Eco-Innovation Programs: A comparison Degree of interaction

5.4 Eco-Innovation Programs: A comparison

and planning. The importance of tailoring government-supported research cooperation programs to the specific needs of small Swedish companies was emphasized. Several interview subjects stressed the strategic importance of the two emerging economies to Sweden as both China and Brazil are now key players in the international research and innovation landscape.

Moreover, concerns regarding finding the “ideal” or the “right” partner or

“getting cooperation projects right” were shared among those interviewed. In some cases, it was necessary to build relationships with Brazilian or Chinese potential partners as a first step in the establishment of the eco-innovation consortia. In other instances, Swedish actors built on and strengthened existing ties with their foreign partners. For others, building research partnerships that included Chinese partners was a natural step given researchers’ previous connections with Chinese counterparts. In other cases, specific steps and planning were taken in the search for a partner in a foreign country. One Swedish consultancy utilized the following questions to guide his search: 1. How many companies are there in Brazil that would be interested in a specific technology from Sweden? 2.What do Swedish companies expect from a partner in Brazil? 3. What would this “ideal” partner look like? 4. What role would this partner play in the project? 5.What is the best company in Brazil that could play this specific role?

After establishing the profile of the partner, the company owner contacted the International Office at a university in Sweden which provided him with the name of a Brazilian professor who, from that point on, served as the intermediary between the Swedish company and potential Brazilian collaborators. It was through the Brazilian professor in Sweden that the owner of the consultancy who was working with two Swedish companies found a partner university in Brazil. The Brazilian university, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) had close connections with a Southern Brazilian company and served as an intermediary in Brazil to establish the contact between the Brazilian firm and the Swedish consultancy working with the other two Swedish firms.

The actors in Sweden who were originally from either China or Brazil or had connections in either country faced less challenges when searching for partners in Brazil and China. In some cases, the researchers in Sweden who were of Brazilian or Chinese origin and who had previous ties with their counterparts in China or Brazil, had an advantage compared to those with no connections in either country. In addition, researchers with related backgrounds and interests

were able to form partnerships and connect more easily compared to those researchers with different backgrounds.

Most of the Swedish companies involved in the Sweden Brazil Eco-Innovation Cooperation program had no prior experience working with Brazil. Only one company had worked with Brazil before and its owner has a strong international background and strong connections in Brazil. In contrast, three companies engaged in the Sino-Swedish cooperation program had well-established connections with China either through Chinese employees working on the eco-innovation project, through their daughter company operating in China and through previous contacts in China.

A recurrent theme across the interviews relates to the need for small businesses to develop strategies to work internationally and to have a clearer vision of how they see the development of their companies in 5 or 10 years from now. In addition, there is a shared view among interview subjects that the Swedish companies must decide whether they should expand internationally or focus on the domestic market only. According to some respondents, “opening doors” for Swedish companies through innovation programs such as with China and Brazil is helpful but there are also risks and uncertainties associated with these programs. One example is the risk that these international activities will cease after the end of the project cycle.

Different perceptions about government funding

Differences in funding profiles had a clear effect on the degree of satisfaction among the participants. The grant allocated to Type-A projects was tailored to the planning stage of the research cooperation project, to conduct feasibility studies and for building partnerships in Brazil. Therefore, the Type-A Sweden-Brazil Eco-Innovation Cooperation program received less funding than the Type-B Swedish cooperation program. The participants of the Sino-Swedish program expressed more optimism about the outcomes of the VINNOVA funding and about the program in general compared to the Swedish actors participating in the Brazil-Sweden Eco-Innovation program. One possible explanation relates to the type and focus of the project. Type-A projects were shorter and exploratory in nature, whereas the Type-B innovation partnerships were more advanced and based on concrete activities. None of the actors in

Sweden working with their Chinese counterparts suggested the discontinuation of the Sino-Swedish eco-innovation program, whereas a few actors in Sweden collaborating with Brazil questioned the benefits of government-funded international cooperation programs, particularly with emerging markets.

Five out of the seven companies participating in the Sweden Brazil innovation program stated that they did not have sufficient human and financial resources to continue working with Brazil and that the eco-innovation cooperation grant (Type-A) was insufficient.

Overall, the sentiment regarding government support for Eco-Innovation Cooperation among the Swedish actors collaborating with Brazil was negative.

Participants in the Swedish Brazil program pointed out that different strategies need to be developed for different companies according to size, company human and financial resources, knowledge of international markets and company’s maturity level. Together, these factors play a role in the process of internationalization of the Swedish companies, particularly in small businesses (do Nascimento, 2014).

Language and culture

In terms of language and culture, most respondents considered familiarity with the Brazilian and Chinese traditions and markets as important factors in the internationalization process and also in international cooperation programs. The respondents emphasized the sheer size of Brazil and China and the cultural differences between the two countries and Sweden. Although some of the Swedish actors participating in the Sino-Swedish innovation program had strong ties with China or had prior collaboration with the country, only two who were originally from China, spoke Chinese. Language barrier was also a factor that was perceived to adversely impact the partnerships. Some respondents mentioned miscommunication and misunderstanding issues as a result of language obstacles when discussing contracts and details about team members’

tasks and responsibilities in the project.

With respect to the Sweden Brazil Eco-Innovation Cooperation program, translation or interpretation services were not used. Some of the participants were fluent in Portuguese while others had basic knowledge of the Portuguese

language. Speaking Portuguese did not seem to be necessary or required in order to establish partnerships in Brazil. There was also a positive bias toward collaboration based on cultural belonging. The actors who were originally from China and Brazil appeared to have stronger personal motivations to participate in the innovation cooperation programs and seemed enthusiastic about the projects. The Brazilian and the Chinese researchers working in the innovation cooperation programs stated that it was simple and effortless to establish partnerships in Brazil and in China because they spoke the language and were familiar with the culture. Some of the respondents were also knowledgeable of the Chinese and the Brazilian markets and industries. In addition, the interview subjects indicated that being from Brazil and China, the two countries participating in the Eco-Innovation Cooperation initiatives with Sweden, was beneficial and advantageous.

Geographic proximity

Geographic distance is often mentioned as an obstacle to international collaboration but it did not seem to have been a significant factor hindering eco-innovation linkages with China, expect for the expected difficulties related to travel costs and time spent on travel. Views on Brazil were less positive, and the theme of collaborative incongruences recurred in the interviews. As an example, one respondent claimed that S&T cooperation projects with other countries other than Brazil would be more feasible, realistic and less costly to his company.

Country Bureaucracy

A theme that emerged across conversations with participants in both eco-innovation programs concerns the overall challenges of conducting business in China and Brazil. One apparent challenge interview subjects mentioned refers to the high degree of bureaucracy in the two emerging economies. On the Brazil side, factors such as protectionist policies and customs and import laws were mentioned. Technical issues were reported by respondents participating in the Sino-Swedish eco-innovation program such as transporting samples to the country.