm School of Economics, International Institute of Business
2
4
The application of the innovation research agenda to the developing world is just emerging with some generic first steps Juma, C.
& Yee-Cheong, 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 Sida-funded programme led by SEI for
establishing a research and policy network in Africa on Africa’s potential as an innovative and competitive “bio-resource economy”.
1
Måns Nilsson 691026-4057 Sustainable Innovation Governance Bilaga A
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 knowledge-based 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. (Norberg-Bohn, 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, non-renewable 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 on-going5 (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 context-specific 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 out-dated “linear-hierarchical” 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 down-stream
adoption and learning, public-private 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 “socio-technical” 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
step in the innovation process. Following a technology “learning curve”, in the take-off 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 objectives-driven innovation governance as: a) the formulation of a clear
long term vision and goals; b) understanding of innovation as systemic processes c) advancing the
5
Such as in the EU: Sustainable transformation network: http://www.sustainable-transformation.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/.
2
Måns Nilsson 691026-4057 Sustainable Innovation Governance Bilaga A
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 in-depth analysis of real-world 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 Sweden-anchored
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 technology-systems approach which focus on the study of a
technology-specified 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 policy-analytic 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 social-science 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
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
3
Måns Nilsson 691026-4057 Sustainable Innovation Governance Bilaga A
institutions in the governance of sustainable innovations. This study embraces the nowadays mainstream
understanding of institutions and the well-established 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 state-interventionist approach and a laissez-faire
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 neo-classical 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 co-ordination 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 top-down decisionmaking to a network relationship with horizontal interactions shaping decision-making (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 co-ordination through formal and informal public-private
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
1. 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 do niches bring about transformation on a wider scale? Which scale connections are
vital to success?
o In what ways do substantive environmental issue characteristics influence the innovation
process, including socio-political conflict, ideology, uncertainty, and possibility to resolve
through technology?
2. In what ways do policies and state-led 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?
4
Måns Nilsson 691026-4057 Sustainable Innovation Governance Bilaga A
o
What institutional structures and procedures can facilitate a more effective process of
sustainable innovation at different levels and in different socio-technological 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 fast-moving 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 co-evolution 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 case-specifically (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, decision-making, 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.
Figure 1: Simplified account of analytical framework for sustainable innovation governance
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
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)
5
Måns Nilsson 691026-4057 Sustainable Innovation Governance Bilaga A
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
innovation-systems governance. A simple “input-output” 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
Preconditions
Pc1
Pc2
...
Pci
Unforeseens
Un1
Un 2
...
Un i
Impacts
E1
E2
...
Ei
Case studies
We acknowledge that innovation policy “one-size-fits-all” 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 in-depth 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
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 bio-fuels, natural gas and hydrogen has
6
Måns Nilsson 691026-4057 Sustainable Innovation Governance Bilaga A
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 bio-fuels, both on the supply side of fuel as well as in bio-fuel vehicles. Bio-fuel
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 end-users, 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 bio-based 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 science-intensive 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 chlorine-free 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 resource-driven and
traditional production-intensive 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
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 2009-August 2010
We plan to launch an international multi-authored book on our finding at the end of the project (2010) and to
prepare 5-6 international journal publications, including:
 one on comparative framework with illustrative cases (2008)
 three in-depth 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
7
Måns Nilsson 691026-4057 Sustainable Innovation Governance Bilaga A
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 post-doc 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 on-going for some time.) However, the grant will not be deployed to finance our
international partners. For new empirical work co-funding 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, 3-4 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, 233-245
Dunn, W. N. (2003) Public policy analysis - an introduction, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall
Edler, J., Kuhlmann, S. & Smits, R. (2003) New Governance for Innovation: The need for horizontal and
systemic policy co-ordination, Karlsruhe, Fraunhofer ISI
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, 3-4 December 2004. Berlin, Free University
Geels, F. (2005) Technological Transitions And System Innovations: A Co-evolutionary And Socio-technical
Analysis, London, Edward Elgar
Juma, C. & Yee-Cheong, 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, 175-195
Kivimaa, P. & Mickwitz, P. (2006) The challenge of greening technologies - environmental policy
integration in Finnish technology policies. Research Policy, 35, 729-744
8
Måns Nilsson 691026-4057 Sustainable Innovation Governance Bilaga A
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, 435-454
Lorenz, P. & Zinke, H. (2005) White Biotechnology: Differences in US and EU approaches? TRENDS in
Biotechnology, 21, 570-574
Lundqvist, L. (2001) Implementation from Above: The Ecology of Power in Sweden's Environmental
Governance. Governance, 14, 319-337
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 1970-2003: 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, 434-454
Neij, L., Andersen, P. D., Durstewitz, M., Helby, P., Hoppe-Kilpper, 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, 363-376
Norberg-Bohn, V. (1999) Stimulating 'green' technological innovation: an analysis of alternativ policy
mechanisms. Policy Sciences, 32, 13-38
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, 343-373
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
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 socio-technical transitions.
Research Policy, 34, 1491-1510
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
9