94 M. M. Bugge and A. M. Fevolden
and innovation policies appear deficient to address and tackle today’s complex
and integrated societal challenges.
Addressing this relationship, Mazzucato (2017, 2018) distinguishes between
old and new types of mission- oriented projects, where the old were defined
by a small and centralised group of experts, oriented towards specified technology development, and where diffusion beyond these actors was of minor
importance. New mission- oriented projects, on the other hand, are characterised by broader involvement of actors in defining the direction of the
mission; the missions have both technical and societal objectives, where the
diffusion of solutions is paramount. The new missions also ascribe an
important role to foresight analysis as part of the envisioning of potential
future scenarios. Moreover, Mazzucato makes a distinction between grand
challenges, missions and portfolios of projects that involve different actors and
sectors in bottom- up experimentation (Mazzucato, 2018). In this sense, missions and (mission) projects can be perceived as operationalisations of the
broader grand challenges. Mission- oriented innovation is seen to constitute a
narrower and more clearly defined form of innovation than what is required
to address grand challenges, which are more complex and multi- faceted. In
parallel with the ability to set missions, it is seen as central to leave enough
space for encouraging bottom- up experimentation across several types of
public and private actors (Kattel & Mazzucato, 2018). Missions should also
comprise a portfolio of R&D and innovation projects that allow for both
success and failure, and they should have a trickle- down effect in which
overall objectives should be translated into concrete policy actions. Importantly, missions should be based on a long- term agenda and draw on existing
resources and policy instruments in the science and technology system (Fagerberg, 2018; Mazzucato, 2017). In order to approach pressing grand societal
challenges in appropriate ways, there is a need to select missions that have
enduring and democratic legitimacy, and moreover to define these missions
in ways that allow sufficient breadth to motivate action across several sectors
and societal actors (Kattel & Mazzucato, 2018; Mazzucato, 2017).
5.2.2 The waste hierarchy and different treatment options for
organic waste
The various ways that local authorities can treat or deal with waste can be
ranked according to a waste hierarchy or waste pyramid. In the hierarchy
adopted by the EU (European Commission, 2008), the pyramid consists of
five layers of progressively more sustainable options – disposal, recovery,
recycle, reuse and prevention (see also Chapter 3). According to this line of
thinking, less sustainable treatment options are at the base of the pyramid,
while more favourable options are at the top (see Figure 5.1 below).
‘Disposal’ is at the bottom of the pyramid and represents the least sustainable option. Disposal implies that organic household waste is simply collected,
transported and dumped at a landfill site. Although disposal can reduce
and innovation policies appear deficient to address and tackle today’s complex
and integrated societal challenges.
Addressing this relationship, Mazzucato (2017, 2018) distinguishes between
old and new types of mission- oriented projects, where the old were defined
by a small and centralised group of experts, oriented towards specified technology development, and where diffusion beyond these actors was of minor
importance. New mission- oriented projects, on the other hand, are characterised by broader involvement of actors in defining the direction of the
mission; the missions have both technical and societal objectives, where the
diffusion of solutions is paramount. The new missions also ascribe an
important role to foresight analysis as part of the envisioning of potential
future scenarios. Moreover, Mazzucato makes a distinction between grand
challenges, missions and portfolios of projects that involve different actors and
sectors in bottom- up experimentation (Mazzucato, 2018). In this sense, missions and (mission) projects can be perceived as operationalisations of the
broader grand challenges. Mission- oriented innovation is seen to constitute a
narrower and more clearly defined form of innovation than what is required
to address grand challenges, which are more complex and multi- faceted. In
parallel with the ability to set missions, it is seen as central to leave enough
space for encouraging bottom- up experimentation across several types of
public and private actors (Kattel & Mazzucato, 2018). Missions should also
comprise a portfolio of R&D and innovation projects that allow for both
success and failure, and they should have a trickle- down effect in which
overall objectives should be translated into concrete policy actions. Importantly, missions should be based on a long- term agenda and draw on existing
resources and policy instruments in the science and technology system (Fagerberg, 2018; Mazzucato, 2017). In order to approach pressing grand societal
challenges in appropriate ways, there is a need to select missions that have
enduring and democratic legitimacy, and moreover to define these missions
in ways that allow sufficient breadth to motivate action across several sectors
and societal actors (Kattel & Mazzucato, 2018; Mazzucato, 2017).
5.2.2 The waste hierarchy and different treatment options for
organic waste
The various ways that local authorities can treat or deal with waste can be
ranked according to a waste hierarchy or waste pyramid. In the hierarchy
adopted by the EU (European Commission, 2008), the pyramid consists of
five layers of progressively more sustainable options – disposal, recovery,
recycle, reuse and prevention (see also Chapter 3). According to this line of
thinking, less sustainable treatment options are at the base of the pyramid,
while more favourable options are at the top (see Figure 5.1 below).
‘Disposal’ is at the bottom of the pyramid and represents the least sustainable option. Disposal implies that organic household waste is simply collected,
transported and dumped at a landfill site. Although disposal can reduce