Next Article in Journal
Effective Disclosure in the Fast-Fashion Industry: from Sustainability Reporting to Action
Next Article in Special Issue
Consumer Acceptance Analysis of the Home Energy Management System
Previous Article in Journal
Longitudinal Control for Mengshi Autonomous Vehicle via Gauss Cloud Model
Previous Article in Special Issue
Innovative Production Scheduling with Customer Satisfaction Based Measurement for the Sustainability of Manufacturing Firms

Sustainability 2017, 9(12), 2253; https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122253

Article
Innovation Systems for Transformations towards Sustainability? Taking the Normative Dimension Seriously
1
Department of Innovation Economics (520i), University of Hohenheim, Wollgrasweg 23, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
2
Department of Management Studies, Wageningen University, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands
3
Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture (TIK), University of Oslo, Postboks 1108, Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 19 November 2017 / Accepted: 4 December 2017 / Published: 6 December 2017

Abstract

:
The aim of this article is to complement research on transformations towards sustainability by drawing upon the innovation systems (IS) framework. The IS framework already serves as a suitable and influential basis for research on processes of technological innovation and economic change. We argue that improving the capacity of an IS framework for dealing with wicked problems and the normative complexity of sustainability requires a fundamental paradigm shift because in the current IS paradigm innovations are considered as per se desirable and in mostly technological terms. Therefore, we call for IS dedicated to transformations towards sustainability by opening up for systemic innovations beyond the technological dimension and by acknowledging that stakeholders have conflicting visions, interests, norms, and expectations with regard to sustainability goals. Taking the normative dimension of transformations towards sustainability seriously thus requires more explicit and integrative research on directionality, legitimacy, responsibility, and their interrelation in IS. The article concludes by proposing suggestions for future research based on IS-related approaches that can serve as building blocks for an IS framework capable of incorporating legitimate goal-orientation for transformative innovation by and for society.
Keywords:
wicked problems; transformations towards sustainability; innovation systems; normativity; paradigms; directionality; legitimacy; responsibility; dedicated innovation systems

1. Introduction

Humanity is currently facing multiple crises: climate change, dwindling natural resources, and the unjust distribution of wealth and security are threatening the planet and its inhabitants (e.g., [1]). The way humans are interfering with life-maintaining Earth system processes has already alarmed scientists long ago (see also [2,3]). In fact, Rockström and colleagues [4,5] claim that the Earth system has already crossed several thresholds and thus transcended what they term planetary boundaries, beyond which safe operating space for humanity can no longer be guaranteed and sustainability is severely compromised (see also [6]). These interrelated and systemic challenges have been referred to alternatively as wicked problems [7,8,9,10,11], persistent problems [12,13], complex challenges [14], grand challenges (e.g., [15,16,17]), or even super wicked problems [18] in the sense that their causes are emergent and complex, they are embedded in the social structure, their effects are uncertain, and they are thus extremely difficult to manage. It is rather unsurprising that in the context of this multiplexity of problems sustainability itself becomes a deeply normative issue often involving conflicting worldviews and contested pathways. Consequently, technological solutions will not suffice to fundamentally improve the prospects for our living conditions in the sense of a sustainable future, and an “optimization” of present systems is literally impossible [13,19,20]. Quite the contrary, tackling “wicked problems” (and all of the other problems and challenges mentioned above) requires radical systemic changes, i.e., transformations, in multiple dimensions (e.g., economic, institutional, technical, cultural, organizational, etc.). This, in turn, necessitates advanced and comprehensive approaches aiming at better understanding and governing these so-called transformations towards sustainability [13,21,22,23,24,25,26].
With this article, we aim to complement research on these transformations towards sustainability in two ways. First, we discuss the (lack of a) normative dimension of innovation systems (IS)—a framework deemed suitable for scrutinizing processes of technological and economic change. More specifically, we contribute to the development of an advanced IS framework in which issues of normativity are integrated. Our discussion ties in with recent debates on normative foundations and directionality in IS (e.g., [27,28,29,30,31,32,33]) and with discussions about the need for (more) responsible innovation (e.g., [15,34,35,36,37]; see also [38,39,40] for reviews). Second, we provide a fundamental argument for the difficulties of integrating normativity in IS, which inevitably calls for a paradigm shift in our way of thinking about IS. Based on this theoretical conception, we propose a research agenda to enhance the capacity of the IS framework to assist researchers and policy-makers in tackling transformations towards sustainability beyond technological solutions.
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 introduces IS as the underlying concept for our argument and points to its limitations for contributing to better understanding and governing sustainability transformations. Section 3 opens a door for adapting the IS concept to the challenge of tackling wicked problems related to transformations towards sustainability: We raise awareness for the complex normativity of sustainability and emphasize the need for a new, dedicated IS paradigm. We contrast the leading assumptions, dominant values, and practices of the current IS paradigm with those of a dedicated IS paradigm and identify three important issues connected to normativity that must be dealt with when a paradigm shift is aimed at. Subsequently, Section 4 introduces recent theoretical and practical approximations towards parts of the questions raised before. These existing strands of research serve as building blocks for a new research agenda that we deem necessary for the future in order to answer the overarching question of how IS can incorporate legitimate goal-orientation for transformative innovation by and for society. Section 5 concludes the article by summarizing key arguments and avenues for further research.

2. Innovation Systems: Merits and Limits in the Light of Transformations

Understanding and governing processes of technological and economic change have been the underlying rationale for the emergence of the framework of IS, building on evolutionary economics and related disciplines (e.g., [41,42,43,44,45]). Notably, the rise of this framework can be seen as a revolution against mainstream economics by radically challenging unsuitable axioms and simplistic presuppositions of neoclassical economics [46]. For the purpose of a working definition, we follow Niosi and colleagues, who propose to understand IS as systems of multiple interacting agents “aiming at the production of science and technology … Interaction among these units may be technical, commercial, legal, social, and financial, inasmuch as the goal of the interaction is the development, protection, financing, or regulation of new science and technology” [47] (p. 212) (for extensive reviews and overviews, see [33,48,49,50,51,52]). IS have since served scientists as a model for understanding the complex systemic nature of innovation, they have equipped policy-makers with a basis for designing innovation policies (e.g., [53,54]), and they have informed firms to formulate innovation strategies (e.g., [55,56]). Until today, the IS literature remains the most influential one for the international innovation policy community [31]. The framework has been adapted to various levels [33,48,51] including national (e.g., see [57,58]), regional (e.g., [59]), sectoral (e.g., [60,61]), technological (e.g., [62,63,64,65]), and recently even global IS [66]. In summary, it can be said that IS provide a heuristic framework for examining the collective of actors and institutions involved in innovation and their interactions within (more or less) defined boundaries [67,68].
The central aim of most research on IS has been to reveal how differences in configurations as well as interactive learning processes of the respective actors and institutions are responsible for particular (knowledge-based) economic outcomes [43,55,69]. Much of IS research has focused on analyzing how generic innovation capabilities can be strengthened [25,70]. The long-term goal of these economic outcomes, however, has not been explicated so far but rather regarded as determined by the system’s actors and their specific configuration [71,72]. Remarkably enough, for a long time, the IS literature has fallen victim to the same inherent fallacy as a large part of innovation research has, namely that innovation per se is good [30,32,73,74,75]. Therefore, scholars have paid insufficient attention to the ethical acceptability and societal desirability of innovations. With this, we do not want to imply that IS scholars have completely neglected sustainability considerations (e.g., see [24,28,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83]). Nevertheless, many of the approaches—particularly the so-called sustainable systems of innovation [79,80] or sustainability-oriented innovation systems [77,82]—remain focused on technological innovation with the aim of environmental protection. In the face of wicked problems, this is simply insufficient.
Transformations towards sustainability involve, for example, also changing practices, routines, and habits of both producers and consumers (e.g., [84,85,86,87]) and other types of innovation beyond technological solutions (e.g., [88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95]). Moreover, in order to achieve systemic changes, multiple sustainability dimensions (e.g., economic, institutional, cultural, organizational, etc.) have to be considered beyond environmental ones.
In summary, it can be said that research on IS enhances our understanding of conditions and actor configurations conducive to innovation [33,51,69,88] but so far lacks an explicit debate about the normativity, i.e., desirability and goals of innovation processes [28,29,31]. Furthermore, most previous IS approaches that deal with sustainability appear to have neglected its complexity by focusing on solving (only) environmental problems with (only) technological innovations [28,96]. This gap renders IS frameworks currently insufficient to address wicked problems in the context of sustainability.

3. Exploring the Normative Dimension

Evidently, it is anything but trivial to integrate “sustainability” in the sense of a goal-orientation in IS. Among other things, this is owed to the fact that sustainability can never be perceived as just “a technical optimisation puzzle waiting to be solved” [97] (p. 111). Instead, sustainability itself is a deeply complex normative issue that needs to be made explicit. This section, therefore, explores implications of this normative complexity for IS research aimed at transformations towards sustainability.

3.1. The Complex Normativity of Sustainability and the Need for a New IS Paradigm

It has long been recognized that sustainability per se has a deeply normative nature [98,99,100,101,102]. The literature on sustainability is not merely descriptive about various problems, but also prescriptive about practices for ‘human use of the Earth’ (e.g., [98,102,103]). Sustainability then provides a vision of a desirable state of what the future should look like, alongside a set of rules that indicate what ought to happen for this state to be reached [99]. However, it has been criticized that normative or ethical aspects of sustainability have often been misrepresented or even disregarded [104]. Although conceptions of sustainability share a general normative outlook, they differ on what the desired state should look like and by which means (i.e., practices) it ought to be attained (e.g., [7,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113]). In other words, different societal actors have different worldviews and visions with regard to (pathways to) sustainability [114,115,116]. For example, the so-called Brundtland Report emphasizes the ability of future generations to fulfil their needs and the conservation of plant and animal species [117], while the understanding of sustainability held by the report of the World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST) underlines the need to discern “the earth’s carrying capacity and continuity of regenerating enough resources for the sake of future generations and the vulnerable sectors of society” [118] (p. 11). Likewise, companies such as Unilever or Shell have a different conception of what a sustainable society ought to look like from non-governmental organizations such as Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth. Against this background, it can be observed that prior research on sustainability transformations has often neglected the complexity of differing worldviews, norms, and value systems by presuming consensus about the scale and importance of sustainability-related visions [119]. From this, it follows that the worldviews shaping both current IS frameworks and those dedicated to transformations must be scrutinized. Such an endeavor requires researchers to shift attention to the paradigm level.
A paradigm may be regarded as a set of basic beliefs or metaphysics that deals with ultimates or first principles [120]. For our current purpose, it can be defined as a complex set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitute a worldview for the community that shares them (see also [121,122,123]). Hence, paradigms span a bounded performative space within which certain actions or practices are regarded as possible, reasonable, legitimate, and important, while others are excluded as being impossible, illegitimate, unreasonable, and unimportant [124]. This performative space actuates but also bounds the emergence and development of practices within IS.
It is important to note, however, that the relationship between paradigms and societal practices is not unidirectional. Quite the contrary, in a co-evolutionary sense, we may contend that there actually are feedback loops between paradigm and practice. Foremost, paradigms are constitutive to legitimizing social activity taking place within IS. Yet, at the same time, certain practices may push paradigms into particular intended or unintended directions as paradigms are also constituted by practices, despite their resilience. This is due to their discursive constitution by the behaviors taking place within a social field and the reflection upon them (cf. [125,126,127,128,129]). As Montuori puts it, “we create knowledge that in turn creates us, our ways of thinking and acting and feeling” [130] (p. 152). Thus, normativity on a practical level cannot be understood independently from a paradigmatic one, but certain practices may also serve as (leverage) points to intervene in a system to facilitate a paradigm shift [131]. Thus, it is important to contrast the current IS paradigm with an advanced one capable of integrating sustainability as a deeply normative and complex issue.
Advancing IS in such a way actually requires a two-stage process: First, IS actors and researchers must adjust their perspective to scrutinizing the ultimate purpose of innovations. This, in turn, calls for incorporating a dedication to desirable goals and tackling important problems. A dedicated paradigm entails awareness for the necessity of pursuing these goals and the relevance of the problems, thereby affording heuristics and mental frames for exploring alternative innovation avenues. We will, therefore, refer to the advanced framework as “dedicated” IS paradigm or simply dedicated innovation system (DIS) as already indicated by Pyka [132]. While dedication can refer to various goals and different problems, a second step is required to concretize its orientation. In the light of wicked problems and the dismal prospects of current global developments, transformations towards sustainability offer a powerful frame of reference. For the remainder of this article, we use DIS in connection to this special case of “IS dedicated to transformations towards sustainability”.
Both the conventional and the DIS paradigms share the central assumption that innovation takes place in complex (evolutionary) systems. Yet, as mentioned before, first and foremost they differ in what they assume to be the desirable goal of innovation processes. While in the early days of the (conventional) IS framework (e.g., [41]), the desirable goal of innovation was economic development (e.g., including national competitiveness and the creation of income and jobs), it can be observed that today, innovation is more and more seen as a panacea and has therefore become akin to an aim in itself [30]. By contrast, in DIS it is innovations contributing to transformations towards sustainability that are desirable. However, this explicit systemic dedication requires that the complexity of normativity, as well as the wickedness of problems, are adequately considered.
Within the current IS paradigm, it is evident that economic growth, efficiency, and system improvement are regarded as important and technological innovations as per se legitimate. By contrast, the dominant values or norms of a DIS paradigm are not that straightforward in the face of the multiplexity of visions and pathways. One potential value frame has been proposed by Renn and colleagues [99], who suggest that sustainability involves the continuity and endurance of human social and ecological systems, inter- and intragenerational justice, and a sustainable quality of life for all. Nevertheless, even this value frame remains ambiguous, particularly in terms of translating the respective norms into transformative (innovation) practices. For example, which qualitative systemic change processes should enable continuity and endurance of which particular (sub-)systems? What is justice and in which context? Who determines what a sufficient and sustainable level of quality of life should look like? Despite these and several other open questions in the context of transformations, the three norms suggested above can be a central guiding principle of DIS (i.e., IS for society), whereas in conventional IS innovation trajectories are usually not aligned with an overall systemic vision (i.e., IS for the sake of innovation).
In the conventional paradigm, technological innovation, competition, entrepreneurship, and knowledge creation and its diffusion play a major role (e.g., see [48,64]). Innovation processes are determined primarily by the so-called “supply side” (e.g., [88]), and policy intervention is deemed necessary for correcting system failures (e.g., infrastructural, transition, lock-in/path-dependency, institutional, network, and capabilities failure as summarized by [133]). These activities and practices will also be important in a DIS paradigm, but they have to be expanded by transformative innovation based on alternative, dedicated innovation trajectories. Transformative innovation, as explained by Steward [93], goes beyond radically new technologies, products, or (production) processes; instead, it “is about the implementation of paradigm-breaking, system-wide novelty” (p. 15). Transformative innovation processes can, thereby, be understood as collective experimentation processes by multiple systemic actors [134,135] (e.g., citizens, mediators, social and sustainable entrepreneurs, etc.). Policies will be required that go beyond the “traditional” system failures and additionally address what Weber and Rohracher [25] have called transformational failures. A brief summary of the comparison between the conventional and the dedicated IS paradigm is presented in Table 1.
To recapitulate, sustainability goals cannot be easily integrated into an IS framework because the current IS paradigm cannot accommodate the complex normativity of sustainability. Instead, this requires a shift towards an IS paradigm dedicated to sustainability transformations. Such dedication, however, inevitably calls for a more rigorous consideration of at least three central questions: transform/sustain (1) what?; (2) why?; (3) by and for whom? (based on [136,137]). Other relevant questions may also include “for how long?”, “at what cost?”, and “at which scale so that it will make a difference?” [136,137]. If these questions have not been posed, any attempt to answer the question of “how” to achieve transformations towards sustainability will remain either window dressing or resemble hope for a silver bullet. Consequently, an IS approach suitable for contributing to sustainability transformations must also be related to these central questions. For the remainder of this article, we focus mainly on the questions of “what”, “why”, and “by and for whom” in an IS context, as we can argue that other questions will inevitably have to follow but cannot be discussed on the same level in this article.

3.2. Directionality, Legitimacy, and Responsibility: Questions to Be Answered

The first central question “what” to transform or sustain concerns the overarching issue of directionality or goal-orientation of IS [29,31]. Directionality primarily involves the question “what is the ultimate goal of an IS?” In the context of sustainability, it is also a question of “the right” transformation pathway(s) for social, economic, ecological, cultural, technological, and other relevant (sub-)systems. Therefore, directionality is not only about challenging the contemporary implicit focus on technological innovation and economic growth but also about opening up the IS approach for a variety of pathways (e.g., [19,115,138,139,140]) and actors [88] while closing down other, non-sustainable options.
However, previous discussions about directionality often seem to assume that steering is possible as if we already knew “the right direction”, which is questionable in the context of wicked problems. There are several additional problems when we make directionality explicit: First, the consideration of direction is quite contradictory to the evolutionary nature of innovation processes characterized by emergent properties, feedback effects, non-linearity, uncertainty, and a collective of fallible and boundedly rational actors [141,142,143]. In a similar vein, the authors of the flagship report by the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) stress that “[t]ransformations are usually open-ended processes, the results of a collective steering are never certain, and not clearly foreseeable, despite a defined goal” [144] (p. 107). Second, as mentioned above, a consensus on the desired transformation or systemic “goal” will hardly be reached as we are dealing with wicked problems and multiple actors with potentially conflicting interests and expectations [145]. It is, therefore, necessary to ask which (groups of) agents would be in the position and have the power to address matters of directionality and guide societies towards socially desirable outcomes.
This discussion inevitably leads us to the second central question mentioned above: the question of “why” to transform/sustain, which essentially relates to issues of legitimacy. In the context of wicked problems and sustainability, legitimacy is about finding answers to questions along the lines of “why should IS have a particular transformation goal?” and “who decides or determines the respective direction or pathway?” It is futile to rely only on top-down approaches by the government because, in the so-called network society, the monopoly of the state to produce social regulation and judicial norms is no longer self-evident [146]. Transformations have different initial conditions (e.g., geographically, culturally, economically) [147] and involve trade-offs. They radically change existing system structures and actors’ power relations, which makes compromises and negotiations necessary on various levels and sub-systems. At the same time, bottom-up participatory approaches cannot guarantee that “the right” innovative solutions to wicked problems will be found, even if all actors agreed on pursuing a particular pathway. Our knowledge about future impacts of solution attempts to wicked problems is principally limited [73]. Moreover, transformative grassroots movements face the additional problem of having to acquire a critical mass to be capable of “creatively destroying” non-sustainable industries and power relations in a truly Schumpeterian sense [148]. As Gowdy phrases it: “Can the human propensity for cooperation and community building be harnessed sufficiently to scale up and challenge a global system built on competition and accumulation?” [149] (p. 35). One of the major determinants of community building and scaling up human cooperation for sustainability is arguably culture, which is, however, still under-researched in the sustainability context [116,150,151].
It has often been argued that values, goals, norms, and beliefs that make up a paradigm are shaped by cultural evolutionary processes (e.g., [152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159]), thereby creating barriers and enablers for both the “what” and the “why” questions. For example, through the paradigm, culture shapes also systemic adaptations and responses to wicked problems such as climate change (e.g., [108,109,160]). Accordingly, cultural change itself is usually listed among the dimensions of the required sustainability transformations. This is why various authors have recently called for inquiries into how cultural evolution can be influenced to contribute to the emergence of more sustainable practices, institutions, and paradigms (e.g., [161,162,163,164,165]).
However, influencing evolutionary processes is far from facile and also relates to the third central question mentioned above: “by and for whom?”, which essentially concerns issues of responsibility. In the context of transformations, responsibility is closely related to agency as it is a matter of who holds the power to bring about change, and who bears the consequences.
Responsibility has probably received even less attention in the IS literature than issues of directionality and legitimacy. While the notion of corporate social responsibility has a long scholarly history and is well-established, it cannot be easily adapted to collective innovation and transformation processes in complex systems involving multiple heterogeneous actors and often fundamentally uncertain outcomes. Some kind of liability for emergent outcomes of complex systemic interactions can hardly be the kind of responsibility we are looking for, although some authors stress the importance of accountability also in the context of transformations towards sustainability (e.g., [23,166]). As a consequence of this complexity, however, neither individual nor collective responsibility concepts (e.g., [167,168]) are entirely suitable in the context of IS and transformations. This is owed to unknown causalities, unintended consequences, and the fact that positive or negative systemic impacts are mostly the result of a combination of individual and collective action as well as involuntary feedback effects.
To sum up, we argue that transformative systemic changes towards sustainability can be described and analyzed on the basis of an IS framework. The precondition is a paradigm change which requires engagement with issues of directionality (what future do we want?), legitimacy (why do we want this future, who defines it?), and responsibility (transformation by and for whom?). We have seen, however, that these questions are difficult to answer in a unilateral way in the case of wicked problems that call for transformations towards sustainability in multiple dimensions.

4. Theoretical and Practical Building Blocks for a New Research Agenda

These questions of directionality, legitimacy, and responsibility are already partly dealt with by theoretical and practical endeavors of IS-related research and policy that tackle some isolated aspects that can be used as building blocks for a DIS paradigm.
On the one hand, governments around the world usually do not struggle to provide direction by formulating general policy goals—also related to sustainability aspirations. The orientation of the corresponding innovation journeys is, on the other hand, much harder to achieve. This is particularly well-demonstrated by arguably unsuccessful agreements on the transnational level ranging from the Kyoto Protocol to the Paris Agreement, including so-called Grand Challenges (e.g., [15,16,17]) or the seventeen United Nations Sustainable Development Goals [169], which do not adequately consider the interrelatedness of (wicked) problems and the resulting trade-offs between solution attempts. Moreover, the relative ease with which individual governments such as the Trump administration of the United States of America can withdraw from such transnational agreements points to the importance of entrenching sustainability goals among all IS actors.
The innovation (systems) community has, to some extent, already addressed issues of directionality by investigating how innovation policy has an impact on the quality of the outcomes of structural change (see, e.g., [170,171,172,173,174]). Much of this research is based on evolutionary theorizing and modeling (see also [175]) and the large body of empirical literature this has given rise to (e.g., [176,177,178]). Traditionally, innovation policies have been classified as either generic, focusing on promoting innovation diffusion, structural change, and economic development in society more generally, or oriented towards coping with more specific challenges that policy-makers care about, so-called “mission-oriented” innovation policies (see, e.g., [53,179], for an overview). However, innovation policies aiming at transforming an IS towards sustainability are much more ambitious than earlier policies. Recently, so-called transformative innovation policies have been suggested (e.g., [19,139,180,181]), which aim at “directing socio-technical systems in socially desirable directions and embedding processes of change in society” [19] (p. 21).
Another way to introduce goal-orientation in IS is innovation systems foresight, recently proposed by Andersen and Andersen [182,183]. Innovation systems foresight is defined as a “systemic, systematic, participatory, future-intelligence-gathering and medium-to-long-term vision-building process aimed at present-day decisions and mobilising joint actions to improve innovation system performance with the ultimate goal of improving desirable socio-economic performance” [182] (p. 281). This framework has been developed on the basis of foresight and futures studies and has already served as a tool for strategically guiding IS transformations towards desirable directions [183].
But why should IS have a particular transformational goal in the first place and who determines the respective direction? Mazzucato [184,185,186] argues, for example, that traditional approaches to innovation policy seriously underestimate the potential for the state to provide clear goals (direction) to a society’s technological innovation journey through the systematic use of various policy instruments (an entrepreneurial state as she puts it). However, top-down policy-making may not be the most suitable approach to tackling wicked problems such as climate change [146,187,188]. Building on earlier work by Evans [189], Rodrik [190] suggests, for example, that a green industrial policy is needed where policy-makers embed policy processes better in society and involve a broader segment of actors in order to increase policy learning. Thereby, the probability of myopic turnarounds by contemporary administrations may also decrease. Due to the simple fact that policy-makers are not perfectly informed social planners, policy-making should be distributed. Furthermore, including key stakeholders becomes a necessary and integral part of innovation policies [183]. Aside from the substantive value of participation [191], mobilizing many actors at multiple scales can create legitimacy in general [192,193] and for sustainability goals [19,81,194,195] of an IS in particular.
Political economists have stressed the importance of inclusive institutions as vital rules of a system [192] that can empower citizens to make politicians pursue the interests of society as a whole. An IS framework incorporating such institutions has been introduced as inclusive IS, in which “relatively high levels of inclusion characterize the processes of learning and innovation and in which there is a relatively strong focus on innovation addressing the needs of the lower income strata” [81] (p. 284). The inclusive IS framework has been used to analyze a set of empirical cases to show how social inclusion impacts the (wicked) challenges of a low-carbon development.
In a similar vein, Bryden and Gezelius [28] address innovation’s legitimate purposes by exploring how institutions for innovation could be designed in order to address sustainability goals. They combine the IS framework with insights from business ethics (especially the influential ideas of Triple Bottom Line accounting [196,197,198]) and frame their concept as an IS for Human Rights-Based Triple Bottom Line (HRB-TBL) outcomes. Thereby, this novel conception explicitly goes beyond the technological paradigm and environmental dimension of the sustainability-oriented IS approaches mentioned above.
In order to endogenize directionality and thus create legitimacy in IS, Lindner and colleagues [31] propose to fuse IS with reflexive governance [174]. They develop ten quality criteria for reflexive IS including examples of relevant actors, indicators, and policy implications [31].
Another important insight into how systemic processes of change can be legitimized is provided by the proponents of sustainability transitions research (e.g., see [199,200,201,202,203], for reviews). These sustainability transitions have been defined as “long-term, multi-dimensional, and fundamental transformation processes through which established socio-technical systems shift to more sustainable modes of production and consumption” [201] (p. 956). At the operative level, transitions research has developed frameworks such as transition management [204,205,206], strategic niche management [207,208,209], and the multi-level perspective (e.g., [210,211,212,213]) that open up spaces for legitimization processes, including so-called transition arenas [205] or niche-related actor networks that may include citizens and environmental groups [207]. These frameworks have already been implemented in political practice, for example, in the Netherlands and Belgium [205,206,214].
Finally, to address issues of responsibility in innovation processes, a relatively new strand of literature has been developed around the notion of responsible research and innovation or simply responsible innovation (RI) (e.g., [15,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,215,216,217]. RI incorporates a normative outlook into multi-stakeholder innovation practices (e.g., [36,218]) and aims to achieve (ethically) acceptable, sustainable, and societally desirable outcomes of innovation processes and their marketable products [15,37]. Arnaldi and colleagues [219] even consider responsible research and innovation as the key to “steer[ing] the innovation process from the inside towards societal goals” and thus leaving behind the traditional emphasis of responsibility on fault, punishment, risk, compensation, and coping with “negative externalities” (p. 26). RI includes a wide range of (pre-existing) theories and approaches (see, e.g., [38,39,40]). Lubberink and colleagues [39] compile six central dimensions of RI based on a systematic review of the literature, namely anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion, deliberation, responsiveness, and knowledge management, and they suggest operationalization strategies for each of these dimensions.
In summary, there have been many IS-related approaches that address elements relevant for taking the normative dimension seriously: transformative innovation policy, innovation system foresight, the entrepreneurial state, green industrial policy, inclusive IS, the HRB-TBL, reflexive IS, frameworks developed on the basis of transitions research, and RI. However, the questions of transforming/sustaining what, why, and by and for whom are highly interrelated and call for more integrated theoretical and practical approaches that consider directionality, legitimacy, and responsibility in a holistic way. The overarching question for further research will, therefore, be: How can DIS incorporate legitimate goal-orientation for transformative innovation by and for society?
Hence, while these scattered strands of literature and policy endeavors have contributed a lot to solve parts of the issues related to the paradigmatic normativity of IS, various open questions remain to be answered by future research, including the following issues:
  • Although policy-makers can be given an accessible platform and a common language for discussion by drawing upon an IS framework, further investigations are needed on the systemic causes of resistance to change associated with directionality, legitimacy, and responsibility. Examples of research objects may include the paradigmatic “lock-in” in unsustainable value systems and the issue of bounded morality [84] of systemic actors.
  • Researchers need to shift attention from trying to find “the one” solution to acknowledging that there are multiple transformation pathways and an epistemic insufficiency to predict “the right” future. This calls for enabling a continuous feedback mechanism between setting goals, formulating normative strategies to reach these goals, while reflecting on the legitimacy of these strategies.
  • Future research must address ways to influence the evolution of complex systems, for example, by drawing upon the literature on so-called leverage points as places to intervene in IS (e.g., [131]).
  • The literature on RI has so far not established sufficient references to the IS literature and vice versa. It is still under-researched what RI would entail in the context of IS. Therefore, further research is needed on how a systemic concept of responsibility can be developed.
  • As it has been stressed by others, one of the important aspects of responsibility in the context of innovation is that it is shared (e.g., [36]). Since responsibility is frequently regarded as a correlate of power (e.g., [220,221]), a notion of shared responsibility in an IS context implies that future research is advisable on the role of power and capabilities (e.g., [222,223]) of systemic actors (see also [75,84]).
  • Policy programs are required that tackle transformational failures [25] and sustainability-related ecosystem failures [114] by means of adaptive and reflexive governance instruments allowing for experimentation and inclusion of relevant stakeholders.
  • Further research is needed on questions of how participatory elements (e.g., stakeholder engagement in innovation) for transformative efforts can be fostered and governed, and how “the right” stakeholders could be selected (because an inclusion of all stakeholders guarantees neither consensus nor selection of adequate solutions).
  • It will also be important to investigate which actors and elements of DIS are universal, which are contingent and depend on geographical or cultural particularities. DIS concern multiple levels (e.g., global, national, regional, sectoral, technological, etc.) and do not aim at developing a “one size fits all” paradigm.
  • In this connection, the differences in temporal structure and dynamics between varieties of DIS should be explored (e.g., co-existence of old and new systems, the role of early adopters, pioneering roles of advanced economies, specific designs of innovation: e.g., engineering vs. frugal).
Notwithstanding the necessity of these research endeavors, we must keep in mind what Sendzimir and colleagues wrote already more than a decade ago: “No system of analysis, policy, or practice will ever eliminate surprise and uncertainty. Innovation and novelty as well as wicked problems incessantly emerge from evolving systems of nature and humanity, and will continue to do so. … Our responsibility to address the impacts of evolution through new ways of learning, managing, and discussion must engage uncertainty as a stimulus to explore innovations and not as a basis of apprehension and apathy” [224] (p. 157).

5. Conclusions

IS offer a widely accepted and broadly used framework to analyze innovation processes. Because of the heterogeneity of involved actors and the dynamics and imponderables of learning processes as well as knowledge diffusion, the analysis of innovation processes generally requires a framework open for complexity. This is even more important when the nature of innovation becomes more fundamental and includes radical systemic changes such as transformations towards sustainability. We argue that the current IS framework is insufficient because it focuses too much on technological solutions and implicitly follows the normative assumption that innovation is per se desirable. Therefore, shifting attention to the paradigm level is the only way to potentially integrate the complex normativity of sustainability in IS. The guiding assumptions, values, norms, and practices of the current IS paradigm must be challenged in order to achieve a systemic dedication to sustainability. A dedicated paradigm or an IS dedicated to transformations towards sustainability can in principle allow for innovation trajectories that are to be subordinated to a sustainability goal. However, wicked problems and conflicting interests, expectations, and visions concerning sustainability require researchers to delve into questions of directionality, legitimacy, and responsibility. Previous IS-related approaches to these issues are scattered but already provide valuable building blocks for a more integrative investigation as proposed above. Future research is needed on how DIS can incorporate legitimate goal-orientation for transformative innovation by and for society. This research agenda covers various avenues. We commence with three rather general proposals: to explore systemic causes of resistance to change, to identify potential places to intervene in IS, and to engage in a stronger fusion of IS with RI. We then move on to the specific research objects of potential policy instruments for reflexive governance and stakeholder inclusion. Finally, we call for a substantiation of the introduced DIS framework, including questions of a spatial and temporal scale.

Acknowledgments

This article was developed on the basis of Andreas Pyka’s presentation at the Society of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity (SOItmC) Conference, 15–18 June 2017, in Riga, Latvia, and we have benefited from presenting an earlier version of this paper at the 15th Globelics International Conference, 11–13 October 2017, in Athens, Greece. We are grateful for helpful questions, comments, and suggestions from participants of both events. The authors would also like to thank Lukas Zuschrott for his help with formatting the final article and references.

Author Contributions

Michael Schlaile and Sophie Urmetzer contributed equally as lead authors. Vincent Blok was significantly involved in developing the structure of the arguments and the final writing of the article. Allan Dahl Andersen was predominantly involved in writing central parts of Section 4. Job Timmermans contributed key elements of Section 3.1 and the paragraph on responsible innovation in Section 4. Matthias Mueller, Jan Fagerberg, and Andreas Pyka were involved in the overall supervision and provided input to all sections of the draft. All authors read carefully and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Brand, U.; Wissen, M. Global environmental politics and the imperial mode of living: Articulations of state–capital relations in the multiple crisis. Globalizations 2012, 9, 547–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Meadows, D.H.; Meadows, D.L.; Randers, J.; Behrens, W.W., III. The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind; Universe Books: New York, NY, USA, 1972; ISBN 9780876632222. [Google Scholar]
  3. Meadows, D.H.; Randers, J.; Meadows, D.L. Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update; Earthscan: London, UK, 2004; ISBN 9781844071449. [Google Scholar]
  4. Rockström, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, Å.; Chapin, F.S., III; Lambin, E.F.; Lenton, T.M.; Scheffer, M.; Folke, C.; Schellnhuber, H.J.; et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 2009, 461, 472–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rockström, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, Å.; Chapin, F.S., III; Lambin, E.; Lenton, T.M.; Scheffer, M.; Folke, C.; Schellnhuber, H.J.; et al. Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc. 2009, 14, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Steffen, W.; Richardson, K.; Rockström, J.; Cornell, S.E.; Fetzer, I.; Bennett, E.M.; Biggs, R.; Carpenter, S.R.; de Vries, W.; de Wit, C.A.; et al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 2015, 347, 1259855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Blok, V.; Gremmen, B.; Wesselink, R. Dealing with the wicked problem of sustainability: The role of individual virtuous competence. Bus. Prof. Ethics J. 2015, 34, 297–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hulme, M. Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009; ISBN 9780521727327. [Google Scholar]
  9. Rittel, H.W.J.; Webber, M.M. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 1973, 4, 155–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Von Wehrden, H.; Luederitz, C.; Leventon, J.; Russell, S. Methodological challenges in sustainability science: A call for method plurality, procedural rigor and longitudinal research. Chall. Sustain. 2017, 5, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Brown, V.A.; Harris, J.A.; Russell, J.Y. (Eds.) Tackling Wicked Problems through the Transdisciplinary Imagination; Earthscan: London, UK, 2010; ISBN 9781844079247. [Google Scholar]
  12. Rotmans, J.; Loorbach, D. Complexity and transition management. J. Ind. Ecol. 2009, 13, 184–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  13. Frantzeskaki, N.; Loorbach, D.; Meadowcroft, J. Governing societal transitions to sustainability. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 15, 19–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hassan, Z. The Social Labs Revolution: A New Approach to Solving our most Complex Challenges; Berrett-Koehler Publishers: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2014; ISBN 9781626560734. [Google Scholar]
  15. Von Schomberg, R. A vision of responsible research and innovation. In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society; Owen, R., Bessant, J., Heintz, M., Eds.; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2013; pp. 51–74. ISBN 9781119966364. [Google Scholar]
  16. Cagnin, C.; Amanatidou, E.; Keenan, M. Orienting European innovation systems towards grand challenges and the roles that FTA can play. Sci. Public Policy 2012, 39, 140–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kuhlmann, S.; Rip, A. The Challenge of Addressing Grand Challenges: A Think Piece on How Innovation Can Be Driven Towards the “Grand Challenges” as Defined under the Prospective European Union Framework Programme Horizon 2020; European Research and Innovation Area Board (ERIAB): Brussels, Belgium, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  18. Levin, K.; Cashore, B.; Bernstein, S.; Auld, G. Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: Constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sci. 2012, 45, 123–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Schot, J.; Steinmueller, E. Framing Innovation Policy for Transformative Change: Innovation Policy 3.0. 2016. Available online: http://www.johanschot.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/SchotSteinmueller_FramingsWorkingPaperVersionUpdated2018.10.16-New-copy.pdf (accessed on 6 December 2017).
  20. Ostrom, E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 2009, 325, 419–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. European Environment Agency. Sustainability Transitions: Now for the Long Term; Eionet Report No 1/2016; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  22. Görg, C.; Brand, U.; Haberl, H.; Hummel, D.; Jahn, T.; Liehr, S. Challenges for social-ecological transformations: Contributions from social and political ecology. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Patterson, J.; Schulz, K.; Vervoort, J.; Van der Hel, S.; Widerberg, O.; Adler, C.; Hurlbert, M.; Anderton, K.; Sethi, M.; Barau, A. Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2017, 24, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Weber, M.; Hemmelskamp, J. (Eds.) Towards Environmental Innovation Systems; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2005; ISBN 9783540223221. [Google Scholar]
  25. Weber, K.M.; Rohracher, H. Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change: Combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 1037–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hill, R.; Robinson, C.; Pert, P.; Barber, M.; Lyons, I.; Maclean, K.; Talbot, L.; Moran, C. Integration science for impact: Fostering transformations towards sustainability. In Social Science and Sustainability; Schandl, H., Walker, I., Eds.; CSIRO: Clayton, Australia, 2017; pp. 23–50. ISBN 9781486306411. [Google Scholar]
  27. Bryden, J.M.; Gezelius, S.S.; Refsgaard, K. Governing Innovation for Sustainable Development: Designing Creative Institutions; Working Paper 2013-5; Norwegian Agricultural Economics Research Institute: Oslo, Norway, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  28. Bryden, J.M.; Gezelius, S.S. Innovation as if people mattered: The ethics of innovation for sustainable development. Innov. Dev. 2017, 7, 101–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Daimer, S.; Hufnagl, M.; Warnke, P. Challenge-oriented policy-making and innovation systems theory. Reconsidering systemic instruments. In Innovation System Revisited: Experiences from 40 Years of Fraunhofer ISI Research; Koschatzky, K., Ed.; Fraunhofer ISI: Karlsruhe, Germany, 2012; pp. 217–234. ISBN 9783839604434. [Google Scholar]
  30. Godin, B. Innovation Contested: The Idea of Innovation over the Centuries; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015; ISBN 9780415727204. [Google Scholar]
  31. Lindner, R.; Daimer, S.; Beckert, B.; Heyen, N.; Koehler, J.; Teufel, B.; Warnke, P.; Wydra, S. Addressing Directionality: Orientation Failure and the Systems of Innovation Heuristic. Towards Reflexive Governance; Fraunhofer ISI Discussion Papers Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis No. 52; Fraunhofer-Institut für System- und Innovationsforschung ISI: Karlsruhe, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  32. Soete, L. Is innovation always good? In Innovation Studies: Evolution and Future Challenges; Fagerberg, J., Martin, B.R., Andersen, E.S., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2013; pp. 134–144. ISBN 9780199686346. [Google Scholar]
  33. Weber, K.M.; Truffer, B. Moving innovation systems research to the next level: Towards an integrative agenda. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 2017, 33, 101–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Owen, R.; Macnaghten, P.; Stilgoe, J. Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Sci. Public Policy 2012, 39, 751–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Owen, R.; Bessant, J.; Heintz, M. (Eds.) Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2013; ISBN 9781119966364. [Google Scholar]
  36. Stilgoe, J.; Owen, R.; Macnaghten, P. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res. Policy 2013, 42, 1568–1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  37. Von Schomberg, R. Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In Technikfolgen Abschätzen Lehren: Bildungspotenziale Transdisziplinärer Methoden; Dusseldorp, M., Beecroft, R., Eds.; Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2012; pp. 39–61. ISBN 9783531934686. [Google Scholar]
  38. Lubberink, R.; Blok, V.; van Ophem, J.; Omta, O. A framework for responsible innovation in the business context: Lessons from responsible-, social- and sustainable innovation. In Responsible Innovation 3: A European Agenda? Asveld, L., van Dam-Mieras, R., Swierstra, T., Lavrijssen, S., Linse, K., van den Hoven, J., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 181–207. ISBN 9783319648347. [Google Scholar]
  39. Lubberink, R.; Blok, V.; van Ophem, J.; Omta, O. Lessons for responsible innovation in the business context: A systematic literature review of responsible, social and sustainable innovation practices. Sustainability 2017, 9, 721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Timmermans, J. Mapping the RRI landscape: An overview of organisations, projects, persons, areas and topics. In Responsible Innovation 3: A European Agenda? Asveld, L., van Dam-Mieras, R., Swierstra, T., Lavrijssen, S., Linse, K., van den Hoven, J., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 21–47. ISBN 9783319648347. [Google Scholar]
  41. Freeman, C. Technology Policy and Economic Performance; Lessons from Japan; Pinter: London, UK, 1987; ISBN 9780861879281. [Google Scholar]
  42. Dosi, G.; Freeman, C.; Nelson, R.; Silverberg, G.; Soete, L. (Eds.) Technical Change and Economic Theory; Pinter: London, UK, 1988; ISBN 9780861879496. [Google Scholar]
  43. Lundvall, B.-Å. (Ed.) National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning; Pinter: London, UK, 1992; ISBN 9781855670631. [Google Scholar]
  44. Lundvall, B.-Å. Why study national systems and national styles of innovation? Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 1998, 10, 403–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Nelson, R.R. (Ed.) National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis; Oxford University Press: London, UK, 1993; ISBN 9780195360431. [Google Scholar]
  46. Moussavi, A.; Kermanshah, A. Innovation systems approach: A philosophical appraisal. Philos. Manag. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Niosi, J.; Saviotti, P.; Bellon, B.; Crow, M. National systems of innovation: In search of a workable concept. Technol. Soc. 1993, 15, 207–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Edquist, C. Systems of innovation: Perspectives and challenges. In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation; Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005; pp. 181–208. ISBN 9780199286805. [Google Scholar]
  49. Fagerberg, J.; Sapprasert, K. National innovation systems: The emergence of a new approach. Sci. Public Policy 2011, 38, 669–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Godin, B. National innovation system: The system approach in historical perspective. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2009, 34, 476–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Klein, M.; Sauer, A. Celebrating 30 Years of Innovation System Research: What You Need to Know about Innovation Systems; Hohenheim Discussion Papers in Business, Economics and Social Sciences 17-2016; Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, University of Hohenheim: Stuttgart, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  52. Sharif, N. Emergence and development of the national innovation systems concept. Res. Policy 2006, 35, 745–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Edler, J.; Fagerberg, J. Innovation policy: What, why, and how. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 2017, 33, 2–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Fagerberg, J. Innovation policy: Rationales, lessons and challenges. J. Econ. Surv. 2017, 31, 497–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Edquist, C. Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions, and Organizations; Pinter: London, UK, 1997; ISBN 9781855674523. [Google Scholar]
  56. Lundvall, B.-Å. National innovation systems—Analytical concept and development tool. Ind. Innov. 2007, 14, 95–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Johnson, B.; Lundvall, B.-Å. National innovation systems (NIS). In Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship; Carayannis, E.G., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 1341–1347. ISBN 9781461438588. [Google Scholar]
  58. Teixeira, A.A.C. Evolution, roots and influence of the literature on national systems of innovation: A bibliometric account. Camb. J. Econ. 2014, 38, 181–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Doloreux, D.; Porto Gomez, I. A review of (almost) 20 years of regional innovation systems research. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2017, 25, 371–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Malerba, F. Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Res. Policy 2002, 31, 247–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Malerba, F. Sectoral systems: How and why innovation differs across sectors. In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation; Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005; pp. 380–406. ISBN 9780199286805. [Google Scholar]
  62. Bergek, A.; Jacobsson, S.; Carlsson, B.; Lindmark, S.; Rickne, A. Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Res. Policy 2008, 37, 407–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Carlsson, B.; Stankiewicz, R. On the nature, function and composition of technological systems. J. Evol. Econ. 1991, 1, 93–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hekkert, M.P.; Suurs, R.A.A.; Negro, S.O.; Kuhlmann, S.; Smits, R.E.H.M. Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2007, 74, 413–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Markard, J.; Hekkert, M.; Jacobsson, S. The technological innovation systems framework: Response to six criticisms. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2015, 16, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Binz, C.; Truffer, B. Global innovation systems—A conceptual framework for innovation dynamics in transnational contexts. Res. Policy 2017, 46, 1284–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Gregersen, B.; Johnson, B. Learning economies, innovation systems and European integration. Reg. Stud. 1997, 31, 479–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Edquist, C.; Johnson, B. Institutions and organizations in systems of innovation. In Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions, and Organizations; Edquist, C., Ed.; Pinter: London, UK, 1997; pp. 41–63. [Google Scholar]
  69. Lundvall, B.-Å. The Learning Economy and the Economics of Hope; Anthem Press: London, UK, 2016; ISBN 9781783085965. [Google Scholar]
  70. Wydra, S. Challenges for technology diffusion policy to achieve socio-economic goals. Technol. Soc. 2015, 41, 76–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Patel, P.; Pavitt, K. National innovation systems: Why they are important, and how they might be measured and compared. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 1994, 3, 77–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Edquist, C.; Lundvall, B.-Å. Comparing the Danish and Swedish systems of innovation. In National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis; Nelson, R.R., Ed.; Oxford University Press: London, UK, 1993; pp. 265–298. ISBN 9780195360431. [Google Scholar]
  73. Blok, V.; Lemmens, P. The emerging concept of responsible innovation. Three reasons why it is questionable and calls for a radical transformation of the concept of innovation. In Responsible Innovation 2: Concepts, Approaches, and Applications; Koops, B.-J., Oosterlaken, I., Romijn, H., Swierstra, T., van den Hoven, J., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 19–35. ISBN 9783319173085. [Google Scholar]
  74. Buenstorf, G.; Cantner, U.; Hanusch, H.; Hutter, M.; Lorenz, H.-W.; Rahmeyer, F. Editorial: The two sides of innovation: Creation and destruction in the evolution of capitalist economies. In The Two Sides of Innovation: Creation and Destruction in the Evolution of Capitalist Economies; Buenstorf, G., Cantner, U., Hanusch, H., Hutter, M., Lorenz, H.-W., Rahmeyer, F., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2013; pp. 1–7. ISBN 9783319014951. [Google Scholar]
  75. Schlaile, M.P.; Mueller, M.; Schramm, M.; Pyka, A. Evolutionary economics, responsible innovation and demand: Making a case for the role of consumers. Philos. Manag. 2017, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Freeman, C. The Economics of Hope: Essays on Technical Change, Economic Growth, and the Environment; Pinter: London, UK, 1992; ISBN 9781855670839. [Google Scholar]
  77. Altenburg, T.; Pegels, A. Sustainability-oriented innovation systems—Managing the green transformation. Innov. Dev. 2012, 2, 5–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Jacobsson, S.; Bergek, A. Innovation system analyses and sustainability transitions: Contributions and suggestions for research. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2011, 1, 41–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Segura-Bonilla, O. Sustainable Systems of Innovation: The Forest Sector in Central America. Ph.D. Dissertation, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  80. Segura-Bonilla, O. Competitiveness, systems of innovation and the learning economy: The forest sector in Costa Rica. For. Policy Econ. 2003, 5, 373–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Andersen, A.D.; Johnson, B. Low-carbon development and inclusive innovation systems. Innov. Dev. 2015, 5, 279–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Stamm, A. Sustainability-Oriented Innovation Systems: Towards Decoupling Economic Growth from Environmental Pressures? 2009. Available online: http://edoc.vifapol.de/opus/volltexte/2011/3310/pdf/DP_20.2009.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2017).
  83. Walz, R.; Kuhlmann, S. Nachhaltigkeitsinnovationen in systemischer Perspektive. In Erde 2.0—Technologische Innovationen als Chance für Eine Nachhaltige Entwicklung? Mappus, S., Ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2005; pp. 278–310. ISBN 9783540213277. [Google Scholar]
  84. Schlaile, M.P.; Klein, K.; Böck, W. From bounded morality to consumer social responsibility: A transdisciplinary approach to socially responsible consumption and its obstacles. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Schmidt, I. Consumer Social Responsibility: Gemeinsame Verantwortung für Nachhaltiges Konsumieren und Produzieren; Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2016; ISBN 9783658108656. [Google Scholar]
  86. Davies, A.R.; Fahy, F.; Rau, H. (Eds.) Challenging Consumption: Pathways to a More Sustainable Future; Routledge: London, UK, 2014; ISBN 9781136734908. [Google Scholar]
  87. Southerton, D.; Ulph, A. (Eds.) Sustainable Consumption: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives in Honour of Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2014; ISBN 9780199679355. [Google Scholar]
  88. Warnke, P.; Koschatzky, K.; Dönitz, E.; Zenker, A.; Stahlecker, T.; Som, O.; Cuhls, K.; Güth, S. Opening up the Innovation System Framework towards New Actors and Institutions; Fraunhofer ISI Discussion Papers Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis No. 49; Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research: Karlsruhe, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  89. Avelino, F.; Wittmayer, J.M.; Pel, B.; Weaver, P.; Dumitru, A.; Haxeltine, A.; Kemp, R.; Jørgensen, M.S.; Bauler, T.; Ruijsink, S.; et al. Transformative social innovation and (dis)empowerment. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Haxeltine, A.; Avelino, F.; Pel, B.; Dumitru, A.; Kemp, R.; Longhurst, N.; Chilvers, J.; Wittmayer, J.M. A Framework for Transformative Social Innovation; TRANSIT Working Paper #5; TRANsformative Social Innovation Theory: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  91. Olsson, P.; Moore, M.-L.; Westley, F.R.; McCarthy, D.D.P. The concept of the Anthropocene as a game-changer: A new context for social innovation and transformations to sustainability. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22, 3114–3131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Rao-Nicholson, R.; Vorley, T.; Khan, Z. Social innovation in emerging economies: A national systems of innovation based approach. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 121, 228–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Steward, F. Breaking the Boundaries: Transformative Innovation for the Global Good; NESTA: London, UK, 2008; ISBN 9781848750135. [Google Scholar]
  94. Bajmócy, Z.; Gébert, J. The outlines of innovation policy in the capability approach. Technol. Soc. 2014, 38, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Leach, M.; Rockström, J.; Raskin, P.; Scoones, I.; Stirling, A.C.; Smith, A.; Thompson, J.; Millstone, E.; Ely, A.; Arond, E.; et al. Transforming innovation for sustainability. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Green, K. Towards environmental innovation—A policy synthesis. In Towards Environmental Innovation Systems; Weber, M., Hemmelskamp, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2005; pp. 319–323. ISBN 9783540272984. [Google Scholar]
  97. Hormio, S. Climate change mitigation, sustainability and non-sustainability. In The Ethical Underpinnings of Climate Economics; Walsh, A., Hormio, S., Purves, D., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; pp. 103–121. [Google Scholar]
  98. Kates, R.W. Queries on the human use of the earth. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 2001, 26, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Renn, O.; Jäger, A.; Deuschle, J.; Weimer-Jehle, W. A normative-functional concept of sustainability and its indicators. Int. J. Glob. Environ. Issues 2009, 9, 291–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Swart, R.J.; Raskin, P.; Robinson, J. The problem of the future: Sustainability science and scenario analysis. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2004, 14, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Walsh, A.J.; Hormio, S.; Purves, D. (Eds.) The Ethical Underpinnings of Climate Economics; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; ISBN 9781138122963. [Google Scholar]
  102. Wang, L.-S. Causal efficacy and the normative notion of sustainability science. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2011, 7, 30–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Hahn, R. The ethical rational of business for the poor—Integrating the concepts bottom of the pyramid, sustainable development, and corporate citizenship. J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 84, 313–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Becker, C. Sustainability Ethics and Sustainability Research; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012; ISBN 9789400722842. [Google Scholar]
  105. De Wit, B.; Meyer, R. Strategy Synthesis: Resolving Strategy Paradoxes to Create Competitive Advantage; Cengage Learning EMEA: London, UK, 2010; ISBN 9781408018996. [Google Scholar]
  106. De Witt, A. Climate change and the clash of worldviews: An exploration of how to move forward in a polarized debate. Zygon 2015, 50, 906–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Franceschini, S.; Faria, L.G.D.; Jurowetzki, R. Unveiling scientific communities about sustainability and innovation. A bibliometric journey around sustainable terms. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 127, 72–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  108. Hoffman, A.J. Climate science as culture war. Stanf. Soc. Innov. Rev. 2012, 10, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Hoffman, A.J. How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate; Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, USA, 2015; ISBN 9780804794220. [Google Scholar]
  110. Hulme, M. (Still) disagreeing about climate change: Which way forward? Zygon 2015, 50, 893–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Peterson, H. Transformational supply chains and the ‘wicked problem’ of sustainability: Aligning knowledge, innovation, entrepreneurship, and leadership. J. Chain Netw. Sci. 2009, 9, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Anderson, M.W.; Teisl, M.F.; Noblet, C.L. Whose values count: Is a theory of social choice for sustainability science possible? Sustain. Sci. 2015, 11, 373–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Miller, T.R.; Wiek, A.; Sarewitz, D.; Robinson, J.; Olsson, L.; Kriebel, D.; Loorbach, D. The future of sustainability science: A solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustain. Sci. 2014, 9, 239–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Blok, V. Information asymmetries and the paradox of sustainable business models: Towards an integrated theory of sustainable entrepreneurship. In Sustainable Business Models: Principles, Promise, and Practice; Idowu, S., Moratis, L., Melissen, F., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  115. Luederitz, C.; Abson, D.J.; Audet, R.; Lang, D.J. Many pathways toward sustainability: Not conflict but co-learning between transition narratives. Sustain. Sci. 2017, 12, 393–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Parodi, O. The missing aspect of culture in sustainability concepts. In Theories of Sustainable Development; Enders, J.C., Remig, M., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2015; pp. 169–187. ISBN 9781138796362. [Google Scholar]
  117. World Commission on Environment and Development. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future; United Nations: Oxford, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  118. World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST). Ethical Principles for Climate Change: Adaptation and Mitigation; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  119. Almudi, I.; Fatas-Villafranca, F.; Potts, J. Utopia competition: A new approach to the micro-foundations of sustainability transitions. J. Bioecon. 2017, 19, 165–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Denzin, N.K.; Lincoln, Y.S. Paradigms and perspectives in contention. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed.; Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., Eds.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2005; pp. 183–190. ISBN 9780761927570. [Google Scholar]
  121. Meadows, D.H. Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System; Sustainability Institute: Hartland, VT, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  122. Meadows, D.H. Thinking in Systems: A Primer; Earthscan: London, UK, 2008; ISBN 9781603580557. [Google Scholar]
  123. Sanford, C. Language as clue: The effect of paradigms on creating systemic change in business. Spanda J. 2015, 6, 129–135. [Google Scholar]
  124. Ratcliffe, J.W. Notions of validity in qualitative research methodology. Knowledge 1983, 5, 147–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Berger, P.L.; Luckmann, T. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge; Penguin: London, UK, 1966; ISBN 9780385058988. [Google Scholar]
  126. Donmoyer, R. Paradigm. In The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods; Given, L.M., Ed.; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 591–595. ISBN 9781452265896. [Google Scholar]
  127. Morgan, D.L. Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. J. Mixed Methods Res. 2007, 1, 48–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Searle, J.R. Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2010; ISBN 9780195396171. [Google Scholar]
  129. Searle, J.R. The Construction of Social Reality; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995; ISBN 9780029280454. [Google Scholar]
  130. Montuori, A. The evolution of creativity and the creativity of evolution. Spanda J. 2017, 7, 147–156. [Google Scholar]
  131. Abson, D.J.; Fischer, J.; Leventon, J.; Newig, J.; Schomerus, T.; Vilsmaier, U.; von Wehrden, H.; Abernethy, P.; Ives, C.D.; Jager, N.W.; et al. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 2017, 46, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Pyka, A. Transformation of economic systems: The bio-economy case. In Knowledge-Driven Developments in the Bioeconomy; Dabbert, S., Lewandowski, I., Weiss, J., Pyka, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 3–36. ISBN 9783319583730. [Google Scholar]
  133. Klein Woolthuis, R.; Lankhuizen, M.; Gilsing, V. A system failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation 2005, 25, 609–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Joly, P.-B.; Rip, A.; Callon, M. Re-inventing innovation. In Governance of Innovation: Firms, Clusters and Institutions in a Changing Setting; Arentsen, M.J., van Rossum, W., Steenge, A.E., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2010; pp. 19–32. ISBN 9781847207388. [Google Scholar]
  135. Joly, P.-B. Beyond the competitiveness framework? Models of innovation revisited. J. Innov. Econ. Manag. 2017, 22, 79–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Tainter, J. What Is Transformation? Presentation; Recorded at the 1st Transformative Knowledge Workshop. November 2014. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0gFP0zW_qY (accessed on 5 December 2017).
  137. O’Brien, K. Global environmental change II: From adaptation to deliberate transformation. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2012, 36, 667–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Stirling, A. Direction, Distribution and Diversity! Pluralising Progress in Innovation, Sustainability and Development; STEPS Working Paper 32; STEPS Centre: Brighton, UK, 2009; ISBN 9781858647916. [Google Scholar]
  139. Schot, J.; Daniels, C.; Torrens, J.; Bloomfield, G. Developing a Shared Understanding of Transformative Innovation Policy. Available online: http://www.transformative-innovation-policy.net/publications/developing-a-shared-understanding/ (accessed on 5 December 2017).
  140. Turnheim, B.; Berkhout, F.; Geels, F.; Hof, A.; McMeekin, A.; Nykvist, B.; van Vuuren, D. Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: Bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2015, 35, 239–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Berkhout, F. Technological regimes, environmental performance and innovation systems: Tracing the links. In Towards Environmental Innovation Systems; Weber, M., Hemmelskamp, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2005; pp. 57–80. ISBN 9783540272984. [Google Scholar]
  142. Smits, R.E.; Kuhlmann, S.; Shapira, P. (Eds.) The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2010; ISBN 9781845428488. [Google Scholar]
  143. Hodgson, G.M. Evolution and optimality. In The Elgar Companion to Institutional and Evolutionary Economics A-K; Hodgson, G.M., Samuels, W.J., Tool, M.R., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 1994; pp. 207–212. ISBN 9781852784393. [Google Scholar]
  144. WBGU. World in Transition: A Social Contract for Sustainability; Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen: Berlin, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  145. Berkhout, F. Normative expectations in systems innovation. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2006, 18, 299–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  146. Castells, M. The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture, 2nd ed.; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2010; Volume 3. [Google Scholar]
  147. Urmetzer, S.; Pyka, A. Varieties of knowledge-based bioeconomies. In Knowledge-Driven Developments in the Bioeconomy; Dabbert, S., Lewandowski, I., Weiss, J., Pyka, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 57–82. ISBN 9783319583730. [Google Scholar]
  148. Schumpeter, J.A. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2003; ISBN 0203202058. [Google Scholar]
  149. Gowdy, J.M. Governance, sustainability, and evolution. In State of the World 2014: Governing for Sustainability; Worldwatch Institute, Ed.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; pp. 31–40. ISBN 9781610915427. [Google Scholar]
  150. Parodi, O.; Banse, G.; Schaffer, A. (Eds.) Wechselspiele: Kultur und Nachhaltigkeit: Annäherungen an ein Spannungsfeld; Edition Sigma: Berlin, Germany, 2010; ISBN 9783894045852. [Google Scholar]
  151. Clammer, J. Cultures of Transition and Sustainability: Culture after Capitalism; Palgrave Macmillan US: New York, NY, USA, 2016; ISBN 9781137520333. [Google Scholar]
  152. Boyd, R.; Richerson, P. Culture and the Evolutionary Process; The University of Chicago Press: Chigago, IL, USA, 1985; ISBN 9780226069333. [Google Scholar]
  153. Boyd, R.; Richerson, P.J. The evolution of norms: An anthropological view. J. Inst. Theor. Econ. 1994, 150, 72–87. [Google Scholar]
  154. Henrich, J. The Secret of Our Success: How Culture Is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species, and Making Us Smarter; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2015; ISBN 9780691166858. [Google Scholar]
  155. Mokyr, J. A Culture of Growth: The Origins of the Modern Economy; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2016; ISBN 9780691168883. [Google Scholar]
  156. Richerson, P.J.; Boyd, R. Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2005; ISBN 9780226712123. [Google Scholar]
  157. Waring, T.M.; Tremblay, E. An evolutionary approach to sustainability science. Cliodyn. J. Quant. Hist. Cult. Evol. 2016, 7, 119–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Waring, T.M.; Kline, M.A.; Brooks, J.S.; Goff, S.H.; Gowdy, J.; Janssen, M.A.; Smaldino, P.E.; Jacquet, J. A multilevel evolutionary framework for sustainability analysis. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20, 3415–3431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Wuketits, F.M. Moral systems as evolutionary systems: Taking evolutionary ethics seriously. J. Soc. Evol. Syst. 1993, 16, 251–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Adger, W.N.; Barnett, J.; Brown, K.; Marshall, N.; O’Brien, K. Cultural dimensions of climate change impacts and adaptation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2012, 3, 112–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Beddoe, R.; Costanza, R.; Farley, J.; Garza, E.; Kent, J.; Kubiszewski, I.; Martinez, L.; McCowen, T.; Murphy, K.; Myers, N.; et al. Overcoming systemic roadblocks to sustainability: The evolutionary redesign of worldviews, institutions, and technologies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 2483–2489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  162. Brewer, J. Tools for culture design: Toward a science of social change? Spanda J. 2015, 6, 67–73. [Google Scholar]
  163. Costanza, R. A theory of socio-ecological system change. J. Bioecon. 2014, 16, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Costanza, R. How do cultures evolve, and can we direct that change to create a better world? Wildl. Aust. 2016, 53, 46–47. [Google Scholar]
  165. Buenstorf, G.; Cordes, C. Can sustainable consumption be learned? A model of cultural evolution. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 67, 646–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Biermann, F.; Betsill, M.M.; Gupta, J.; Kanie, N.; Lebel, L.; Liverman, D.; Schroeder, H.; Siebenhüner, B.; Zondervan, R. Earth system governance: A research framework. Int. Environ. Agreem. Politics Law Econ. 2010, 10, 277–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. French, P.A. The Spectrum of Responsibility; St. Martin’s Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991; ISBN 9780312034962. [Google Scholar]
  168. French, P.A. (Ed.) Individual and Collective Responsibility, 2nd ed.; Schenkman Books: Rochester, UK, 1998; ISBN 9780870470707. [Google Scholar]
  169. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  170. Mazzucato, M.; Perez, C. Innovation as growth policy: The challenge for Europe. In The Triple Challenge for Europe: Economic Development, Climate Change, and Governance; Fagerberg, J., Martin, B.R., Laestadius, S., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015; pp. 229–264. ISBN 9780198747413. [Google Scholar]
  171. Mowery, D.C.; Nelson, R.R.; Martin, B.R. Technology policy and global warming: Why new policy models are needed (or why putting new wine in old bottles won’t work). Res. Policy 2010, 39, 1011–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Nill, J. Ökologische Innovationspolitik: Eine Evolutorisch-Ökonomische Perspektive; Metropolis: Marburg, Germany, 2009; ISBN 9783895187285. [Google Scholar]
  173. Nill, J.; Kemp, R. Evolutionary approaches for sustainable innovation policies: From niche to paradigm? Res. Policy 2009, 38, 668–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Voß, J.-P.; Bauknecht, D.; Kemp, R. (Eds.) Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2006; ISBN 9781845425821. [Google Scholar]
  175. Safarzyńska, K.; Frenken, K.; van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. Evolutionary theorizing and modeling of sustainability transitions. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 1011–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Fagerberg, J. Innovation: A guide to the literature. In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation; Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005; pp. 1–27. ISBN 9780199286805. [Google Scholar]
  177. Freeman, C. The Economics of Industrial Innovation; Penguin Books: Harmondsworth, UK, 1974; ISBN 9780140809060. [Google Scholar]
  178. Kline, S.J.; Rosenberg, N. An overview of innovation. In The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth; Rosenberg, N., Landau, R., Eds.; The National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1986; pp. 275–299. ISBN 9780309078481. [Google Scholar]
  179. Cantner, U.; Pyka, A. Classifying technology policy from an evolutionary perspective. Res. Policy 2001, 30, 759–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Chataway, J.; Daniels, C.; Kanger, L.; Ramirez, M.; Schot, J.; Steinmueller, E. Developing and Enacting Transformative Innovation Policy: A Comparative Study. In Proceedings of the 8th International Sustainability Transitions Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden, 18–21 June 2017. [Google Scholar]
  181. Steward, F. Transformative innovation policy to meet the challenge of climate change: Sociotechnical networks aligned with consumption and end-use as new transition arenas for a low-carbon society or green economy. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2012, 24, 331–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Andersen, A.D.; Andersen, P.D. Innovation system foresight. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2014, 88, 276–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Andersen, A.D.; Andersen, P.D. Foresighting for inclusive development. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 119, 227–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Mazzucato, M. From market fixing to market-creating: A new framework for innovation policy. Ind. Innov. 2016, 23, 140–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Mazzucato, M. The green entrepreneurial state. In The Politics of Green Transformations; Scoones, I., Leach, M., Newell, P., Eds.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2015; pp. 134–152. ISBN 9781138792890. [Google Scholar]
  186. Mazzucato, M. The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Private vs. Public Sector Myths; Anthem Press: London, UK, 2013; ISBN 9780857282521. [Google Scholar]
  187. Stirling, A. Emancipating transformations. In The Politics of Green Transformations; Scoones, I., Leach, M., Newell, P., Eds.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2015; pp. 54–67. ISBN 9781138792890. [Google Scholar]
  188. Young, O.R. Governing Complex Systems: Social Capital for the Anthropocene; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; ISBN 9780262035934. [Google Scholar]
  189. Evans, P.B. Embedded Autonomy: States and Industrial Transformation; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1995; ISBN 9780691037363. [Google Scholar]
  190. Rodrik, D. Green industrial policy. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 2014, 30, 469–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Sen, A. Development as Freedom; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1999; ISBN 9780198297581. [Google Scholar]
  192. Acemoğlu, D.; Robinson, J.A. Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty; Crown Business: New York, NY, USA, 2012; ISBN 9780307719218. [Google Scholar]
  193. Dingwerth, K. The New Transnationalism: Transnational Governance and Democratic Legitimacy; Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, UK, 2007; ISBN 9780230590144. [Google Scholar]
  194. Ostrom, E. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010, 20, 550–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Van Huijstee, M.M.; Francken, M.; Leroy, P. Partnerships for sustainable development: A review of current literature. Environ. Sci. 2007, 4, 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business; Capstone: Oxford, UK, 1997; ISBN 9781900961271. [Google Scholar]
  197. Pava, M.L. A response to “getting to the bottom of ‘Triple Bottom Line’”. Bus. Ethics Q. 2007, 17, 105–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Slaper, T.F.; Hall, T.J. The Triple Bottom Line: What is it and how does it work? Indiana Bus. Rev. 2011, 86, 4–8. [Google Scholar]
  199. Van den Bergh, J.C.J.M.; Truffer, B.; Kallis, G. Environmental innovation and societal transitions: Introduction and overview. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2011, 1, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Markard, J.; Raven, R.; Truffer, B. Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 955–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Feola, G. Societal transformation in response to global environmental change: A review of emerging concepts. Ambio 2015, 44, 376–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  202. Loorbach, D.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Avelino, F. Sustainability transitions research: Transforming science and practice for societal change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2017, 42, 599–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Kern, F.; Rogge, K.S. Harnessing theories of the policy process for analysing the politics of sustainability transitions: A critical survey. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2017, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Kern, F.; Smith, A. Restructuring energy systems for sustainability? Energy transition policy in the Netherlands. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 4093–4103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Loorbach, D. Transition management for sustainable development: A prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance 2010, 23, 161–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Rotmans, J.; Kemp, R.; van Asselt, M. More evolution than revolution: Transition management in public policy. Foresight 2001, 3, 15–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Kemp, R.; Schot, J.; Hoogma, R. Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 1998, 10, 175–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Raven, R.P.J.M.; Geels, F.W. Socio-cognitive evolution in niche development: Comparative analysis of biogas development in Denmark and the Netherlands (1973–2004). Technovation 2010, 30, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Smith, A. Translating sustainabilities between green niches and socio-technical regimes. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2007, 19, 427–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Geels, F.W. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy 2002, 31, 1257–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Geels, F.W. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2011, 1, 24–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Geels, F.W. The arduous transition to low-carbon energy: A multi-level analysis of renewable electricity niches and resilient regimes. In The Triple Challenge for Europe: Economic Development, Climate Change, and Governance; Fagerberg, J., Martin, B.R., Laestadius, S., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015; pp. 91–118. ISBN 9780198747413. [Google Scholar]
  213. Rip, A.; Kemp, R. Technological change. In Human Choice and Climate Change; Rayner, S., Malone, E.L., Eds.; Battelle Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1998; Volume 2, pp. 327–399. ISBN 9781574770476. [Google Scholar]
  214. De Gooyert, V.; Rouwette, E.; Van Kranenburg, H.; Freeman, E.; Van Breen, H. Sustainability transition dynamics: Towards overcoming policy resistance. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016, 111, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Grunwald, A. Responsible innovation: Bringing together technology assessment, applied ethics, and STS research. Enterp. Work Innov. Stud. 2011, 7, 9–31. [Google Scholar]
  216. Stahl, B.C.; Eden, G.; Jirotka, M. Responsible research and innovation in information and communication technology: Identifying and engaging with the ethical implications of ICTs. In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society; Owen, R., Bessant, J., Heintz, M., Eds.; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2013; pp. 199–218. ISBN 9781119966364. [Google Scholar]
  217. Timmermans, J.; Yaghmaei, E.; Stahl, B.C.; Brem, A. Research and innovation processes revisited—Networked responsibility in industry. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2017, 8, 307–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Geoghegan-Quinn, M. Responsible Research and Innovation. Europe’s Ability to Respond to Societal Challenges. In Proceedings of the Science in Dialogue–Towards a European Model for Responsible Research and Innovation, Odense, Denmark, 23–25 April 2012; European Union Publication Office: Brussels, Belgium, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Arnaldi, S.; Gorgoni, G.; Pariotti, E. RRI as a governance paradigm: What is new? In Navigating towards Shared Responsibility in Research and Innovation. Approach, Process and Results of the Res-AGorA Project; Lindner, R., Kuhlmann, S., Randles, S., Eds.; Fraunhofer ISI: Karlsruhe, Germany, 2016; ISBN 9783000517099. [Google Scholar]
  220. Jonas, H. The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1984; ISBN 9780226405964. [Google Scholar]
  221. Young, I.M. Responsibility and global justice: A social connection model. Soc. Philos. Policy 2006, 23, 102–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Sen, A. Commodities and Capabilities; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1999; ISBN 9780195650389. [Google Scholar]
  223. Nussbaum, M.; Sen, A. (Eds.) The Quality of Life; Clarendon Press: Oxford, UK, 1993; ISBN 9780198287971. [Google Scholar]
  224. Sendzimir, J.; Magnuszewski, P.; Balogh, P.; Vári, A. Adaptive management to restore ecological and economic resilience in the Tisza river basin. In Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development; Voß, J.-P., Bauknecht, D., Kemp, R., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2006; pp. 131–161. ISBN 9781845425821. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Comparison of the conventional and the dedicated paradigm.
Table 1. Comparison of the conventional and the dedicated paradigm.
Conventional Paradigm/ISDedicated Paradigm/IS
ConceptInnovation SystemsDedicated Innovation Systems
Leading assumptionInnovation takes place in complex systemsInnovation takes place in complex systems
Implicit assumption: innovation per se desirableExplicit assumption: innovations that contribute to transformations towards sustainability are desirable, but: complexity of normativity and wickedness of problems
Dominant values/normsEconomic growth, efficiency, system improvement Continuity of ecological systems, inter- and intra-generational justice, quality of life
Key practicesTechnological innovation, competition, entrepreneurship, knowledge creation and diffusionAdditionally: transformative innovation based on alternative, dedicated innovation trajectories
Innovation processes determined primarily by “supply side”Innovation processes determined by all systemic actors and institutions (e.g., citizens, mediators, social and sustainable entrepreneurs, etc.)
Policies tackle system failuresPolicies tackle transformational failures

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Back to TopTop