IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rif/report/58.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Growing Pains of Industrial Renewal – Case Nordic Cleantech

Author

Listed:
  • Tahvanainen, Antti-Jussi
  • Adriaens, Peter
  • Kotiranta, Annu

Abstract

To steer economies onto a sustainable path in a way that is compatible with the urgent priorities of economic developers, sustainability needs to come with new business opportunities, growing markets and, most importantly, new jobs. The big question becomes then how do you wed economic growth with sustainability? Enter the growth of cleantech and the emergence of green industries. Recent rankings place Finland in the top-3 of global leaders in cleantech, along with Israel and the US. Driven by an ambition to selectively invest in a ‘green’ economic turnaround, a number of strategy-level research documents and roadmaps have been produced in recent years on how to kindle new growth and create jobs in the Finnish CleanTech- and the Bio-economies. The three industry ecosystems frequently mentioned are efficient energy solutions (smart grid), mobility-as-a-service (smart mobility), and the bioeconomy. The ultimate questions to be answered are: In which industry ecosystems does Finland have the necessary assets to be an effective competitive contender? And given the existing asset base, what is the true potential of these sectors as engines of economic growth? To rise to the challenge, the report probes (a) the structure and direction of industrial activity that underlie the selected ecosystems, (b) the value capture potential of individual companies in them, and (c) the types of financing the companies are most compatible with. The results are somewhat sobering. They clearly show that for business and economic development purposes the only feasible approach to Cleantech is to deal with it by the ecosystem. The three ecosystems analyzed in this study all feature different industrial structures, make vastly different value propositions, address different markets and involve a very different set of stakeholders. There is little value in cursorily lumping them together under a quasi-common concept such as Cleantech or the Bioeconomy. These concepts have no substance as they do not refer to specific industrial or economic activity. Hence, it is also very challenging to develop concrete instruments for economic or business development purposes that are to promote such activity. At worst, scarce resources are put to suboptimal use, as they are allocated over a vast spread of individual companies and projects that might be a fit with the overall theme of Cleantech but have no common denominator in the form of an industrial ecosystem and its underlying value chains. Our results on a next to non-existent Bioeconomy provide for an excellent showcase. We further show that even the more promising ecosystems such as Smart Mobility and Smart Grids are in the throes of growing pains. There is much that economic developers can do efficiently to alleviate them. The poor leverageability of industry assets and connections for market access across the board speak of fragile, budding industry structures that make it difficult for companies to establish robust markets and steady businesses in the short term. Companies of different sizes suffer the symptoms in their own ways. On the one hand, large incumbents do wield the assets necessary to conquer the ecosystem – telecommunications operators seem to have an especially favorable vantage point in smart ecosystems – but shoot themselves in the foot by applying conventional, capital-intensive business models that leave the door open for more agile growth companies that harness the potential of digitalization to exploit opportunities. On the other, start-ups and SMEs indeed show the drive and lean on nimble enough business models but utterly lack the assets for a full-scale conquest. It is easy to envision a symbiotic relationship, in which incumbents provide the capital-intensive assets while their smaller peers introduce the competitive business models. Given the incipient structure of the ecosystems, however, just finding appropriate partners can incur considerable transaction costs. Here economic developers can step in, helping to find matches via collaborative accelerators that broker partnerships between industrial heavy-hitters on a mission of industrial renewal and small growth companies looking for resources and downstream assets. Finding partners is a formidable challenge in and by itself, but our conclusions point to even more systemic impediments to industrial renewal that lie outside the industry’s sphere of influence. One such is the lack of proper standards for the interconnectivity and interoperability of the various, often proprietary, IT systems that the numerous stakeholders to ecosystems run their businesses on. Especially smart ecosystems by definition build on the seamless interoperability across diverse system architectures and organizational boundaries. In the absence of universal standards, interconnectivity needs to be established one relationship at a time, building on contractually agreed, customized solutions that do not scale beyond the specific relationship. Economic developers can considerably speed up the construction of a digital business environment by introducing universal standards that promote the emergence of plug-and-play platforms for efficient interoperability. In a world of autonomous, self-driving vehicles and applications that affect offtake and feed into electricity grids, quality and safety controls for algorithms that govern these systems will be paramount for individual and societal safety.

Suggested Citation

  • Tahvanainen, Antti-Jussi & Adriaens, Peter & Kotiranta, Annu, 2016. "Growing Pains of Industrial Renewal – Case Nordic Cleantech," ETLA Reports 58, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
  • Handle: RePEc:rif:report:58
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.etla.fi/wp-content/uploads/ETLA-Raportit-Reports-58.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ricardo, David, 1821. "On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, edition 3, number ricardo1821.
    2. Philip McCann & Raquel Ortega-Argil�s, 2015. "Smart Specialization, Regional Growth and Applications to European Union Cohesion Policy," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(8), pages 1291-1302, August.
    3. Kotiranta, Annu & Tahvanainen, Antti-Jussi & Adriaens, Peter & Ritola, Maria, 2015. "From Cleantech to Cleanweb – The Finnish Cleantech Space in Transition," ETLA Reports 43, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Tahvanainen, Antti-Jussi & Adriaens, Peter & Kotiranta, Annu, . "Growing Pains of Industrial Renewal – Case Nordic Cleantech," ETLA A, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy, number 58.
    2. Tomasz Kijek & Anna Matras-Bolibok, 2020. "Knowledge-intensive Specialisation and Total Factor Productivity (TFP) in the EU Regional Scope," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 68(1), pages 181-188.
    3. Sergeyev, Dmitriy & Iovino, Luigi, 2018. "Central Bank Balance Sheet Policies Without Rational Expectations," CEPR Discussion Papers 13100, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Joseph Francois & M. Rombout, 2000. "Preferential Trade Arrangements, Induced Investment, and National Income in a Heckscher-Ohlin-Ramsey Model," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 00-061/2, Tinbergen Institute.
    5. Banfi, Silvia & Filippini, Massimo, 2010. "Resource rent taxation and benchmarking--A new perspective for the Swiss hydropower sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2302-2308, May.
    6. H. W. Arndt, 1984. "Political Economy," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 60(3), pages 266-273, September.
    7. Emilio Depetris-Chauvin & Ömer Özak, 2020. "The origins of the division of labor in pre-industrial times," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 297-340, September.
    8. Raquel Ortega-Argilés, 2022. "The evolution of regional entrepreneurship policies: “no one size fits all”," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 69(3), pages 585-610, December.
    9. Ramona Dumitriu & Razvan Stefanescu, 2015. "The Relationship Between Romanian Exports And Economic Growth After The Adhesion To European Union," Risk in Contemporary Economy, "Dunarea de Jos" University of Galati, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, pages 17-26.
    10. Viengsaythong DALASENG & NIU Xiongying & Khaysy SRITHILAT, 2022. "Cross- Country Investigation of the Impact of Trade Openness and FDI on Economic Growth: A Case of Developing Countries," International Journal of Science and Business, IJSAB International, vol. 9(1), pages 49-73.
    11. Riccardo Crescenzi & Guido de Blasio & Mara Giua, 2020. "Cohesion Policy incentives for collaborative industrial research: evaluation of a Smart Specialisation forerunner programme," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(10), pages 1341-1353, October.
    12. Sara Amoroso & Alex Coad & Nicola Grassano, 2017. "European R&D networks: A snapshot from the 7th EU Framework Programme," JRC Working Papers on Corporate R&D and Innovation JRC107546, Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
    13. Raphael W. Bostic & Stanley D. Longhofer & Christian L. Redfearn, 2007. "Land Leverage: Decomposing Home Price Dynamics," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 35(2), pages 183-208, June.
    14. Michael White, 2009. "Hunting a precursor: The limits of Mountifort Longfield on utility and value," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(1), pages 65-96.
    15. Giordano, Claire & Lopez-Garcia, Paloma, 2019. "Firm heterogeneity and trade in EU countries: a cross-country analysis," Occasional Paper Series 225, European Central Bank.
    16. Suarsana, Laura & Schneider, Tina & Warsewa, Günter, 2023. "Do regional innovation strategies meet societal challenges? A comparative analysis across regions in Belgium, Germany, Netherlands and Finland," Schriftenreihe Institut Arbeit und Wirtschaft 40/2023, Institut Arbeit und Wirtschaft (IAW), Universität Bremen und Arbeitnehmerkammer Bremen.
    17. Clement A. Tisdell, 2014. "Sustainable agriculture," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 32, pages 517-531, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Tisdell, Clem & Swarna Nantha, Hemanath, 2011. "Comparative costs and conservation of wild species in situ, e.g. orangutans," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2429-2436.
    19. Tisdell, Clement A., 2000. "Globalisation, WTO and Sustainable Development," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 48009, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    20. Tranos, Emmanouil & Incera, Andre Carrascal & Willis, George, 2022. "Using the web to predict regional trade flows: data extraction, modelling, and validation," OSF Preprints 9bu5z, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cleantech; Value capture; Industrial renewal; Industrial ecosystem; Investability; Sustainable growth; Smart grid; Smart mobility; Bioeconomy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O11 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Macroeconomic Analyses of Economic Development
    • O14 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Industrialization; Manufacturing and Service Industries; Choice of Technology
    • O25 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Industrial Policy
    • 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
    • O41 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - One, Two, and Multisector Growth Models
    • O44 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - Environment and Growth

    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:rif:report:58. 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: Kaija Hyvönen-Rajecki (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/etlaafi.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.