Sustainable Innovation regime or paradigm shift?

Innovation:
Abstract: This paper investigates the synergetic relationship between technological and social innovation for sustainable development. Therefore the Strategic Niche Management framework will be applied to the Dutch government program called Learning for Sustainable Development. Whereas the first provides . an analytical framework for the development and adaption of sustainable technologies the second (LfSD) technologies, is aimed at development and diffusion of sustainable knowledge, thereby stimulating social change. First , both will be addressed in general, providing a description of their context, goals, use and characteristics. ssed Second the SNM-framework will be used as methodology to analyze the approach of LfS Finally this framework analyze LfSD. paper will conclude on the similarities and differences that occur when applying SNM to L ities LfSD. Keywords: strategic niche management, social learning, sustainable development, system innovation :

System innovations
To achieve a more sustainable path of development for our society, we need to go beyond the firm level and look for system innovations. Systems innovations result from the interaction between the landscape, regime and niche level (figure 1). This multilevel perspective (Geels, 2002) is used in vel transition management, an approach to governing regime transformation. On the landscape - macro level - trends like globalization, peak oil and climate change take place, which have influences on the , regime level. This regime level consists of several systems of dominant structures, cultur and cultures routines (Rotmans, 2007). At the niche level, small experiments by innovators are used to test new technologies and innovations. These are not part of the main system structure, but are important for renewal and change.

Figure 1: Multilevel perspective (Geels, 2002)

System innovation can thus be seen as a transition process: a fundamental shift in a complex system of society, which is changed through a combination of improvement interventions and/or of innovations. One way to stimulate such transitions is through the formation of technological niches te niches. These protected incubation rooms offer an approach to governing regime transformation transformations, concerning success and failure of sustainable technologies. This evolutionary view is based on variation and selection of new ideas, technologies and societal arrangements (Brown, 2003; Smith et
Paper SISC Rink Weijs Industrial Ecology (Leiden/Delft)

al. 2005). The creation and protection of niche alternatives are used to seed regime changes, some of which survive and grow into large-scale developments (Kemp et al. 1998). This method is called Strategic Niche Management.

Strategic Niche Management

Kemp et al. (1998) define SNM as: the creation, development and controlled phase-out of protected spaces for the development and use of promising technologies by means of experimentation, with the aim of (1) learning about the desirability of the new technology and (2) enhancing the further development and the rate of application of the new technology. According to Quist (2007) the SNMapproach focuses on concrete technological experiments that are conducted within a temporary protected space without regular market pressures. This creates a learning zone for stakeholders like producers, users and regulators who can explore a new technology, articulation of user demands and the embedding in its context. We need system innovations that obviously go beyond the firm level and focus on the wider social and technical systems they are embedded in. SNM shapes the formation of technological niches that stimulate transitions at the regime level, since for sustainable development radical changes at the regime level are needed (Rotmans and Kemp, 2001). The SNM-methodology is helpful here and can be used both as research model and policy tool. As research model it provides a framework for analysing cases and understanding technological innovation. SNM used as tool for policy makers, suggests how to influence technological change in desired directions. SNM has three internal processes with specific characteristics: (1) voicing and shaping of expectations: robustness of support, quality depending on the amount of evidence and the specific focus; (2) network formation, like how broad and how aligned the group of stakeholders is; and (3) the learning processes, how it is aligned, single and/or double loop and its feedback loops. SNM as a policy tool helps advancing society in a specific direction, that of a technological regime shift (Kemp and Rotmans, 2001). Such a shift requires a transition in the way technological functions within society and which changes we need in user practices, regulation, industrial networks, infrastructure, culture and meaning. The challenge is to understand these and guide the interaction between niche, regime and landscape level gently towards a more sustainable technological system. But technology in itself has no power. It does nothing. Only in association with our human agency, social structures and organisations does technology fulfil functions (Kamp and Quist, 2010). Sustainability has to become part of the human mindset, lifestyle and values, according to Wals (2007) in The Acoustic of Social Learning. Technological renewal, a better legal and regulatory framework or policy renewal are essential for a more sustainable world, but not enough.

Learning for Sustainable Development

So what do we need? A paradigm shift? Wals (2007) states that sustainable development needs learning processes that go far beyond traditional knowledge transfer: social learning. Social Learning concerns itself with interactions and communications among actors, the relations among them, the quality of dialogue, and the congruency in the collective problem definition and identification of solutions (Brown et al. 2003).

Paper SISC Rink Weijs Industrial Ecology (Leiden/Delft)

The Learning for Sustainable Development program is developed to stimulate social learning. Its aimed at developing, supporting and dispersing effective learning processes that enable and accelerate sustainable development. The program offers knowledge and experience on social learning and sustainable development to national and regional government, polder boards and the educational sector. One example of a project on regional level (Gelderland) is the integration of sustainability criteria during renovation. Normally the focus is on new building of houses, but the principles work also for renovation when theres a sound collaboration with the most important stakeholders. For the project several pilots started for schools and houses, which increased the need for feedback and learning processes. LfSD organized a symposium on national level to share most useful lessons, which dealt with more than only the technique. Instead, they showed that collaboration between stakeholders thrives on social commitment and communication in combination with enthusiasm and process management. LfSD-projects and their related communication and knowledge management initiatives stimulate these social learning processes in order to enable judgments and choices in favour of sustainable development. Learners at all levels are encouraged to use systematic, critical and creative thinking and reflection in both local and global contexts (Wals et al. 2007). According to Nonaka and Tacheuci (1995) innovation processes require changing values and renewal of meaningfulness which are caused by a continual exchange of implicit and explicit knowledge combined with a critical reflection of goals and assumptions. 3 Social learning as such fulfils an important task within the LfSD-program. It stimulates reflecting on norms and values and learning in networks. It requires second order or double loop learning (Argyris, 1990). Double loop learning changes peoples behaviour and actions by better (shared) understanding of the natural and physical world. People adapt their perceptions based on experiences with others and the social environment. According to Brown et al. (2003), the diffusion of new ideas within and among experiments to society at large are necessary ingredients to attain a critical mass for the transition to a sustainable society. This paradigm shift enables our and future generations to make better decisions.

Analysis of the LfSD-program

Using the SNM-framework to analyze the LfSD approach delivers some interesting insights. They both share several characteristics in common, like the creation, development and diffusion of knowledge (technology) for sustainable development, aiming at learning about the desirability of the new knowledge (technology) and enhancing the further development and the rate of application of the new knowledge (technology) related to sustainable development. To get a better understanding of the LfSD-program a comparison is made using the multilevel approach and the three internal processes of SNM will be briefly applied to identify their counterparts in the LfSD-program.
Multilevel approach Applying the multi-level approach (table 1) shows that both share trends and developments on the landscape level. The LfSD-program operates within a different context, namely the government and educational sector, and within different regimes, while the SNM-approach has a strong demarcation within a regime and has a broader scope including businesses and users of new technologies as well.
Paper SISC Rink Weijs Industrial Ecology (Leiden/Delft)

Macro Regime

Climate change, resource scarcity, peak oil, financial crisis, growing environmental consciousness Specific regime depending on technology (e.g. energy or water) Experiments: voicing & shaping, network formation, learning processes Projects are a cross section through different regimes, but within institutional authority / influence of the government Social instruments: int. al. expert meetings, pilot projects, communities of practice

Niche

Tabel 1: multilevel comparison of SNM and LfSD

At the niche level it becomes clear that stakeholders in the LfSD-program join around specific subjects and themes in several (> 100) projects. This exemplifies the need for knowledge management to capture created knowledge and control its diffusion, using communication and ICT. Within the SNM-approach learning is not the priority itself. It is not aimed at boosting social change as such, but clearly focuses on development of sustainable technologies and their adaptation within the regime level. Clearly they both have a different toolkit for their purpose (table 2).

ID

Strategic Niche Management (method) Experiments Transition Management Backcasting Scenarios

LvDO (program) Pilot projects Social learning instruments Knowledge management

Toolkit

Tabel 2: comparison of SNM and LvDO toolkit

Voicing and shaping of expectations Promises and expectations for the future provide the legitimacy for actors to invest time and effort into a new technology (Raven, 2005). The same applies to social innovation and the LfSD program where living networks are created with actors to shape their visions of the future in collaboration for sustainable development. Together stakeholders negotiate for meaning within several projects to find valuable solutions for challenging questions that need a careful balance between the interests of people, nature and economy.

This is an incremental way of finding and dispersing knowledge about sustainability that becomes more specific during the learning process: creating a shared understanding of what sustainable development means and how it is achieved. Expectations for the future become more robust and a larger number of actors share the same vision, thereby forming a critical mass for societal change. The social learning instruments are tailor-made to stimulate these group- and learning processes, like expert meetings, Communities of Practice and learning theatres. Effects are for instance a higher quality of knowledge, co-ownership of solutions and legitimacy of policy decisions.
Building of social networks The LfSD-program builds social networks on three levels: the individual, organization and society. Each level is focused on specific target groups or situations. Network activities within the individual level are aimed at vision-development and agenda setting of sustainable development in the entire (formal) educational system. Projects aim to engender teachers and other educators with knowledge

Paper SISC Rink Weijs Industrial Ecology (Leiden/Delft)

and competences for sustainable development. The objective of the second level - the learning organization - is making sustainable development an integral part of governmental decision making processes. National, provincial and local governments learn how to deal with integral policymaking, the participation of citizens and organizations and how to improve the quality of their own structure and performances. Within the third level of the learning society, networks are build to facilitate complex decision-making in situations where several stakeholders - with their own perspective work towards a collective solution (for example in the development of an industrial area, or the planning of a community public area).
Learning processes The development of a sustainable society is approached as a continuous learning process. Different learning arrangements are created, allowing several stakeholders to contribute to and to learn from the decision making process. As identified earlier, social learning provides several options for double loop learning, including critical reflection. Networking is crucial for both single and double loop learning, and the diffusion of new ideas into the society at large (Brown, 2003). The LfSDactivities are developed around the concept of social learning and create a wealth of information and good practices within each of the levels and project, which, when shared by learners, is of great value to government and stakeholders. Considering the fact that the program is so diversified, knowledge management plays a central role to bring together demand and supply of knowledge.

Knowledge management consists of three elements: the knowledge infrastructure, knowledge (crystallized as information) and the social capital. It is used to amplify the learning process of stakeholders. For knowledge infrastructure a website is build as digital repository for all materials like publications, newsletters and the communication about the program. Here information is shared such as good practices, learning histories and other (scientific) information. Central to the LfSD approach is the formation of social networks building social capital and commitment around specific issues. Through earlier mentioned learning arrangements the people involved develop competencies which are used for sustainable development like thinking in systems, working within multidisciplinary groups and process management.

Conclusion
Both approaches have their incubator function in common, one for sustainable knowledge and the other for sustainable technologies. The aim of LfSD is social learning itself, creating a critical mass for a paradigm shift, while the SNM-approach - which also uses learning processes - aims at a regime shift by means of technological renewal. Another clear distinction is use of an analytical method like SNM versus the real life intervention oriented application of the social instruments of LfSD, that have to boost social change. SNM is still under (scientific) development and waiting to be actively used by policy makers to amplify regime shifts. Also the LfSD-program is designed for cross-boundary institutional innovation rather than for a specific regime. One advantage of the SNM-methodology is the focus on one technological innovation. LfSD looks more like a scattered collection of projects and the question arises if it takes into account the holistic and long-term interests that are associated with sustainable development. The outcomes seem to be more fragmented, which poses a great challenge for knowledge management and its diffusion. But, this problem also arises for SNM as knowledge on new technologies needs a social embeddedness.

Paper SISC Rink Weijs Industrial Ecology (Leiden/Delft)

Analyzing learning experiences and exchanging knowledge between stakeholders within realized pilot-projects and external actors is of high importance (Van Mierlo, 2002). Otherwise valuable knowledge isnt embedded within the whole innovation network and remains only at key actors, thereby slowing the adaption rate to a sustainable practice. Since sustainability is achieved by radical combinations of both technological and social innovations (Brown et al., 2003), its not surprising that societal transitions follow a social-technical evolution. We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them, according to Einstein. Or the same technologies. Where the basic premise of SNM aims at the direction of technological innovations, a paradigm shift is a first necessity.

Paper SISC Rink Weijs Industrial Ecology (Leiden/Delft)

Literature
Argyris, C., 1990. Overcoming Organizational Defenses. Facilitating organizational learning. Boston, Allyn and Bacon. Brown, H.S., Vergragt, P., Green K., Berchicicci, L., 2003. Learning for sustainability transition through bounded social-technical experiments in personal mobility. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15, 291-315. Geels, F., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multilevel perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31, 1257-1262. Groot, A., 2007. Monitoren van sociaal leren: Het leerproces van twee innovatiegroepen Groene & Blauwe Diensten onder de loep. Wageningen, Alterra Wageningen UR. Holling, C., 2001. Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems. Ecosystems, 4, 390405. Kamp, L., Quist, J., 2010. Lecture notes 04. Februari 28 2011. Delft, TU Delft. Kemp, R., Rotmans, J., 2001. The Management of the Co-evolution of Technical, Environmental and Social Systems. Paper presented at the International Conference Towards Environmental Innovation Systems, Eibsee Hotel, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, 2729 September, 2001. Kemp, R., Schot, J., Hoogma R., 1998. Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the approach of Strategic Niche Management. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 10 (2), 175-195. Mierloo, van. B., 2002. Kiem van Maatschappelijke Verandering. Verspreiding van Zonnecelsystemen in de Woningbouw met behulp van Pilotprojecten. Amsterdam, Aksant. Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., 1995. The Knowledge Creating Company. New York, Oxford University Press. Quist, J., 2007. Backcasting for a sustainable future. The impact after 10 years. Delft, Technical University Delft. Raven, R., Bosch, van den, S., Fonk, G., Andringa, J., Weterings, R., 2007. Competentiekit experimenteren. Utrecht, Competentiecentrum Transities. Raven, R.P.J.M., 2005. Strategic Niche Management for Biomass. Eindhoven, Eindhoven University of Technology. Rotmans, J., 2007. Duurzaamheid: van onderstroom naar draaggolf: op de rand van een doorbraak. Rotterdam, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam. Smith, A., Stirling, A., Berkhout, F., 2005. The governance of sustainable socio-technological transitions. Research Policy, 34, 1491-1510. Wals, A., 2010. De wereld duurzamer maken kan niet zonder sociaal leren. Wageningen, Wageningen University. Wals, A.E.J., Hoeven, van der, N., Blanken, H., 2009. The Acoustics of Social Learning: Designing learning processes that contribute to a more sustainable world. Wageningen/Utrecht: Wageningen Academic Publishers/SenterNovem.

Paper SISC Rink Weijs Industrial Ecology (Leiden/Delft)