IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v142y2020ics030142152030224x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Green innovations: The organizational setup of pilot projects and its influence on consumer perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Grimm, Veronika
  • Kretschmer, Sandra
  • Mehl, Simon

Abstract

Pilot-, test- and demonstration-projects (PTDs) are a prominent policy tool to promote the adoption of smart, green technologies. However, as technology adoption is heavily dependent on the individual attributes and beliefs of potential adopters, it is important to understand the influence of a PTD's organizational setup on technology perception. By varying the information about a PTD's organizational setup in a survey experiment among a selected sample of potential PTD-participants, we gather first experimental evidence for the effect of different setups on the perception of green technologies. We show that the organizational setup has a significant impact on a product's perceived contribution to the energy transition, its establishment in the market, cost-reduction potential, innovativeness and environmental friendliness. In particular, full organizational cooperation between government, university and industry consistently improves perceptions compared to a partial setup. Regarding the willingness to participate in a PTD, we find that communication and support are the most imperative aspects and even more important than economic benefits. Our findings provide policy-makers with a more ample foundation on how PTDs should be designed to successfully transfer technologies to the market.

Suggested Citation

  • Grimm, Veronika & Kretschmer, Sandra & Mehl, Simon, 2020. "Green innovations: The organizational setup of pilot projects and its influence on consumer perceptions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:142:y:2020:i:c:s030142152030224x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111474
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142152030224X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111474?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hendry, Chris & Harborne, Paul & Brown, James, 2010. "So what do innovating companies really get from publicly funded demonstration projects and trials? innovation lessons from solar photovoltaics and wind," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4507-4519, August.
    2. Mullinix, Kevin J. & Leeper, Thomas J. & Druckman, James N. & Freese, Jeremy, 2015. "The Generalizability of Survey Experiments," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 109-138, January.
    3. Philippe Aghion & Mathias Dewatripont & Jeremy C. Stein, 2008. "Academic freedom, private‐sector focus, and the process of innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(3), pages 617-635, September.
    4. Mary J. Benner & Mary Tripsas, 2012. "The influence of prior industry affiliation on framing in nascent industries: the evolution of digital cameras," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 277-302, March.
    5. Bossink, Bart A.G., 2017. "Demonstrating sustainable energy: A review based model of sustainable energy demonstration projects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1349-1362.
    6. Verhees, Bram & Raven, Rob & Veraart, Frank & Smith, Adrian & Kern, Florian, 2013. "The development of solar PV in The Netherlands: A case of survival in unfriendly contexts," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 275-289.
    7. Gangale, Flavia & Mengolini, Anna & Onyeji, Ijeoma, 2013. "Consumer engagement: An insight from smart grid projects in Europe," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 621-628.
    8. Kaplan, Sarah & Tripsas, Mary, 2008. "Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 790-805, June.
    9. Yael Parag & Benjamin K. Sovacool, 2016. "Electricity market design for the prosumer era," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 1(4), pages 1-6, April.
    10. Faiers, Adam & Cook, Matt & Neame, Charles, 2007. "Towards a contemporary approach for understanding consumer behaviour in the context of domestic energy use," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 4381-4390, August.
    11. Sorrell, Steve & Dimitropoulos, John, 2008. "The rebound effect: Microeconomic definitions, limitations and extensions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 636-649, April.
    12. Johan Schot & Laur Kanger & Geert Verbong, 2016. "The roles of users in shaping transitions to new energy systems," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 1(5), pages 1-7, May.
    13. Sarah Kaplan, 2008. "Framing Contests: Strategy Making Under Uncertainty," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(5), pages 729-752, October.
    14. Stefan Wager & Susan Athey, 2018. "Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Random Forests," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 113(523), pages 1228-1242, July.
    15. Hoffman, Steven M. & High-Pippert, Angela, 2010. "From private lives to collective action: Recruitment and participation incentives for a community energy program," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(12), pages 7567-7574, December.
    16. Zhao, Zhen-Yu & Chen, Yu-Long & Chang, Rui-Dong, 2016. "How to stimulate renewable energy power generation effectively? – China's incentive approaches and lessons," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 147-156.
    17. Fred D. Davis & Richard P. Bagozzi & Paul R. Warshaw, 1989. "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(8), pages 982-1003, August.
    18. Huang, Shihping Kevin & Kuo, Lopin & Chou, Kuei-Lan, 2018. "The impacts of government policies on green utilization diffusion and social benefits – A case study of electric motorcycles in Taiwan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 473-486.
    19. Lund, Henrik & Østergaard, Poul Alberg & Connolly, David & Mathiesen, Brian Vad, 2017. "Smart energy and smart energy systems," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 556-565.
    20. Raven, Rob, 2007. "Niche accumulation and hybridisation strategies in transition processes towards a sustainable energy system: An assessment of differences and pitfalls," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 2390-2400, April.
    21. Joep P. Cornelissen & Jean Clarke, 2010. "Imagining and rationalizing opportunities : Inductive reasoning and the creation and justification of new ventures," Post-Print hal-02276730, HAL.
    22. A. Greening, Lorna & Greene, David L. & Difiglio, Carmen, 2000. "Energy efficiency and consumption -- the rebound effect -- a survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(6-7), pages 389-401, June.
    23. Franke, Thomas & Krems, Josef F., 2013. "What drives range preferences in electric vehicle users?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 56-62.
    24. James P. Walsh, 1995. "Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Notes from a Trip Down Memory Lane," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 280-321, June.
    25. Hellsmark, Hans & Jacobsson, Staffan, 2012. "Realising the potential of gasified biomass in the European Union—Policy challenges in moving from demonstration plants to a larger scale diffusion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 507-518.
    26. Zeng, Zheng & Zhao, Rongxiang & Yang, Huan & Tang, Shengqing, 2014. "Policies and demonstrations of micro-grids in China: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 701-718.
    27. Gary C. Moore & Izak Benbasat, 1991. "Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 192-222, September.
    28. Druckman, James N. & Green, Donald P. & Kuklinski, James H. & Lupia, Arthur, 2006. "The Growth and Development of Experimental Research in Political Science," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 100(4), pages 627-635, November.
    29. Jochen Markard, 2018. "The next phase of the energy transition and its implications for research and policy," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 3(8), pages 628-633, August.
    30. Haase, Rachel & Bielicki, Jeffrey & Kuzma, Jennifer, 2013. "Innovation in emerging energy technologies: A case study analysis to inform the path forward for algal biofuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1595-1607.
    31. Girod, Bastien & Mayer, Sebastian & Nägele, Florian, 2017. "Economic versus belief-based models: Shedding light on the adoption of novel green technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 415-426.
    32. Neij, Lena & Heiskanen, Eva & Strupeit, Lars, 2017. "The deployment of new energy technologies and the need for local learning," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 274-283.
    33. Sarah Kaplan, 2011. "Research in Cognition and Strategy: Reflections on Two Decades of Progress and a Look to the Future," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(3), pages 665-695, May.
    34. Jensen, Anders Fjendbo & Mabit, Stefan Lindhard, 2017. "The use of electric vehicles: A case study on adding an electric car to a household," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 89-99.
    35. Joep P. Cornelissen & Jean Clarke, 2010. "Imagining and rationalizing opportunities : Inductive reasoning and the creation and justification of new ventures," Post-Print hal-02312342, HAL.
    36. Noll, Daniel & Dawes, Colleen & Rai, Varun, 2014. "Solar Community Organizations and active peer effects in the adoption of residential PV," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 330-343.
    37. Anna S. Cui & Fang Wu, 2016. "Utilizing customer knowledge in innovation: antecedents and impact of customer involvement on new product performance," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 516-538, July.
    38. Kivimaa, Paula & Kern, Florian, 2016. "Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 205-217.
    39. Rai, Varun & Reeves, D. Cale & Margolis, Robert, 2016. "Overcoming barriers and uncertainties in the adoption of residential solar PV," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 498-505.
    40. Harborne, Paul & Hendry, Chris, 2009. "Pathways to commercial wind power in the US, Europe and Japan: The role of demonstration projects and field trials in the innovation process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 3580-3595, September.
    41. Hellsmark, Hans & Frishammar, Johan & Söderholm, Patrik & Ylinenpää, Håkan, 2016. "The role of pilot and demonstration plants in technology development and innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1743-1761.
    42. Karakaya, Emrah & Hidalgo, Antonio & Nuur, Cali, 2015. "Motivators for adoption of photovoltaic systems at grid parity: A case study from Southern Germany," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 1090-1098.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Núria Sánchez-Pantoja & Rosario Vidal & M. Carmen Pastor, 2021. "EU-Funded Projects with Actual Implementation of Renewable Energies in Cities. Analysis of Their Concern for Aesthetic Impact," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-24, March.
    2. Bovera, Filippo & Lo Schiavo, Luca, 2022. "From energy communities to sector coupling:a taxonomy for regulatory experimentation in the age of the European Green Deal," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    3. Azar, Elie & Alaifan, Bader & Lin, Min & Trepci, Esra & El Asmar, Mounir, 2021. "Drivers of energy consumption in Kuwaiti buildings: Insights from a hybrid statistical and building performance simulation approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    4. Dmitry A. Ruban & Natalia N. Yashalova, 2022. "Pro-environmental behavior prescribed by top companies of the world," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 7918-7935, June.
    5. Ruth Shortall & Anna Mengolini & Flavia Gangale, 2022. "Citizen Engagement in EU Collective Action Energy Projects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-24, May.
    6. Gijón, Covadonga & Albarrán Lozano, Irene & Molina, José Manuel, 2021. "Perception of innovation in Spain," 23rd ITS Biennial Conference, Online Conference / Gothenburg 2021. Digital societies and industrial transformations: Policies, markets, and technologies in a post-Covid world 238024, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bossink, Bart, 2020. "Learning strategies in sustainable energy demonstration projects: What organizations learn from sustainable energy demonstrations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    2. Hackbarth, André, 2018. "Attitudes, preferences, and intentions of German households concerning participation in peer-to-peer electricity trading," Reutlingen Working Papers on Marketing & Management 2019-2, Reutlingen University, ESB Business School.
    3. Hackbarth, André & Löbbe, Sabine, 2020. "Attitudes, preferences, and intentions of German households concerning participation in peer-to-peer electricity trading," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    4. Neij, Lena & Heiskanen, Eva & Strupeit, Lars, 2017. "The deployment of new energy technologies and the need for local learning," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 274-283.
    5. Bossink, Bart A.G., 2017. "Demonstrating sustainable energy: A review based model of sustainable energy demonstration projects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1349-1362.
    6. Hellsmark, Hans & Frishammar, Johan & Söderholm, Patrik & Ylinenpää, Håkan, 2016. "The role of pilot and demonstration plants in technology development and innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1743-1761.
    7. Michael G. Jacobides & John Paul MacDuffie & C. Jennifer Tae, 2016. "Agency, structure, and the dominance of OEMs: Change and stability in the automotive sector," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(9), pages 1942-1967, September.
    8. Matthew P. Mount & Markus Baer & Matthew J. Lupoli, 2021. "Quantum leaps or baby steps? Expertise distance, construal level, and the propensity to invest in novel technological ideas," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(8), pages 1490-1515, August.
    9. Kristian Roed Nielsen & Julia Katharina Binder, 2021. "I Am What I Pledge: The Importance of Value Alignment for Mobilizing Backers in Reward-Based Crowdfunding," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 45(3), pages 531-561, May.
    10. Turnheim, Bruno & Nykvist, Björn, 2019. "Opening up the feasibility of sustainability transitions pathways (STPs): Representations, potentials, and conditions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 775-788.
    11. Söderholm, Patrik & Hellsmark, Hans & Frishammar, Johan & Hansson, Julia & Mossberg, Johanna & Sandström, Annica, 2019. "Technological development for sustainability: The role of network management in the innovation policy mix," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 309-323.
    12. Victor P. Seidel & Siobhán O’Mahony, 2014. "Managing the Repertoire: Stories, Metaphors, Prototypes, and Concept Coherence in Product Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 691-712, June.
    13. Vecchiato, Riccardo, 2020. "Analogical reasoning, cognition, and the response to technological change: Lessons from mobile communication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    14. Stefan Gröschl & Patricia Gabaldón & Tobias Hahn, 2019. "The Co-evolution of Leaders’ Cognitive Complexity and Corporate Sustainability: The Case of the CEO of Puma," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 741-762, March.
    15. Nemet, Gregory F. & Zipperer, Vera & Kraus, Martina, 2018. "The valley of death, the technology pork barrel, and public support for large demonstration projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 154-167.
    16. Shepherd, Dean A. & Sattari, Rose & Patzelt, Holger, 2022. "A social model of opportunity development: Building and engaging communities of inquiry," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 37(1).
    17. John W. Budd & Dionne Pohler & Wei Huang, 2022. "Making sense of (mis)matched frames of reference: A dynamic cognitive theory of (in)stability in HR practices," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 268-289, July.
    18. Hoppmann, Joern & Anadon, Laura Diaz & Narayanamurti, Venkatesh, 2020. "Why matter matters: How technology characteristics shape the strategic framing of technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    19. Lonergan, Katherine Emma & Sansavini, Giovanni, 2022. "Business structure of electricity distribution system operator and effect on solar photovoltaic uptake: An empirical case study for Switzerland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    20. Fabian Scheller & Isabel Doser & Emily Schulte & Simon Johanning & Russell McKenna & Thomas Bruckner, 2021. "Stakeholder dynamics in residential solar energy adoption: findings from focus group discussions in Germany," Papers 2104.14240, arXiv.org.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:142:y:2020:i:c:s030142152030224x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.