Theoretical perspectives on innovation 63
Exemplifying this trend, and showing how diverse actor groups are crucial
to innovation, Fagerberg (2017) has examined the main drivers behind
Danish wind power, the German Energiewende and Norwegian electromobility. It is concluded that the social drivers have been more important than the
technologies themselves, which had often been around for decades. Instead,
the forces that seemed the most powerful in determining the pace and scope
of these socio- technical transitions were those associated with the practices
and interests of (local) user groups.
Thus, although there has been a continuous expansion in terms of the roles
of policy and high- level governance in arranging for systemic innovation and
system change, this does not eliminate the need for governance at the microlevel. Here, governance can be in the form of developing and renewing the
competencies, routines, value chains and business models of individual organisations and within the boundaries of specific sectors. This illustrates how
governance of waste may be diverse and manifold, depending on the case and
context. In the subsequent chapters, we present case studies on innovation in
waste valorisation in various industry sectors such as forestry, aquaculture,
breweries, dairies and slaughterhouses. We also present a case study on urban
waste systems, which supplements the production focus in the industry cases
with a focus on the public sector and the consumer side of waste. So, depending on the case and context in question, various forms and levels of governance for waste valorisation are actualised.
Below we discuss how directionality towards specific societal goals and
missions is often a result of multiple initiatives and practices that co- evolve at
different levels and across various types of societal sectors and actors.
3.6.1 Directionality through international regulations
Amidst the widespread agreement on the need to include diverse types of
actors in the governance of innovation, the literature on socio- technical
transitions further argues that a strong element of priorities and directionality
is required to accomplish certain missions or to arrive at more profound
system changes – so- called socio- technical transitions (Mazzucato, 2017;
Schot & Steinmueller, 2018; Shove & Walker, 2007; Smith & Raven, 2012;
Smith, Stirling & Berkhout, 2005; Weber & Rohracher, 2012). Regarding
organic waste, the UN sustainable development goals (United Nations, 2015),
the Paris Agreement and the EU landfill ban in 2009 are central landscape
elements that frame and guide international development in this area (see
Chapter 5 on urban waste management and Chapter 13 on multi- level governance of food waste).
3.6.2 Directionality through national regulations
Directionality may also be set at national levels. In Norway, the recent Industry agreement on the reduction of food waste (Regjeringen, 2017) represents a
Exemplifying this trend, and showing how diverse actor groups are crucial
to innovation, Fagerberg (2017) has examined the main drivers behind
Danish wind power, the German Energiewende and Norwegian electromobility. It is concluded that the social drivers have been more important than the
technologies themselves, which had often been around for decades. Instead,
the forces that seemed the most powerful in determining the pace and scope
of these socio- technical transitions were those associated with the practices
and interests of (local) user groups.
Thus, although there has been a continuous expansion in terms of the roles
of policy and high- level governance in arranging for systemic innovation and
system change, this does not eliminate the need for governance at the microlevel. Here, governance can be in the form of developing and renewing the
competencies, routines, value chains and business models of individual organisations and within the boundaries of specific sectors. This illustrates how
governance of waste may be diverse and manifold, depending on the case and
context. In the subsequent chapters, we present case studies on innovation in
waste valorisation in various industry sectors such as forestry, aquaculture,
breweries, dairies and slaughterhouses. We also present a case study on urban
waste systems, which supplements the production focus in the industry cases
with a focus on the public sector and the consumer side of waste. So, depending on the case and context in question, various forms and levels of governance for waste valorisation are actualised.
Below we discuss how directionality towards specific societal goals and
missions is often a result of multiple initiatives and practices that co- evolve at
different levels and across various types of societal sectors and actors.
3.6.1 Directionality through international regulations
Amidst the widespread agreement on the need to include diverse types of
actors in the governance of innovation, the literature on socio- technical
transitions further argues that a strong element of priorities and directionality
is required to accomplish certain missions or to arrive at more profound
system changes – so- called socio- technical transitions (Mazzucato, 2017;
Schot & Steinmueller, 2018; Shove & Walker, 2007; Smith & Raven, 2012;
Smith, Stirling & Berkhout, 2005; Weber & Rohracher, 2012). Regarding
organic waste, the UN sustainable development goals (United Nations, 2015),
the Paris Agreement and the EU landfill ban in 2009 are central landscape
elements that frame and guide international development in this area (see
Chapter 5 on urban waste management and Chapter 13 on multi- level governance of food waste).
3.6.2 Directionality through national regulations
Directionality may also be set at national levels. In Norway, the recent Industry agreement on the reduction of food waste (Regjeringen, 2017) represents a