62 M. M. Bugge et al.
The transformative change perspective further broadens the actors considered
important to innovation – and transition – processes. This includes groups
traditionally considered outsiders to innovation processes such as civil society
groups and interest organisations (Coenen, Hansen & Rekers, 2015; Geels &
Raven, 2006). The emphasis on entire socio- technical systems implies that
the development and production of technical artefacts are seen as closely connected to their use and associated social practices. Thus, users and consumers
are not only regarded as input providers to innovation processes, but as
important agents that may preserve or challenge regimes.
In a transformative change perspective on waste, innovation efforts are
beneficial when they contribute to transitioning the waste system towards an
increasing emphasis on the upper parts of the waste pyramid, i.e. recycling
and especially preparing for reuse and prevention. Hence, this perspective
gives less attention to incremental improvements of process technologies in
the lower parts of the pyramid. Indeed, improvements in energy recovery
technologies may be viewed as counterproductive to transformative change
since they disincentivise efforts and investments in developing the higher parts
of the waste pyramid.
3.6 Governance for waste valorisation
Reflecting the three generations of innovation perspectives introduced in the
previous section, the role and scope of policy and governance of innovation
have steadily developed and expanded over the last 50 years (Schot & Steinmueller, 2018). This trend represents a move from an initial emphasis on the
role of new technologies themselves to the role of a range of other social,
geographical, institutional and organisational factors affecting innovation.
An important distinction between the three generations of innovation
policy discussed above is that the first two have a generic focus on innovation
and growth, whereas the overall objectives and primary goals of the third
generation are solutions to specific societal challenges (Schot & Steinmueller,
2018). In a linear model of innovation (first- generation innovation policy),
one would invest in R&D to develop technologies that could help exploit
waste in new ways. An innovation systems perspective (second- generation
innovation policy) would develop innovative and cost- effective systems of
waste collection and treatment across public, private and civic sectors,
enabling a cost- effective exploitation of all possible forms of rest- products
from consumption. A transitions perspective (third- generation innovation
policy) would, however, put the social values of sustainability upfront and let
these guide the search for more sustainable consumption in the first place (e.g.
eco- designs such as reducing portions or organic packaging). Instead of
aiming for optimising and greening existing value chains, a transitions mode
would typically question the existence of the value chain altogether. In this
sense, a transitions mode of innovation takes a broader perspective on the
entire value chain.
The transformative change perspective further broadens the actors considered
important to innovation – and transition – processes. This includes groups
traditionally considered outsiders to innovation processes such as civil society
groups and interest organisations (Coenen, Hansen & Rekers, 2015; Geels &
Raven, 2006). The emphasis on entire socio- technical systems implies that
the development and production of technical artefacts are seen as closely connected to their use and associated social practices. Thus, users and consumers
are not only regarded as input providers to innovation processes, but as
important agents that may preserve or challenge regimes.
In a transformative change perspective on waste, innovation efforts are
beneficial when they contribute to transitioning the waste system towards an
increasing emphasis on the upper parts of the waste pyramid, i.e. recycling
and especially preparing for reuse and prevention. Hence, this perspective
gives less attention to incremental improvements of process technologies in
the lower parts of the pyramid. Indeed, improvements in energy recovery
technologies may be viewed as counterproductive to transformative change
since they disincentivise efforts and investments in developing the higher parts
of the waste pyramid.
3.6 Governance for waste valorisation
Reflecting the three generations of innovation perspectives introduced in the
previous section, the role and scope of policy and governance of innovation
have steadily developed and expanded over the last 50 years (Schot & Steinmueller, 2018). This trend represents a move from an initial emphasis on the
role of new technologies themselves to the role of a range of other social,
geographical, institutional and organisational factors affecting innovation.
An important distinction between the three generations of innovation
policy discussed above is that the first two have a generic focus on innovation
and growth, whereas the overall objectives and primary goals of the third
generation are solutions to specific societal challenges (Schot & Steinmueller,
2018). In a linear model of innovation (first- generation innovation policy),
one would invest in R&D to develop technologies that could help exploit
waste in new ways. An innovation systems perspective (second- generation
innovation policy) would develop innovative and cost- effective systems of
waste collection and treatment across public, private and civic sectors,
enabling a cost- effective exploitation of all possible forms of rest- products
from consumption. A transitions perspective (third- generation innovation
policy) would, however, put the social values of sustainability upfront and let
these guide the search for more sustainable consumption in the first place (e.g.
eco- designs such as reducing portions or organic packaging). Instead of
aiming for optimising and greening existing value chains, a transitions mode
would typically question the existence of the value chain altogether. In this
sense, a transitions mode of innovation takes a broader perspective on the
entire value chain.