92 M. M. Bugge and A. M. Fevolden
provide little incentives for the municipality to pursue more sustainable
options for organic waste, such as reuse or prevention of food waste.
This paradox can be expressed as a dual challenge of operating in a
problem- solving mode on the one hand, and of (re)defining the problems to
be solved in the first place. It then becomes relevant to reflect on whether the
actors who are tasked with the job of addressing and solving the challenges at
hand are also the ones to decide the direction for change. This aspect has also
been highlighted in the literature on mission- oriented innovation, emphasising the need for a better understanding of how the public sector can generate
dynamic capabilities for addressing mission- oriented innovation (Kattel &
Mazzucato, 2018), and in particular discussing who should take part in the
identification and articulation of missions:
Who decides the mission is a key issue that requires more thought.
(Mazzucato, 2017, p. 10)
Understanding more democratic processes through which missions are
defined and targeted is tied to rethinking the notion of public value.
(Mazzucato, 2017, p. 28)
In this chapter we will interpret the case of urban waste treatment as an example
of mission- oriented innovation. How is the organisation of work in the municipality rigged to enable a balancing between problem setting and problem
solving when trying to improve the sustainability of their waste treatment
systems? How do they balance the needs of today with the needs of tomorrow?
The objective of this chapter is thus to reflect upon how creating sustainable
urban waste governance can be seen as an example of mission- oriented innovation, and how complementary forms of governance may improve the ability to
develop long- term innovative and sustainable urban waste systems.
To explore these questions, the chapter will draw on theories about
mission- oriented innovation and will purposely discuss the need for orchestration of broader sets of actors in order to enable a wider outlook when
identifying and articulating the problems or missions to be solved. The
chapter analyses innovation and sustainability in an urban waste system
through the lens of valorisation pathways, and seeks to answer the following
research question:
How can the mission of sustainable urban waste treatment be understood
in terms of problem setting and problem solving?
The chapter is structured as follows: following this introduction, the second
section briefly outlines the theoretical framing of the chapter. In the third
section, the research methods applied are presented. Section 5.4 presents the
case study, and section 5.5 analyses and discusses the findings. Finally, section
5.6 concludes the chapter.
provide little incentives for the municipality to pursue more sustainable
options for organic waste, such as reuse or prevention of food waste.
This paradox can be expressed as a dual challenge of operating in a
problem- solving mode on the one hand, and of (re)defining the problems to
be solved in the first place. It then becomes relevant to reflect on whether the
actors who are tasked with the job of addressing and solving the challenges at
hand are also the ones to decide the direction for change. This aspect has also
been highlighted in the literature on mission- oriented innovation, emphasising the need for a better understanding of how the public sector can generate
dynamic capabilities for addressing mission- oriented innovation (Kattel &
Mazzucato, 2018), and in particular discussing who should take part in the
identification and articulation of missions:
Who decides the mission is a key issue that requires more thought.
(Mazzucato, 2017, p. 10)
Understanding more democratic processes through which missions are
defined and targeted is tied to rethinking the notion of public value.
(Mazzucato, 2017, p. 28)
In this chapter we will interpret the case of urban waste treatment as an example
of mission- oriented innovation. How is the organisation of work in the municipality rigged to enable a balancing between problem setting and problem
solving when trying to improve the sustainability of their waste treatment
systems? How do they balance the needs of today with the needs of tomorrow?
The objective of this chapter is thus to reflect upon how creating sustainable
urban waste governance can be seen as an example of mission- oriented innovation, and how complementary forms of governance may improve the ability to
develop long- term innovative and sustainable urban waste systems.
To explore these questions, the chapter will draw on theories about
mission- oriented innovation and will purposely discuss the need for orchestration of broader sets of actors in order to enable a wider outlook when
identifying and articulating the problems or missions to be solved. The
chapter analyses innovation and sustainability in an urban waste system
through the lens of valorisation pathways, and seeks to answer the following
research question:
How can the mission of sustainable urban waste treatment be understood
in terms of problem setting and problem solving?
The chapter is structured as follows: following this introduction, the second
section briefly outlines the theoretical framing of the chapter. In the third
section, the research methods applied are presented. Section 5.4 presents the
case study, and section 5.5 analyses and discusses the findings. Finally, section
5.6 concludes the chapter.