Theoretical perspectives on innovation 61
important for this focus on transformative change has been the multi- level
perspective, which sees systemic transitions as co- evolutionary processes that
unfold through an interplay between three interrelated analytical levels;
regimes, niches and landscapes (Geels, 2002, 2004, 2005; Geels & Schot,
2007; Schot & Geels, 2008). A regime refers to an existing dominant system of
production and consumption, niches are the locus for disruptive innovation
and landscapes are understood as contextual factors conditioning regimes and
niches. This tradition represents an important discontinuity in the main object
of study from “innovations” to “transitions in socio- technical systems”.
Whereas the systems of innovation tradition were primarily driven by a
technological and economic logic, the turn to socio- technical transitions has
introduced a stronger sense of society beyond the economy and technological
development.
Our discussion of these three perspectives reveals that opinions differ
regarding what actors are important for driving innovation forward (Schot &
Steinmueller, 2018). In a traditional understanding of innovation processes, the
focus is on universities and research institutes as well as private firms, which
are seen as central to making scientific discoveries and their commercialisation through the introduction of technical innovations in the market.
In the context of the waste pyramid, this implies a focus on improving
technologies in the lower part of the pyramid, i.e. developing new and
improved recovery and recycling processes. Examples are technologies that
improve the efficiency in the recovery process, leading to a higher production of electricity and heat, or developments in recycling technologies that
improve the quality of the sorting or reduce the need for other inputs such as
electricity and labour.
The innovation system perspective broadens out the types of actors seen as
important in innovation processes. Firms, universities and other knowledge
institutions are still considered to play a key role, but inputs from users and
customers are also seen to provide important inputs. Furthermore, public
sector actors are attributed a central position, not least as the systemic emphasis underlines the importance of intermediaries (Kivimaa, Boon, Hyysalo &
Klerk, 2018). The latter are organisations with a focus on connecting and
brokering between other actors in the system, e.g. technology transfer offices
and cluster and network organisations. Many intermediaries are public or
quasi- public bodies, but are increasingly also established by private interest
organisations or as independent private enterprises.
The systems perspective on innovation in waste prevention and handling
also implies a focus on technological innovations in the bottom part of the
pyramid. Yet, unlike the science- driven model of innovation, it will assign a
stronger prominence to the interactions between various actors in different
parts of the value chain, e.g. between actors in recycling and energy recovery,
or between goods producers and recycling firms. Therefore, innovation is not
perceived as the result of activities taking place within specific firms and
organisations but rather as caused by their collaboration and interactions.
important for this focus on transformative change has been the multi- level
perspective, which sees systemic transitions as co- evolutionary processes that
unfold through an interplay between three interrelated analytical levels;
regimes, niches and landscapes (Geels, 2002, 2004, 2005; Geels & Schot,
2007; Schot & Geels, 2008). A regime refers to an existing dominant system of
production and consumption, niches are the locus for disruptive innovation
and landscapes are understood as contextual factors conditioning regimes and
niches. This tradition represents an important discontinuity in the main object
of study from “innovations” to “transitions in socio- technical systems”.
Whereas the systems of innovation tradition were primarily driven by a
technological and economic logic, the turn to socio- technical transitions has
introduced a stronger sense of society beyond the economy and technological
development.
Our discussion of these three perspectives reveals that opinions differ
regarding what actors are important for driving innovation forward (Schot &
Steinmueller, 2018). In a traditional understanding of innovation processes, the
focus is on universities and research institutes as well as private firms, which
are seen as central to making scientific discoveries and their commercialisation through the introduction of technical innovations in the market.
In the context of the waste pyramid, this implies a focus on improving
technologies in the lower part of the pyramid, i.e. developing new and
improved recovery and recycling processes. Examples are technologies that
improve the efficiency in the recovery process, leading to a higher production of electricity and heat, or developments in recycling technologies that
improve the quality of the sorting or reduce the need for other inputs such as
electricity and labour.
The innovation system perspective broadens out the types of actors seen as
important in innovation processes. Firms, universities and other knowledge
institutions are still considered to play a key role, but inputs from users and
customers are also seen to provide important inputs. Furthermore, public
sector actors are attributed a central position, not least as the systemic emphasis underlines the importance of intermediaries (Kivimaa, Boon, Hyysalo &
Klerk, 2018). The latter are organisations with a focus on connecting and
brokering between other actors in the system, e.g. technology transfer offices
and cluster and network organisations. Many intermediaries are public or
quasi- public bodies, but are increasingly also established by private interest
organisations or as independent private enterprises.
The systems perspective on innovation in waste prevention and handling
also implies a focus on technological innovations in the bottom part of the
pyramid. Yet, unlike the science- driven model of innovation, it will assign a
stronger prominence to the interactions between various actors in different
parts of the value chain, e.g. between actors in recycling and energy recovery,
or between goods producers and recycling firms. Therefore, innovation is not
perceived as the result of activities taking place within specific firms and
organisations but rather as caused by their collaboration and interactions.