IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/lucirc/2016_017.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Lock-in of mature innovation systems, The transformation toward clean concrete in the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Wesseling, Joeri H.

    (CIRCLE, Lund University)

  • van der Vooren , Alexander

    (Sustainable Development Department, PBL)

Abstract

Energy-intensive processing industries like the concrete industry form the base of the economy and account for a large part of greenhouse gas emissions. Sectoral transformation to cleaner basic materials is therefore crucial, and institutional pressure to do so is increasing. These sectors have nevertheless been largely omitted by socio-technical studies. This paper therefore sets out to analyze the systemic problems that inhibit the transformation of the mature innovation system of the concrete sector toward the development, diffusion and adoption of clean concrete innovations, for the case of the Netherlands. A coupled structural-functional approach has been frequently applied to identify such systemic problems, but has been limited to emerging technological innovation systems. Consequently, the approach tends to overlook the systemic lock-in that arises from interdependent systemic problems and vested interests that characterize mature innovation systems. This paper analyzes these characteristics to extend the application of the structural-functional approach to the transformation of mature innovation systems. Interviews with 28 stakeholders were conducted and triangulated with reports, websites and other documents. A list of systemic problems was identified that originate within actors, institutions, networks, technology and infrastructure and that impaired the performance of all system functions except knowledge development. Systemic problems are indeed found to be strongly interdependent, leading to systemic lock-in. Through strategic, often collective action, established firms with vested interests were able to reinforce these systemic problems to inhibit clean concrete innovation. The study concludes that systemic lock-in inhibits the sustainability transformation of the mature innovation system of concrete in the Netherlands and confirms that the application of the structural-functional approach can be extended from emerging to mature innovation systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Wesseling, Joeri H. & van der Vooren , Alexander, 2016. "Lock-in of mature innovation systems, The transformation toward clean concrete in the Netherlands," Papers in Innovation Studies 2016/17, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:lucirc:2016_017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wp.circle.lu.se/upload/CIRCLE/workingpapers/201617_wesseling_et_al.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Weber, K. Matthias & Rohracher, Harald, 2012. "Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1037-1047.
    2. Worrell, Ernst & van Berkel, Rene & Fengqi, Zhou & Menke, Christoph & Schaeffer, Roberto & O. Williams, Robert, 2001. "Technology transfer of energy efficient technologies in industry: a review of trends and policy issues," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 29-43, January.
    3. Hekkert, Marko P. & Hendriks, Franka H. J. F. & Faaij, Andre P. C. & Neelis, Maarten L., 2005. "Natural gas as an alternative to crude oil in automotive fuel chains well-to-wheel analysis and transition strategy development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 579-594, March.
    4. Carlsson, B & Stankiewicz, R, 1991. "On the Nature, Function and Composition of Technological Systems," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 93-118, April.
    5. Anna J. Wieczorek & Marko P. Hekkert, 2012. "Corrigendum to 'Systemic instruments for systemic innovation problems: A framework for policy makers and innovation scholars'," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 842-842, December.
    6. Richard J. Green and Michael G. Pollitt, 2008. "Introduction," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 1-2.
    7. Stefan Lechtenböhmer & Clemens Schneider & María Yetano Roche & Samuel Höller, 2015. "Re-Industrialisation and Low-Carbon Economy—Can They Go Together? Results from Stakeholder-Based Scenarios for Energy-Intensive Industries in the German State of North Rhine Westphalia," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-26, October.
    8. Paula Kivimaa & Florian Kern, 2015. "Creative Destruction or Mere Niche Creation? Innovation Policy Mixes for Sustainability Transitions," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-02, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    9. Ruud E. Smits & Stefan Kuhlmann & Phillip Shapira (ed.), 2010. "The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 4181.
    10. Wesseling , Joeri H. & Edquist, Charles, 2016. "Public procurement for innovation: lessons from the procurement of a navigable storm surge barrier," Papers in Innovation Studies 2016/5, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    11. 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.
    12. Anna J. Wieczorek & Marko P. Hekkert, 2012. "Systemic instruments for systemic innovation problems: A framework for policy makers and innovation scholars," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 74-87, February.
    13. Hendrik G. van Oss & Amy C. Padovani, 2003. "Cement Manufacture and the Environment Part II: Environmental Challenges and Opportunities," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 7(1), pages 93-126, January.
    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. Konstantinos Koasidis & Anastasios Karamaneas & Alexandros Nikas & Hera Neofytou & Erlend A. T. Hermansen & Kathleen Vaillancourt & Haris Doukas, 2020. "Many Miles to Paris: A Sectoral Innovation System Analysis of the Transport Sector in Norway and Canada in Light of the Paris Agreement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-37, July.
    2. Jhon Wilder Zartha Sossa & Oscar Hernán López Montoya & Julio Cesar Acosta Prado, 2021. "Determinants of a sustainable innovation system," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 1345-1356, February.
    3. Shikuku, Kelvin Mashisia & Tran, Nhuong & Joffre, Olivier M. & Islam, Abu Hayat Md Saiful & Barman, Benoy Kumar & Ali, Shawquat & Rossignoli, Cristiano M., 2021. "Lock-ins to the dissemination of genetically improved fish seeds," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    4. Lori DiVito & Zita Ingen-Housz, 2021. "From individual sustainability orientations to collective sustainability innovation and sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1057-1072, February.
    5. Konstantinos Koasidis & Alexandros Nikas & Hera Neofytou & Anastasios Karamaneas & Ajay Gambhir & Jakob Wachsmuth & Haris Doukas, 2020. "The UK and German Low-Carbon Industry Transitions from a Sectoral Innovation and System Failures Perspective," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-34, September.
    6. Mohammad Esmailzadeh & Siamak Noori & Alireza Aliahmadi & Hamidreza Nouralizadeh & Marcel Bogers, 2020. "A Functional Analysis of Technological Innovation Systems in Developing Countries: An Evaluation of Iran’s Photovoltaic Innovation System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-20, March.
    7. Joeri H Wesseling & Charles Edquist, 2018. "Public procurement for innovation to help meet societal challenges: a review and case study," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(4), pages 493-502.
    8. Dieuwke Lamers & Marc Schut & Laurens Klerkx & Piet van Asten, 2017. "Compositional dynamics of multilevel innovation platforms in agricultural research for development," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(6), pages 739-752.
    9. Oscar Svensson & Jamil Khan & Roger Hildingsson, 2020. "Studying Industrial Decarbonisation: Developing an Interdisciplinary Understanding of the Conditions for Transformation in Energy-Intensive Natural Resource-Based Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-21, March.

    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. Diercks, Gijs & Larsen, Henrik & Steward, Fred, 2019. "Transformative innovation policy: Addressing variety in an emerging policy paradigm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 880-894.
    2. Jonas Heiberg & Bernhard Truffer, 2021. "The emergence of a global innovation system – a case study from the water sector," GEIST - Geography of Innovation and Sustainability Transitions 2021(09), GEIST Working Paper Series.
    3. Hilde Nykamp, 2020. "Policy Mix for a Transition to Sustainability: Green Buildings in Norway," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-17, January.
    4. Kieft, Alco & Harmsen, Robert & Hekkert, Marko P., 2020. "Toward ranking interventions for Technological Innovation Systems via the concept of Leverage Points," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    5. Jonas Heiberg & Bernhard Truffer, 2021. "Overcoming the harmony fallacy: How values shape the course of innovation systems," GEIST - Geography of Innovation and Sustainability Transitions 2021(03), GEIST Working Paper Series.
    6. Rogge, Karoline S. & Reichardt, Kristin, 2016. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1620-1635.
    7. Matthijs Janssen, 2016. "What bangs for your bucks? Assessing the design and impact of transformative policy," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 16-05, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Dec 2016.
    8. Wesseling, J.H. & Lechtenböhmer, S. & Åhman, M. & Nilsson, L.J. & Worrell, E. & Coenen, L., 2017. "The transition of energy intensive processing industries towards deep decarbonization: Characteristics and implications for future research," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 1303-1313.
    9. Janssen, Matthijs J., 2019. "What bangs for your buck? Assessing the design and impact of Dutch transformative policy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 78-94.
    10. Kim, Yeong Jae & Wilson, Charlie, 2019. "Analysing energy innovation portfolios from a systemic perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    11. Rohe, Sebastian & Oltmer, Marie & Wolter, Hendrik & Gmeiner, Nina & Tschersich , Julia, 2022. "Forever Niche: Why do organic vegetable varieties not diffuse?," Papers in Innovation Studies 2022/8, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    12. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    13. Raven, Rob & Walrave, Bob, 2020. "Overcoming transformational failures through policy mixes in the dynamics of technological innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    14. van Rijnsoever, Frank J., 2020. "Meeting, mating, and intermediating: How incubators can overcome weak network problems in entrepreneurial ecosystems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    15. van Rijnsoever, Frank J. & van den Berg, Jesse & Koch, Joost & Hekkert, Marko P., 2015. "Smart innovation policy: How network position and project composition affect the diversity of an emerging technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1094-1107.
    16. Rogge, Karoline S. & Pfluger, Benjamin & Geels, Frank W., 2020. "Transformative policy mixes in socio-technical scenarios: The case of the low-carbon transition of the German electricity system (2010–2050)," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    17. Haddad, Carolina R. & Bergek, Anna, 2023. "Towards an integrated framework for evaluating transformative innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    18. Norouzi, F. & Hoppe, T. & Kamp, L.M. & Manktelow, C. & Bauer, P., 2023. "Diagnosis of the implementation of smart grid innovation in The Netherlands and corrective actions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    19. Dahesh, Mehran Badin & Tabarsa, Gholamali & Zandieh, Mostafa & Hamidizadeh, Mohammadreza, 2020. "Reviewing the intellectual structure and evolution of the innovation systems approach: A social network analysis," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    20. Mohammad Esmailzadeh & Siamak Noori & Alireza Aliahmadi & Hamidreza Nouralizadeh & Marcel Bogers, 2020. "A Functional Analysis of Technological Innovation Systems in Developing Countries: An Evaluation of Iran’s Photovoltaic Innovation System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-20, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    system failures; system functions; vested interest; sectoral innovation system; sectoral system of innovation and production; technological innovation system;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O25 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Industrial Policy
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy
    • Q01 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - Sustainable Development

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hhs:lucirc:2016_017. 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: Torben Schubert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/circlse.html .

    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.