IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i24p16600-d1295077.html

A Framework for Assessing the Climate Impacts of Research and Innovation Projects and Programmes

Author

Listed:
  • André Martinuzzi

    (Institute for Managing Sustainability, Vienna University of Economics and Business, 1020 Vienna, Austria)

  • Markus Hametner

    (Institute for Managing Sustainability, Vienna University of Economics and Business, 1020 Vienna, Austria)

  • Andreas Windsperger

    (Institute for Industrial Ecology, Rennbahnstrasse 29, 3100 Sankt Pölten, Austria)

  • Nadine Brunnhuber

    (Institute for Industrial Ecology, Rennbahnstrasse 29, 3100 Sankt Pölten, Austria)

Abstract

Public spending on research and innovation (R&I) to tackle grand societal challenges, such as climate change, is increasing. Consequently, research funding organisations face an ever-growing demand to demonstrate the social return of their investments. However, tools and frameworks that facilitate the description and assessment of the climate impacts of R&I activities are largely lacking. The present paper addresses this gap by conducting a comparative case analysis of corporate R&I projects co-funded by a thematically open R&I funding programme with the aim of identifying the key impact pathways. Data for the cases were collected through document analysis and video interviews. The results show that assessments of the climate impacts of R&I need to take into account the expected change in technology maturity and the impacts that are caused up- and downstream in a company’s value chain. The results serve as a basis for the development of a framework for the ex-ante assessment of climate impacts of public R&I programmes. A series of workshops with research funders, companies, and evaluation experts helped refine and validate the framework and ensure its real-world applicability. The framework provides proposal writers and evaluators with a pragmatic and easy-to-use orientation tool for describing and assessing the climate impacts of a planned R&I activity during the proposal evaluation stage. It therefore supports a more systematic and systemic assessment of R&I impacts that can help funding organisations better address the challenges of climate change.

Suggested Citation

  • André Martinuzzi & Markus Hametner & Andreas Windsperger & Nadine Brunnhuber, 2023. "A Framework for Assessing the Climate Impacts of Research and Innovation Projects and Programmes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-24, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:24:p:16600-:d:1295077
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/24/16600/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/24/16600/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    2. Laurent Bach & Sandrine Wolff, 2022. "The BETA-EvaRIO impact evaluation method: towards a bridging approach?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 651-672, June.
    3. Luukkonen, Terttu, 2000. "Additionality of EU framework programmes1," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 711-724, June.
    4. Willi Haas & Fridolin Krausmann & Dominik Wiedenhofer & Markus Heinz, 2015. "How Circular is the Global Economy?: An Assessment of Material Flows, Waste Production, and Recycling in the European Union and the World in 2005," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 19(5), pages 765-777, October.
    5. Claire Donovan, 2007. "The qualitative future of research evaluation," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(8), pages 585-597, October.
    6. Timothy M. Lenton & Johan Rockström & Owen Gaffney & Stefan Rahmstorf & Katherine Richardson & Will Steffen & Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, 2019. "Climate tipping points — too risky to bet against," Nature, Nature, vol. 575(7784), pages 592-595, November.
    7. Pierre Benoit Joly & Laurence Colinet & Ariane Gaunand & Stephane Lemarié & Mireille Matt, 2016. "Agricultural research impact assessment: issues, methods and challenges," Working Papers hal-01431457, HAL.
    8. Heleen de Coninck & Daniel Puig, 2015. "Assessing climate change mitigation technology interventions by international institutions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 131(3), pages 417-433, August.
    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. Miriam Borchardt & Giancarlo Pereira & Gabriel Milan & Elisabeth Pereira & Leandro Lima & Renata Bianchi & Annibal Scavarda do Carmo, 2025. "Are Sustainable Supply Chains Managing Scope 3 Emissions? A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-22, July.
    2. Mudassar Arsalan & Omar Mubin & Abdullah Al Mahmud & Mohammed Raza Mehdi & Uneb Gazder & Imran Ahmed Khan, 2025. "Evaluating ChatGPT for research impact assessment: comparative insights from the UK REF," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(12), pages 6949-6971, December.

    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. Julia Olmos‐Peñuela & Paul Benneworth & Elena Castro‐Martínez, 2015. "Exploring the factors related with scientists’ willingness to incorporating external knowledge," CHEPS Working Papers 201504, University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS).
    2. Kroll, Henning & Hansmeier, Hendrik & Hufnagl, Miriam, 2022. "Productive interactions in basic research an enquiry into impact pathways at the DESY synchrotron," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    3. Bayona-Sáez, Cristina & García-Marco, Teresa, 2010. "Assessing the effectiveness of the Eureka Program," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 1375-1386, December.
    4. Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 217-233, February.
    5. Pierre-Benoit Joly & Laurence Colinet & Ariane Gaunand & Stéphane Lemarié & Mireille Matt, 2016. "Agricultural research impact assessment: Issues, methods and challenges," OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 98, OECD Publishing.
    6. Fábio T. F. Silva & Alexandre Szklo & Amanda Vinhoza & Ana Célia Nogueira & André F. P. Lucena & Antônio Marcos Mendonça & Camilla Marcolino & Felipe Nunes & Francielle M. Carvalho & Isabela Tagomori , 2022. "Inter-sectoral prioritization of climate technologies: insights from a Technology Needs Assessment for mitigation in Brazil," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 27(7), pages 1-39, October.
    7. Gersbach, Hans & Schneider, Maik & Schneller, Olivier, 2010. "Optimal Mix of Applied and Basic Research, Distance to Frontier, and Openness," CEPR Discussion Papers 7795, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    8. Andrés Barge-Gil & Alberto López, 2015. "R versus D: estimating the differentiated effect of research and development on innovation results," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 24(1), pages 93-129.
    9. Xin Li & Huadong Guo & Guodong Cheng & Xiaoyu Song & Youhua Ran & Min Feng & Tao Che & Xinwu Li & Lei Wang & Anmin Duan & Donghui Shangguan & Deliang Chen & Rui Jin & Jie Deng & Jianbin Su & Bin Cao, 2025. "Polar regions are critical in achieving global sustainable development goals," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-11, December.
    10. Till Wenzel & Cees van Westen & Mariya Sunil & Núria Pantaleoni Reluy & Philipp Marr & Thomas Glade & Rainer Bell, 2026. "Towards a practical multi-hazard interrelation classification: implications for assessing their impacts," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 122(2), pages 1-37, January.
    11. José Miguel Benavente & Gustavo Crespi & Alessandro Maffioli, 2007. "The Impact of National Research Funds: An Evaluation of the Chilean FONDECYT," OVE Working Papers 0307, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE).
    12. Hametner, Markus, 2022. "Economics without ecology: How the SDGs fail to align socioeconomic development with environmental sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    13. Švarc, Jadranka & Dabić, Marina, 2021. "Transformative innovation policy or how to escape peripheral policy paradox in European research peripheral countries," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    14. Simen G. Enger & Fulvio Castellacci, 2016. "Who gets Horizon 2020 research grants? Propensity to apply and probability to succeed in a two-step analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1611-1638, December.
    15. Hans Pohl, 2021. "Internationalisation, innovation, and academic–corporate co-publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1329-1358, February.
    16. Borsato, Andrea & Lorentz, André, 2025. "Public science vs. mission-oriented policies in long-run growth: An agent-based model," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 129-146.
    17. Chris W. Belter, 2013. "A bibliometric analysis of NOAA’s Office of Ocean Exploration and Research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 95(2), pages 629-644, May.
    18. Stefan P L de Jong & Corina Balaban & Maria Nedeva, 2022. "From ‘productive interactions’ to ‘enabling conditions’: The role of organizations in generating societal impact of academic research [One Size Does Not Fit All! New Perspectives on the University in the Social Knowledge Economy]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 643-645.
    19. Cai, Yuzhuo, 2023. "Towards a new model of EU-China innovation cooperation: Bridging missing links between international university collaboration and international industry collaboration," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    20. Quan-Hoang Vuong & Quang-Loc Nguyen & Ruining Jin & Minh-Hieu Thi Nguyen & Thi-Phuong Nguyen & Viet-Phuong La & Minh-Hoang Nguyen, 2023. "Increasing Supply for Woody-Biomass-Based Energy through Wasted Resources: Insights from US Private Landowners," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-20, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:24:p:16600-:d:1295077. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.