The Influence of Policy Mixes on Business Model Innovation for Sustainability - Eu-SPRI 2021
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The Influence of Policy Mixes on Business Model
Innovation for Sustainability
Mina Rezaeian1,* , Jonatan Pinkse1, John Rigby1
1
Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester,
Manchester, M15 6PB, UK
*mina.rezaeian@manchester.ac.uk
Introduction
The academic debate on sustainability transitions increasingly points to the role of policy mixes in
inducing technological innovations to influence the speed and direction of a change in socio-technical
systems. However, the role and impacts of policy mixes on the way firms innovate their business models
to better accommodate the uptake of sustainable technologies in mainstream markets is relatively
unexplored. Our main objective in this paper is to explore this question by conceptually analyzing how
and under what conditions policy mixes lead firms to innovate their business models to better
accommodate the uptake of sustainable technologies in mainstream markets. For this purpose, we first
characterize policy interventions as a policy mix and trace their impact on business model innovation.
Next, we develop a conceptual framework that explains how policy mixes modulate firms’ business
model innovation choices. Our framework zooms in on a set of firm-specific conditions – perception,
dynamic capability, and innovation barrier – as key transmitters of policy mix impacts on these choices.
Finally, we explain how different policy mix features stimulate firms to make business model
innovation choices that either put them on exploitative or on to explorative pathways in their sustainable
transition journeys. Our framework helps to articulate the underlying relations and tensions between
policy mixes and business model innovation and leads to a better understanding of the role of firms in
sustainability transitions.
Conceptual framework
In this section, we develop a conceptual framework to articulate and analyse the conditions under which
government policy mixes are most likely to lead to business model innovation. Figure 1 displays the
relationship between the different building blocks of policy mixes and firms’ approach to business
model innovation to accelerate transitions. Beginning with the building blocks of environmental policy
mixes and their specific features, we consider policy strategies (objective and principal plans), policy
purpose (technology push and market pull), Policy instruments (regulatory, economic, and
information), and design features (flexibility, stringency, and predictability) as a policy mix. Then, we
introduce a set of firm-specific conditions (perception, dynamic capability, and innovation barriers)
which influence how firms could manage their business models in response to policy changes. Based
on the impacts of policy mixes on these conditions, we show the different reconfigurations (innovations)
that could occur in firms’ business models. Our framework shows that the interplay between policy
mixes and business model innovation manifests as a complex choice between two separate pathways –
exploration and exploitation – each leading to specific firm responses.Figure 1. The interplay between policy mix and firms’ approach to business model innovation Policy mixes and exploitative and explorative pathways The policy mix influences firms’ perception, dynamic capabilities, and innovation barriers and can induce business model innovation. We argue that the combination of these elements in a policy mix should be tailored (according to business types and nature of technologies) to support specific business model innovation pathways. If current business models can accommodate new sustainable technologies and meet policy requirements, policy mixes’ building blocks should be designed to support firms to follow an exploitative pathway by supporting incremental changes of some business model elements to increase efficiency, reduce costs, and attract more customers. On the other hand, if existing business models do not allow accommodating new sustainable technologies and there is a need for a different way of doing business to meet policy goals (because current models are acting as a barrier to transitions), policy mixes should support explorative pathways by destabilising prevailing regimes and promoting breakthrough innovations. While all policy mix building blocks are needed to promote both exploitative and explorative pathways, they differ in their focus, levels of support and objectives. Although a long-term orientation of policy strategies is needed for both pathways, long-term certainty with minor changes in the regulatory system are more likely to support exploitation activities, while policy strategies for a massive transition and major change requirements are more likely to bring about exploration. The focus, goal, and design features of policy instruments should also be targeted to address specific innovation requirements. They must be directed in a way to help firms improve their operations, efficiency, and competitive advantage to support an exploitative pathway. Conversely, to accelerate an explorative pathway, policy instruments would have to focus more on destabilising prevailing socio-technical regimes. These instruments provide the ‘window of opportunity’ by facilitating favourable market conditions, delivering necessary knowledge-related support, and addressing innovation barriers. Policy mix design features also act in a different manner in promoting exploitative or explorative pathways. For example, levels of stringency influence how firms choose pathways. A high stringency level usually means a great level of ambition that asks for major changes and efforts to comply with policies and is more likely to bring about explorative changes to business models. In contrast, firms can comply with policies with low stringency by only making small and incremental changes to their business models. Although it has been argued that firms should manage both exploitative or explorative pathways simultaneously (Osterwalder et al., 2020), we posit that it will depend on an industry’s underlying
conditions how governments could best stimulate specific pathways to bring about a sustainability transition. The appropriateness of supporting exploitative or explorative business model innovation depends on whether firms in an industry perceive a policy mix as an opportunity or threat, to what extent they have the dynamic capabilities to change their existing business model, and which specific innovation barriers they face. In industries where there is much resistance to sustainability transitions, as firms mainly deploy unsustainable technologies, policy mixes should first focus on supporting an explorative pathway for business model innovation. Sustainable technologies often stay in the niche due to insufficient evidence for their commercial potential, raising doubt about their chance of survival in mainstream markets. By creating incentives to explore the viability of new business models for sustainable technologies, the government can support the launch of new ventures by start-ups or incumbents that create variety in the market (Hockerts and Wüstenhagen, 2010). Only once there is sufficient accumulation of their commercial potential as part of mainstream markets, the government can support scaling up such business models and support firms in doing so through exploitation activities to improve efficiency and maximise potential (Schaltegger et al., 2016). In industries where sustainable technologies have already reached a maturity and there is less conflict with existing business models, the policy mix should instead be tailored to exploitation more swiftly. Here it is no longer an issue of insufficient market evidence but rather a need for a strong signal to scale up sustainable technologies and accelerate the sustainability transition. Notably, supporting explorative business model innovation in such industries might be counterproductive to a transition as it keeps creating variety, while what is needed is convergence to a new dominant business model for the industry. As the underlying conditions in an industry that support or hinder the uptake of sustainable technologies tend to change over time, policy mixes will have to change accordingly, leading to alternating exploitative and explorative pathways in the transitioning to sustainability. Conclusion In this paper, we present a conceptual framework that shows how combinations of different policy instruments with certain features and objectives (that is, policy mixes) need to come together and affect non-technological innovations for the purpose of transitioning towards a more sustainable future. We focus specifically on business model innovation and propose that policy mixes modulate firms’ business model innovation choices through a set of firm-specific conditions. These conditions help articulate the circumstances under which policy mixes stimulate firms to choose between two business model innovation pathways – exploitative or explorative – on their sustainable transition journeys. This paper contributes to the emerging literature streams on policy mixes, sustainability transitions and business model innovation. While an emerging body of literature analyses sustainability transitions and business models, it focuses on a macro level (Bidmon and Knab, 2018, Bolton and Hannon, 2016). Our framework helps conceptualise and investigate the micro foundations under which conditions transitions happen and the role of business model innovation in this process. We, too, contribute to the policy mix literature (Edmondson et al., 2018, Flanagan et al., 2011, Rogge and Reichardt, 2016) by focusing on business model innovation as a necessity in sustainability transitions. We argue that analysing the impacts of environmental policy mixes is complicated and needs to go beyond the impact on technological innovation alone. Through closer scrutiny of firm-specific conditions, we highlight how policy mixes affect firms’ approaches and rationales for innovating their business model or failing to do so. The paper also contributes to management and innovation literature (Chesbrough, 2010, Teece et al., 1997) by highlighting the exploitative and explorative approaches towards business model as a response to environmental policy mixes. While exploitation and exploration are usually considered in
the context of technological innovation, we show how this dichotomy also helps getting a better
understanding of business model innovation and sustainability transitions.
Although current policy mixes tend to be created in a ‘layering process’, whereby new policies are
simply added to existing ones in an unsystematic, random way (Sewerin, 2020), our framework suggests
that policymakers should consider consciously designing future policies and gradually modify existing
policy mixes or remodel and replace them to accelerate transitions. This paper underscores specific
considerations for firms’ successful transitions on a micro level and systematise transition challenges
while operationalising potential solutions. Further research is needed to provide empirical evidence for
the proposed relations between different qualifications of policy mix building blocks and firms’
approach to business model innovation by focusing on various industries with different technology
maturity levels. Several questions remain. We hope that the insights generated from this paper will serve
as valuable contributions to both policymakers and managers alike to mobilise necessary resources to
accelerate sustainability transitions more efficiently.
References
BIDMON, C. M. & KNAB, S. F. 2018. The three roles of business models in societal transitions: New
linkages between business model and transition research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 178,
903-916.
BOLTON, R. & HANNON, M. 2016. Governing sustainability transitions through business model
innovation: Towards a systems understanding. Research policy, 45, 1731-1742.
CHESBROUGH, H. 2010. Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long range
planning, 43, 354-363.
EDMONDSON, D. L., KERN, F. & ROGGE, K. S. 2018. The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-
technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability
transitions. Research Policy.
FLANAGAN, K., UYARRA, E. & LARANJA, M. 2011. Reconceptualising the ‘policy mix’for
innovation. Research policy, 40, 702-713.
HOCKERTS, K. & WÜSTENHAGEN, R. 2010. Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids—
Theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship.
Journal of business venturing, 25, 481-492.
OSTERWALDER, A., PIGNEUR, Y., SMITH, A. & ETIEMBLE, F. 2020. The Invincible Company:
How to Constantly Reinvent Your Organization with Inspiration From the World's Best
Business Models, John Wiley & Sons.
ROGGE, K. S. & REICHARDT, K. 2016. Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended
concept and framework for analysis. Research Policy, 45, 1620-1635.
SCHALTEGGER, S., LÜDEKE-FREUND, F. & HANSEN, E. G. 2016. Business models for
sustainability: A co-evolutionary analysis of sustainable entrepreneurship, innovation, and
transformation. Organization & Environment, 29, 264-289.
SEWERIN, S. 2020. Understanding complex policy mixes: conceptual and empirical challenges. A
Modern Guide to Public Policy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
TEECE, D. J., PISANO, G. & SHUEN, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.
Strategic management journal, 18, 509-533.Extended abstract EU-SPRI 2021 conference – Track 17
Sustainability Transition in Manufacturing: The Role of Incumbents and Newcomers
and how they use IPR to Contribute to Sustainable Manufacturing
Introduction
Reaching the goal of reaching net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050 requires rapid decarbonizing of
all economic sectors, including manufacturing (Rockström et al., 2017) Along with deliberate
social change, carbon roadmaps and pathways call for innovation to phase out emission
intensive technologies and products (Geels, 2019; O’Brien, 2018). Within the innovation
system in manufacturing industries, incumbents and newcomers are two main groups of actors
that play a key role for innovating and diffusing sustainable innovations. Newcomers such as
startups and businesses that enter a new market are found to be more promising for providing
radical solutions that contribute to sustainability transition than incumbents. Established firms
by definition of historically having invested and built unsustainable manufacturing practices
and infrastructure, are associated with incremental and slow improvements towards
sustainability.
While the market disruption argument proposes new entrants are best at bringing
sustainable innovations in the market, current evidence suggests that incumbents as well
actively develop sustainable technologies and products, including recycling, and resource
efficiency solutions, in some instances to a larger extent than smaller new entrants, or by
purchasing and in-licensing IPR and acquiring startups (Turheim & Geels, 2019; Wang et al.,
2018; Garcia-Granero et al., 2019). Larger manufacturing firms are argued to have a higher
ability to bring sustainability to the market because adopting new, sustainable manufacturing
technologies require significant capital investments in production facilities and R&D
infrastructure (Lee et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2019).
The intellectual property right (IPR) systems – in particular the patent system – are
sometimes considered as a means that incumbent exploit for their own benefits, rather than for
societal benefits to manifest their positions: For instance, some build patent fences, sign cross-
license agreements to increase entry barriers for new entrants (Hall & Helmers, 2013; Chung
et al., 2019). Some research results indicate that the patent system particularly supports
resource-strong companies (Libaers et al., 2016), discriminating small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs) including startups who are facing resource and capability constraints
(Audretsch et al., 2020). Research on strategic use of IPR highlight its importance for inventors
including SMEs to enabling recoup R&D investments by internal use (Holgersson and Wallin,
2017), and in collaborations with strategic partners (Kim and Vonortas, 2006; Pisano & Teece,
2007). In particular, the trust building mechanism of IPR assets may attract investments (Oh &
Matsuoka, 2016).
Research Questions and Objective
Acknowledging IPR as a factor in a complex interplay of reasons why sustainable solutions
can diffuse in manufacturing, and both the importance of new entrants and incumbents in
sustainability transition, we pose the following research question:RQ 1: How do new entrants and incumbents use IPR for developing and diffusing
sustainable manufacturing solutions?
RQ 2: What are their motives to utilize IPR in a certain way (e.g. keeping trade secrets,
internal use of IPR, restricted sharing, or open sharing)?
These questions guide our investigation of businesses to contribute to the debate on IPR-related
factors that promote and inhibit sustainability transitions.
Methodological Approach:
With use a qualitative, comparative case analysis, investigating 20 incumbents and newcomers
from different manufacturing sectors with the majority being newcomers. The data was
collected during 2020 including interviews with case representatives, publicly available
business information such as sustainability reports, IPR registries, media coverage, if available
financial data for shareholder, and internal documents such as collaboration and licensing
agreements, and sustainability reporting. For the semi-structured interviews, we used interview
guidelines and templates for IPR aspects, the business history and profile including the business
model, and sustainability impact. The templates guided the discussion to reveal possible
connections and effects of IPR in relation to the business model and the sustainability impact.
Preliminary Results
Based on our set of cases, we do have evidence that suggest novel approaches at new entrants
to share IPR more openly, when competing incumbents and startups are not classified as
competing for market share, but rather as stakeholders to jointly improve the sector towards
sustainability. By employing an open sharing approach for IPR and knowledge, also a specific
sustainability –oriented customer segment is addressed that sees open sharing as a core value
to achieve a more sustainable world. When being financed by social business investors, IPR
sharing serves as well as a means to demonstrate that the business is trying to maximize
sustainability impact with all their assets and activities. This approach of open sharing as a core
value is also confirmed by an incumbent that was founded fifty years ago already with the
mission to manufacture products in such a way, that neither operations nor products harm the
environment. However, this business never grew out of the SME status.
When startups provide sustainable solutions but compete with incumbents and other
new entrants, they have a tendency to use IPR internally and for selected, strategic partnerships
to gain competitive advantage. In many instances, they do not patent but keep their knowledge
as trade secrets. They do follow a traditional growth trajectory for startups, increasing their
value with keeping IPR proprietary and once grown, being purchased by less sustainable
incumbents. Some new entrants and startups alike suggested a willingness to share their IPR
including IP which is neither formally protected as patents, thus, revealed, nor available in
reports or other knowledge sources. They explained that they would share and license, if
someone asks them with serious intentions.
Incumbents that are turning sustainable in our set of cases follow their path of using
IPR internally and for strategic partnerships, sometimes, when operating in low-tech fields,
sharing their solutions with competitors after a head-start of several months. This is being done
for image reasons, being able to claim to be innovative. We also found that when the IPR isoutside of their core business for making profit, but relates to social impact activities, they are
more willing to openly share their IPR.
Conclusion and Policy Issues
The evidence so far on the role of incumbent firms vs newcomers raises the question
on the nature and characteristics of collaboration modes best suited to drive sustainability
transitions in manufacturing, and how IPR systems should be designed to support this. While
the argument for competition always favors a level playing field where the ‘best’ solution wins,
research on sustainability transition calls for environmental policy to guide the winning
solution towards grand challenges. The innovation incentive argument calls for IPR to provide
incentives for innovation and granting some exclusivity in commercial exploitation for a
certain period. We found, that new entrants with resource and capability constraints to register
and defend patents chose to keep their knowledge secret. With patenting, at least some details
of the invention is shared with others as a kind of open technology data repository. However,
some expressed willingness to share their IPR, but claimed that no one has asked so far. This
could be read as an indicator of the licensing market dysfunction. New entrants that are aware
of the possibilities to use IPR to increase impact use strategic open sharing approaches, for
signaling an impactful approach to customers and social business investors, but also to the key
stakeholders for sustainability transition in their sector – their direct competitors.
The findings call for better policy support and awareness of various IPR sharing
approaches and their benefits and specifics. Standard licensing schemes for sustainability
licensing might be helpful to overcome information biases. Important avenues for research are
innovative mechanisms and policy actions to facilitate early IP transfer to increase the adoption
of sustainable technologies amongst competitors, hence, to increase the speed for cumulative
technology improvements. More specifically, the best way to facilitate increased willingness
to share, e.g. to license, amongst competitors (incumbents and newcomers) in order to increase
diffusion of sustainable products and technologies, requires further exploration.
References:
Audretsch D, Colombelli A, Grilli L, Minola T, Rasmussen E: Innovative start-ups and
policy initiatives. Res Policy Published online July 8, 2020:104027.
doi:10.1016/j.respol.2020.104027
Chung J, Lorenz A, Somaya D: Dealing with intellectual property (IP) landmines: Defensive
measures to address the problem of IP access. Res Policy 2019, 48:103828.
doi:10.1016/j.respol.2019.103828
García-Granero EM, Piedra-Muñoz L, Galdeano-Gómez E: Multidimensional Assessment of
Eco-Innovation Implementation: Evidence from Spanish Agri-Food Sector. Int J Environ Res
Pub H 2020, 17:1432. doi:10.3390/ijerph17041432
Geels, Frank W. Socio-Technical Transitions to Sustainability: A Review of Criticisms and
Elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective. Curr Opin Environ Sustain, 2019, 39: 187–201.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.009.Hall BH, Helmers C: Innovation and diffusion of clean/green technology: Can patent commons help? J Environ Econ Manag 2013, 66:33-51. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2012.12.008 Holgersson M, Wallin MW, The patent management trichotomy: patenting, publishing, and secrecy. Man Dec, 2017, 55:1087–1099. Kim Y, Vonortas, NS. Determinants of technology licensing: the case of licensors. Managerial and Decision Economics, 2006, 27:235-249. Lee H-T, Song J-H, Min S-H, et al.: Research Trends in Sustainable Manufacturing: A Review and Future Perspective based on Research Databases. Int J of Precis Eng and Manuf- Green Tech 2019, 6(4):809-819. doi:10.1007/s40684-019-00113-5 Libaers D, Hicks D, Porter A: A taxonomy of small firm technology commercialization. Ind Corp Change 2016, 25:371-405. doi:10.1093/icc/dtq039 Lin W-L, Cheah J-H, Azali M, Ho JA, Yip N: Does firm size matter? Evidence on the impact of the green innovation strategy on corporate financial performance in the automotive sector. J Clean Prod 2019, 229:974-988. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.214 O’Brien, Karen. Is the 1.5°C Target Possible? Exploring the Three Spheres of Transformation. Current Opinion Environ Sustain, 2018, 31: 153–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.04.010. Oh C, Matsuoka S: Complementary approaches to discursive contestation on the effects of the IPR regime on technology transfer in the face of climate change. J Clean Prod 2016, 128:168-177. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.050 Pisano GP, Teece DJ. How to Capture Value from Innovation: Shaping Intellectual Property and Industry Architecture. Calif Manag Rev 2007, 50: 278–296. Rockström J, Gaffney O, Rogelj J, Meinshausen M, Nakicenovic N, Schellnhuber HJ: A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science 2017, 355:1269-1271. Turnheim B, Geels FW: Incumbent actors, guided search paths, and landmark projects in infra-system transitions: Re-thinking Strategic Niche Management with a case study of French tramway diffusion (1971–2016). Res Policy 2019, 48:1412-1428. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2019.02.002 Wang J, Zhang Y, Goh M: Moderating the Role of Firm Size in Sustainable Performance Improvement through Sustainable Supply Chain Management. Sustainability 2018, 10:1654. doi:10.3390/su10051654
Title: How can a social entrepreneurial organisation mitigate barriers
for collaboration and nurture responsible innovations in the food
value chain?
Authors:
- Ellen-Marie Forsberg, NORSUS Norwegian Institute for Sustainability Research
- Nhat Strøm-Andersen, University of Oslo, Centre for Technology, Innovation and
Culture
- Markus Bugge, University of Oslo, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture
- Aina Elstad Stensgård, NORSUS Norwegian Institute for Sustainability Research
- Andreas Brekke, NORSUS Norwegian Institute for Sustainability Research
Contribution to track 18 The role of social entrepreneurship in orienting innovation policies towards
societal challenges at the Eu-SPRI conference 2021
Abstract for full paper:
Food waste is universally agreed as an environmental, social, and economic problem (FAO
2013, Thyberg & Tonjes 2016). Food waste reduction requires action at all levels in the food
value chain (FAO 2019): the consumer level, company level and the level of governmental and
non-governmental institutions that contribute to regulating the system. As part of the new
pervasive focus on the Sustainable Development Goals, companies are increasingly working
to reduce their food waste, either through more effective handling of waste that is produced
or by prevention of waste generation in the first place. However, reduction of food waste
cannot depend on individual companies’ actions alone, as this might simply shift the surplus
of food from one to other parts of the food value chain. Rather, to prevent food waste
effectively, a systemic approach and collaborative innovation, including technological, social,
process and market innovations, in the food value chain are required (Dahabieh et al. 2018).
However, such collaborative innovations can often generate new uncertainties related to
potential for economic loss, lack of consumer acceptance, uneven distribution of burdens and
benefits across the food value chain, potential weakening of a company’s competitive
situation, etc. (Reardon et al. 2017, Zilberman et al. 2017).
Food waste innovations in the food value chain is an interesting topic for highlighting
aspects of Responsible Innovation (RI) or Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) that are
not usually addressed (Owen et al. 2012, von Schomberg 2012). RRI can be conceptualised as
research and innovation that 1) has a specific focus on addressing significant societal needs
and challenges; 2) actively engages and responds to a range of stakeholders; 3) anticipates
potential problems, identifies alternatives and reflects on underlying values; and 4) acts and
adapts according to 1–3 (Wickson & Forsberg 2015). To date the RRI agenda has primarily
been oriented towards responsible research, whereas responsible innovation is so far
secondary. Moreover, in many cases, RI/RRI implies to curb innovative actions that create new
scientific uncertainties and value conflicts, especially related to emerging technologies (see
e.g., Stilgoe 2016). In contrast, when addressing collaborative innovations across diverse
societal stakeholders to reduce food waste, we see uncertain innovations as desirable – andindeed necessary - for the food value chain to become more responsible and sustainable. As
reducing food waste is an important societal goal, it would be irresponsible not to engage in
innovation.
Social entrepreneurs are often seen to play an important role in realising radical and
societal change (Fagerberg 2018, Leadbeater 2018). In responsible research and innovation
these types of actors often function as intermediary organisations, especially vis-à-vis small
and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Arnaldi & Neresini (2019) explain how intermediary
organisations are necessary to realise RRI in the Italian industrial sector, and this will also be
the case for all industrial sectors consisting mostly of SMEs – such as the food value chain in
many countries.
Social entrepreneurship is seen as an “innovative, social value creating activity that
can occur within or across the non-profit, business, or government sectors” (Austin et al. 2006,
2). The social value embraces basic and long-standing needs of society (Certo & Miller 2008).
Thus, social entrepreneurs should have an astute discernment of such social needs, and then
fulfil these needs through innovative entrepreneurial activities (Certo & Miller 2008). They
need to have an ability to recognize, evaluate, and exploit presented problems (and
opportunities) that may, in turn, result in social values (Certo & Miller 2008). In the case of
food waste, social entrepreneurs can contribute with innovative and responsible solutions that
help prevent and reduce food waste.
The BREAD project1 aims to provide a comprehensive diagnosis of food waste in order
to unlock capacities for responsible innovation in the Norwegian food sector. It will do so by
exploring existing European regulation to stimulate policy innovation and expand
experimental governance in Norway’s food sector; promoting the integration of RRI and CSR
through ‘best practices’ at the company level; working out innovative solutions to food waste
by involving citizens in reflecting on the societal responsibility of food sector companies as
well as consumers; and initiating a broad and lasting learning process across levels, opening
up a broader reflection and scrutiny of assumptions and values, gathering insights from the
project to theorize the possible drivers of responsible innovation in the food sector. The social
entrepreneurial organisation included in the BREAD project, Matvett, is an institutionalized
partnership platform that was established in 2012 for the purpose of food waste reduction and
led by representatives of the Food and Drink section of the Confederation of Norwegian
Enterprise (NHO), the Norwegian Grocery Sector’s Environmental Forum (DMF), the Grocery
Producers of Norway (DLF), and the Norwegian Packaging Association. The partnership
platform is in itself a responsible innovation, but further collaborative actions for responsible
innovation will be developed in the project, partly through the engagement of Matvett.
In this paper, we aim to answer the overall research question: How can a social
entrepreneurial organisation mitigate barriers for collaboration and nurture responsible innovations in
the food value chain? In the paper, we will present preliminary results from four activities in the
BREAD project: a literature review, a national survey targeting food industry companies in
Norway, a workshop with Norwegian food companies, and an interview study with 10
1
Funded by the Research Council of Norway, grant no 299 337.companies from different parts of the Norwegian food value chain. The results from the
analyses will be relevant for further policy formation on food waste reduction, as well as for
outlining research and innovation priorities for public research and innovation programs og
projects, as well as for private sector R&D. They will also inform Matvett’s future strategies as
an important intermediary organisation in the Norwegian food system.
As a theoretical contribution, we explore how risks and benefits of sharing among
actors in the value chain lead to further development of the concept of responsible innovation,
especially related to the collaborative and systemic characteristics of responsible innovation.
We also build on the previous work on the role of intermediary organisations for stimulating
responsible innovation, with a specific focus here on social entrepreneurial organisations.
References:
Arnaldi, S., & Neresini, F. 2019. "The role of intermediary organizations in the mainstreaming of
Responsible Research and Innovation in the Italian industrial sector." Journal of Responsible
Innovation 6 (3):361–367. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2019.1608616.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei–Skillern, J. 2006. "Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same,
different, or both?" Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 30 (1):1–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-
6520.2006.00107.x.
Certo, S.T., & Miller, T. 2008. "Social entrepreneurship: Key issues and concepts." Business Horizons 51
(4):267–271. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2008.02.009.
Dahabieh, M.S., Bröring, S., & Maine, E. 2018. "Overcoming barriers to innovation in food and
agricultural biotechnology." Trends in Food Science & Technology 79:204–213. doi:
10.1016/j.tifs.2018.07.004.
Fagerberg, J. 2018. "Mobilizing innovation for sustainability transitions: A comment on transformative
innovation policy." Research Policy.
FAO. 2013. Food wastage footprint: Impacts on natural resources — Summary report. FAO Rome, Italy.
FAO. 2019. The state of food and agriculture 2019. Moving forward on food loss and waste reduction.
In The State of the World. Rome: FAO.
Leadbeater, C. 2018. "Postscript: movements with missions make markets." Industrial and Corporate
Change 27 (5):937–942. doi: 10.1093/icc/dty033.
Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. 2012. "Responsible research and innovation: From science in
society to science for society, with society." Science and Public Policy 39 (6):751–760. doi:
10.1093/scipol/scs093.Reardon, T., Lu, L., & Zilberman, D. 2017. "Links among innovation, food system transformation, and
technology adoption, with implications for food policy: Overview of a special issue." Food
Policy. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.10.003.
Stilgoe, J. 2016. "Geoengineering as Collective Experimentation." Science and Engineering Ethics 22
(3):851–869. doi: 10.1007/s11948-015-9646-0.
Thyberg, K.L., & Tonjes, D.J. 2016. "Drivers of food waste and their implications for sustainable policy
development." Resources, Conservation & Recycling 106:110–123. doi:
10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.11.016.
von Schomberg, R. 2012. "Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research
and innovation." In Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren, edited by Marc Dusseldorp and Richard
Beecroft, 39–61. Springer.
Wickson, F., & Forsberg, E.M. 2015. "Standardising Responsibility? The Significance of Interstitial
Spaces." Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (5):1159–1180. doi: 10.1007/s11948-014-9602-4.
Zilberman, D., Lu, L., & Reardon, T. 2017. "Innovation-induced food supply chain design." Food Policy.
doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.03.010.You can also read
