Roles of intermediaries in supporting
eco-innovation
Wisdom Kanda, Olof Hjelm, Jens Clausen and Dzamila Bienkowska
The self-archived postprint version of this journal article is available at Linköping University Institutional Repository (DiVA):
http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-152014
N.B.: When citing this work, cite the original publication.
Kanda, W., Hjelm, O., Clausen, J., Bienkowska, D., (2018), Roles of intermediaries in supporting eco-innovation, Journal of Cleaner Production, 205, 1006-1016.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.132 Original publication available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.132 Copyright: Elsevier
2
Roles of intermediaries in supporting eco-innovation
Wisdom Kanda1*, Olof Hjelm1, Jens Clausen2, & Dzamila Bienkowska3
1Environmental Technology and Management, Department of Management and Engineering, Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden.
2Borderstep Institute for Innovation and Sustainability, Prinz Albrecht Ring 12, 30657, Hannover, Germany
3Project, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Department of Management and Engineering, Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden.
E-mail addresses: Wisdom Kanda (wisdom.kanda@liu.se), Jens Clausen (clausen@boderstep.de), Olof Hjelm (olof.hjelm@liu.se), Dzamila Bienkowska (dzamila.bienkowska@liu.se)
Abstract
Eco-innovation is an approach to environmental sustainability. However, the process of eco-innovation can be challenging especially for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Thus, SMEs might seek external support to tackle some of their challenges in eco-innovation. In this article, we focus on one type of organisation providing and also assisting SMEs to access support, intermediaries, i.e. an organisation or body that acts as an agent or broker in the innovation process. Intermediaries support firms in the innovation process through various generic and customised activities. To identify such activities and describe the roles intermediaries can take in eco-innovation, we conducted interviews and documentation analysis on selected intermediaries in two regions – Scania, Sweden and North Rhine Westphalia, Germany. The identified roles among our cases include: (i) forecasting and road mapping, (ii) information gathering and dissemination, (iii) fostering networking and partnerships, (iv) prototyping and piloting, (v) technical consulting, (vi) resource mobilisation, (vii) commercialisation, and (viii) branding and legitimation. In relation to the specific characteristics of eco-innovations, the intermediary roles such as prototyping and piloting, information gathering and dissemination, and branding were directly targeted at validating the environmental benefits of eco-innovations to tackle their “double externality” challenge. However, we find little intermediation activities from our cases directed explicitly at policy change for eco-innovation. For policy makers, our results suggest a complementary use of different types of intermediaries to support eco-innovation.
Keywords: Environmental innovations; Intermediation; Public support; Business Development
Organisations
3 1 Introduction
Eco-innovation† has gained considerable support among researchers, businesses and policy makers as a relevant though not self-sufficient approach to environmental sustainability (del Río et al., 2016). This is because, the principles underlining eco-innovation such as efficient and effective use of material, energy and human resources, are directly in-line with societal visions for a circular economy and the broader sustainability agenda (cf. Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Thus, as part of a variety of strategies to stimulate eco-innovation on different societal levels, companies are challenged to engage in the development and/or adoption of eco-innovations (Pacheco et al., 2017). This can be attributed to the environmental pressures associated with production and consumption activities (e.g. depletion of material and energy resources, biodiversity loss, and climate change) but more so with the potential benefits associated with eco-innovation such as the realisation of new competitive offerings, together with material, energy and financial savings (Kanda et al., 2016b).
However, the process of eco-innovation can be challenging. For example, some small and
medium sized enterprises (SMEs) may lack the competence needed to eco-innovate (Hjelm, 2011; Hjelm and Lindahl, 2016). In addition, innovators face challenges in marketing
eco-innovations beyond niche markets due to externalities (Rennings, 2000). And oftentimes SMEs use unstructured and non-systematic approaches to manage environmental sustainability-related issues (Keskin et al., 2013). Furthermore, literature in the field of eco-innovation argues that, given the systemic, and complex nature of eco-innovations, they are unique in that cooperation with external stakeholders is more important in the eco-innovation process than in the
development of other innovations (De Marchi, 2012). Subsequently, evidence of the significance of networking, and collaboration activities with suppliers and universities (e.g. Nikolaou et al., 2016; Pacheco et al., 2017), and along the supply chain (e.g. Zhu and Geng, 2013) for eco-innovation has been established. Since SMEs might not have all the essential competence in-house, they need to connect to and access external support to tackle some of the challenges associated with eco-innovation (Klewitz et al., 2012).
An essential example of such external support is to provide the opportunity for companies to access competence and resources from stakeholders outside their organisational boundaries. A particularly crucial type of actor which assists companies in their search for external competence and resources are intermediaries (Howells, 2006). An intermediary refers to “an organisation or body that acts as an agent or broker in any aspect of the innovation process between two or more parties”(Howells, 2006, p. 720). Intermediaries support firms in the innovation process to access resources and competence through various activities such providing bridging to other actors (Polzin et al., 2016), facilitating the formation of networks and partnerships and creating arenas for meetings, knowledge exchanges and learning (Geels and Deuten, 2006) among many others. Furthermore, intermediaries can also provide direct in-house support to firms during innovation (Agogué et al., 2017). Thus, a variety of roles are attributed to intermediaries and can generally be grouped into facilitating, configuring and brokering (Hakkarainen and Hyysalo, 2016). Different types of organisations, actors, and even individuals can act as intermediaries and thus labelling an entity as an intermediary is not static but rather dynamic and fluctuating over time. Examples of entities identified in the literature as assuming intermediary roles include innovation centres, cities, universities, technology transfer offices, incubators, science parks, business development organisations, and consultants (Howells, 2006).
In this regard, extensive research has focused on analysing the different roles intermediaries take to facilitate innovation in firms (Chesbrough, 2006; Howells, 2006). Recently, there is emerging
†We understand eco-innovation broadly as the development and/or adoption of innovations that improve environmental
performance of production and consumption activities with or without prior intention. See Carrillo-Hermosilla et al. (2010) for a review of the different definitions of the concept.
4
research on the roles of intermediaries in eco-innovation (Kivimaa et al., 2017). In relation to intermediation in eco-innovation, the previous contributions have focused on a single
intermediation-based program – e.g. Ecoprofit‡ (Klewitz et al., 2012), a single intermediation role – e.g. financial resource mobilisation (Polzin et al., 2016) and in some cases found little empirical evidence on eco-innovation specific roles based on the cases studied (Kivimaa et al., 2017). To extend upon these emerging contributions, we analysed the different roles intermediaries take to facilitate eco-innovation in firms, specifically. This is a particularly timely contribution since it is increasingly argued that eco-innovation and their developers/adopters require different kinds of support compared to “other” innovations. For example, eco-innovators may need longer term public financial support from start up to expansion phase since they have a longer time to market compared to other innovators (Englund et al., 2017). Thus, the contribution in this article will be particularly relevant for policy makers seeking insights into how to specifically stimulate eco-innovations compared to other eco-innovations as a contribution towards sustainability
transformations.
The goal of this article is to elucidate the support roles of intermediaries for eco-innovation including their related challenges. In doing so, we study intermediaries in two regions located in Sweden and Germany. The selected countries offer the potential to detect good intermediation practices since Germany and Sweden have consistently been ranked among the front-runners in eco-innovation (European Commission, 2018). To achieve our goal: in Section 2, we review the literature on innovation intermediaries and the characteristics of eco-innovations. Further on, in Section 3, we present the research method used to collect and analyse the empirical data. In Section 4, we synthesise eight roles of intermediaries in eco-innovation. We then discuss these support roles in relation to the specific characteristics of eco-innovations in Section 5. Section 6 presents our main conclusions and policy implications.
2 Literature review
2.1 Innovation intermediaries
The concept of intermediaries has been pre-dominantly used in the innovation management literature and more recently in the sustainability transitions literature (Gliedt et al., 2018). Seminal discussions on intermediaries appeared in the diffusion of innovations and technology transfer literature, where the influence of the activities of “change agents” (e.g. information dissemination, support in decision making, facilitating networking between adopters and non-adopters) on the rate of adoption of innovations were extensively analysed (Rogers, 2003). The concept of
intermediaries has subsequently been used in the open innovation literature where intermediaries assist companies to increasingly involve users and other stakeholders from outside their
organisational boundaries in their innovation processes to access essential ideas, resources and competence (Chesbrough, 2006). In the systems of innovation literature, intermediary
organisations are identified as key actors who tackle system failures by facilitating the flow of knowledge and technology between actors, networks and institutions within an innovation system (Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2009). In the sustainability transitions literature, intermediaries contribute to sustainability transitions by the articulation of new visions and expectations, initiating and managing new policy or market processes and by acting as an impartial voice for new networks of actors (Kivimaa, 2014).
In the related discourses in these strands of literature, the roles of intermediaries in innovation and transition processes are one of the most studied topics (Gliedt et al., 2018). And by extension, there are different roles (sometimes referred to as functions) attributed to
‡Ecoprofit is a cooperative approach between regional authorities, consultants and local companies with the goal to
5
intermediaries in innovation and transition processes (see e.g. Hakkarainen and Hyysalo, 2016; Howells, 2006; Kivimaa, 2014). Although the different lists of roles of intermediaries are
necessary steps towards theory building, there is the need for further advancement from “what” types of questions regarding the roles of intermediaries to conduct empirical studies that expose context-specific aspects of “how” intermediaries work (Hakkarainen and Hyysalo, 2016). Shedding light on the specific content of intermediary roles is what this article contributes with by analysing the different roles of intermediaries in eco-innovation and in particular which roles are particularly targeted at (or relevant for) eco-innovation characteristics.
2.2 The concept of eco-innovation
Defining the concept of eco-innovation and its specific characteristics is no easy task although several attempts have been made both in the academic and public discourse (Carrillo-Hermosilla et al., 2010). Despite the different definitions and understandings associated with the concept, there is largely a consensus that eco-innovations reduce environmental impact caused by consumption and production activities with or without intention (del Río et al., 2016). A particular challenge in defining the concept of eco-innovation is establishing the environmental benefits since this can be based on the actual environmental impacts and/or the intended
environmental impacts of eco-innovation (Carrillo-Hermosilla et al., 2010). Focusing a definition on the actual impacts has challenges with regards to establishing which eco-innovations in
practice actually reduce environmental impacts of production and consumption processes bearing in mind the limitations of existing assessment methods (e.g. types of impacts to consider, quality of inventory data, methodological choices and uncertainties) such of environmental impact assessment (Finnveden, 2000). On the other hand, focusing a definition on environmental intentions can also be challenging to operationalise since the environmental intentions of
innovators can increasingly become entangled with other intentions such as social and economic welfare as environmental issues increasingly move from niche market activities to become mainstream (Kanda, 2017).
Furthermore, there is a wide diversity of eco-innovations which can range from incremental innovations such as component additions (e.g. installing air filters to clean the pollutants from an industrial process) to radical innovations such as complete system change (e.g. a shift to
renewable energy-based transportation system which includes changes in vehicle engines,
policies, business models, road infrastructure). Despite these differences, Rennings (2000) argues that, there are three specific characteristics of eco-innovations which distinguish them from “other” innovations: (i) their positive environmental impact, (ii) the significant influence of policy in their development and diffusion, and (iii) the “double externality” problem (i.e. in addition to the spillovers associated the innovation process in general, environmental protection also suffers from a public good nature and free rider problems). The double externality problem is the basis for suggestions to support eco-innovations with both innovation and environmental policies (Jaffe et al., 2005).
2.3 Intermediaries in eco-innovation
As indicated in the introduction, the process of eco-innovation can be challenging for SMEs and thus intermediaries act as important bridges to acquire necessary competence and resources from other actors and organisations (Klewitz et al., 2012; Polzin et al., 2016). Through intermediaries, SMEs can access an ecology of support actors and also eco-innovation-specific knowledge (Hjelm, 2011; Kivimaa et al., 2017). Intermediaries can act as third parties that help firms to achieve their desired innovation objectives and as act as a broker or agent in any aspect of the innovation process between two or more parties (Howells, 2006). Intermediaries creates spaces and opportunities for others to act, mediate, work-in-between, make connections, enable a relationship between different persons or things (Martiskainen and Kivimaa, 2017).
6
Furthermore, intermediaries have been identified to provide infrastructure to facilitate the gathering and interaction of actors, exchange of experiences and knowledge, the organisation of collective action needed to facilitate innovation processes all of which are relevant for
eco-innovation (Matschoss and Heiskanen, 2017). Intermediaries with a proactive approach can act as important external stimuli for firms especially those who do not perceive the benefits of
sustainability issues in general and adopt a reactive approach to sustainability (Klewitz et al., 2012). Furthermore, intermediaries can provide bridges to sustainability-oriented organisations which can provide innovation specific knowledge (Kivimaa et al., 2017). Specifically, for eco-innovation, there are very few studies which analyse the roles of intermediaries (e.g. Kivimaa et al., 2017; Klewitz et al., 2012; Polzin et al., 2016). And in particular, the eco-innovation specific content of the intermediation roles is little discussed or negligible from the empirical cases. As presented above, there is compelling argumentation from the literature that eco-innovations have some specific attributes which distinguish them from other innovations and the specific content of the roles of intermediaries in relation to eco-innovation specific characteristics would be the central contribution of this paper.
3 Research method
The overall research approach adopted in this article was exploratory (cf. Yin, 2017). The research was completed during a large research project from January 2012 to January 2016. An exploratory approach offered us the freedom to explore insights regarding the roles of
intermediaries in eco-innovation which emerged during the course of our empirical data collection that were not anticipated during the research design and also not identified from our literature reviews (cf. Bryman, 2015). More importantly, an exploratory approach is particularly relevant to analyse the roles of intermediaries in eco-innovation since it is an emerging research focus (cf. Kivimaa et al., 2017). The following paragraphs outline specifically how the empirical data were collected and analysed to fulfil the goal of this article.
The intermediaries that we studied were selected from two regions in Sweden and Germany; Scania and North Rhine Westphalia, respectively (see Table 1 for overview). The regional scope was adopted because it reflects how resources are allocated for intermediation activities within the studied countries and also reflects the scope of intermediary actors in close proximity to firms seeking support for eco-innovation. An explicitly defined scope clarifies the context of our study allowing for comparison with other studies. We identified intermediaries within each region following a chain-referral sampling§ where interviewed experts suggested future subjects to be interviewed from among their familiarities based on their expert judgement on the topics under discussion. We mapped out the intermediaries, their relations to other support actors and also their key stakeholders such as owners, clients and financers where possible. Since it was
practically impossible to cover the entire range of intermediary actors in the selected regions, we narrowed down on a selected number of cases for further investigation based on their perceived significance in the regions as indicated by expert opinions (see Table 1 below).
We conducted interviews with and documentation analysis on business development organisations, cluster initiatives, and material and energy efficiency agencies acting as
intermediaries in the eco-innovation process. Rather than focusing on a particular intermediary type or actors they connect companies to (e.g. universities or suppliers), we adopted a broad approach to be able to synthesise a comprehensive set of intermediation roles for eco-innovation (cf. Howells, 2006; Kivimaa and Martiskainen, 2018). This broad approach allowed us to capture a variety of intermediary characteristics such as their different institutional contexts, ownership,
§ This method yields a study sample through referrals made among people who know others who possess some
7
source of financing which have been identified as influential on intermediation activities
particularly in relation to sustainability (Mignon and Kanda, 2018). And due to limited interests of private actors to act as catalysts for eco-innovation and sustainability related activities in general (cf. Kivimaa, 2014), this article focuses on public or hybrid (public-private) funded intermediaries and not on for-profit organisations such as private consultants.
We conducted face-to-face interviews using a semi-structure interview guide with respondents in the identified intermediaries who work directly with intermediation activities or were strategically responsible for developing the content of the intermediation activities and also in management positions. The interviews lasted between 1 and 2 hours, were digitally recorded and fully
transcribed for further analysis. During the interviews, questions discussed covered the set-up of the intermediary organisation itself (e.g. aims, objectives, organisational structure, financing) and its history (e.g. how their objectives, roles have changed over time), their target companies and examples of the eco-innovations they developed, and/ or adopted, how the intermediation activities were undertaken, how the intermediary was evaluated and also challenges in intermediation.
To analyse the empirical data, we focused on identifying the support roles which the studied intermediaries offered to companies regarding eco-innovation. This included both direct in-house support as well as support provided by bridging to other actors. A thematic analysis of the
interview transcripts was used to identify the major emerging themes and categories of roles with regards to support for eco-innovation (cf. Bryman, 2015). These themes were recurring motifs and statements in the transcript which relate to support offered to companies in eco-innovation using roles of intermediaries identified in previous literature as a guide (e.g. Howells, 2006). The major themes were then placed in a matrix to see which support roles came from which
intermediaries and also which roles were most common among the intermediaries. Notes and comments from the transcripts filled the content of the matrix regarding the content of the support roles. The identified roles were then compared to intermediary roles identified in previous literature (see Table 1 below) for adjustments and corroboration. The identified roles were further refined to their current state based on feedback from presentations to academic and industry experts. In synthesising the roles of intermediaries in eco-innovation, we do not intend to generate an exhaustive list (if at all that is possible) but rather we intend to provide a seminal comprehension of the roles of intermediaries in eco-innovation and in particular analyse how they relate to the specific characteristics of eco-innovation vis-à-vis innovation.
4 Results
4.1 Characteristics of the studied intermediaries
As shown in Table 1, the studied intermediaries are diverse regarding type of organisation, size, source of funding, and for how long they had been active. Worth noting is that some were rather small (2-10 employees) but that also large intermediaries such as The Energy Agency (120
employees) were represented. Many were publicly funded but some also used private money to some extent. The oldest had been in operation since the 1980-ies and the youngest for 4 years. General business support intermediaries showed a tendency to be older compared to more eco-innovation specific intermediaries such as Sustainability Business Hub and The Greentech Cluster formed 2002 and 2009 respectively. This observation is in-line with recent studies which indicate that specific support for eco-innovations is relatively new and is not mainstream even among leading eco-innovation countries (Fichter and Tiemann, 2018). Furthermore, the scope of intermediation ranges from the entire region for Sustainable Business Hub, The Greentech Cluster, The efficiency agencies to the city level for Malmö Cleantech City. This mix of different types and characteristics of intermediaries particularly enriches the study in its exploratory
8
attempt to find what different intermediary roles are available to companies in their eco-innovation activities.
A challenge for many of the intermediaries is their limitations in terms of staff, financing and knowledge to perform their intermediation roles specifically in relation to eco-innovation. This challenge is induced by their financial resources, the competence of the personnel, mandate and also the networks of the intermediary. This resource limitation thus directly influences the content of the intermediation activities. For example, due to the limited personnel resources available for cluster initiatives e.g. Malmö Cleantech City, Sustainable Business Region and the Greentech Cluster, their intermediation activities are targeted at a network of companies to efficiently utilise their financial and human resources. Similarly, the studied business development organisations in Region Scania and North Rhine Westphalia e.g. ALMI Scania, Agency for business promotion Duisburg, and Essen Economic Development Agency do not explicitly consider the process of eco-innovation as different from ordinary innovation and thus their intermediation support is similar in content to those initiatives available for innovators in general. Though, the different stakeholders of the studied intermediaries such as their clients, funders, and owners generally appreciate the importance of their intermediation activities, they often struggle to grasp the tangible value such intermediaries create for companies and the context (e.g. regions) within which they operate. This ambiguity regarding the value addition of intermediaries is particularly pronounced for general focused intermediaries such as local business development organisations since their support is largely business development which is particularly challenging to objectively evaluate, and establish cause and effect. This ambiguity regarding the value addition of intermediaries goes a long way to affect the stability of their funding, their mandate and also their survival as an organisation over time.
Another challenge is the dominance of reactive approaches to intermediation based on the expressed needs of their client companies. This reactive approach to supporting eco-innovations can be problematic since the market demand for eco-innovations might be weak and thus the corresponding expressed needs for support from companies might be incremental and not seek to generate the radical eco-innovations needed for long term and systemic changes to tackle contemporary environmental problems. These set of challenges that intermediaries encounter in combination with the context within which they intermediate makes intermediaries complex actors with sophisticated management principles such as objectives, roles, competencies, and performance criteria (Agogué et al., 2017). Thus, intermediaries are strategic actors who collaborate and compete with each other for survival and to meet the needs of their clients.
Table 1: Overview of studied intermediaries and interviewees
Region(s) Name of
Intermediary Documentation analysed Position of Interviewee(s) Information on intermediaries (as of autumn, 2014)
Scania,
Sweden Sustainable Business Hub • Webpages
• Regional innovation reports for region Scania, Sweden • An evaluation report on the • Project leader – R&D and innovation • Business developer
Type of organization: Membership based, non-profit
organization
Size: 6 employees working full-time, 130-member companies
within the environmental goods and services sector
Funding: Region Scania, European Union projects, Private
sources (e.g. membership fees)
Year established: 2002
9
Malmö
Cleantech City activities of Sustainable
Business Hub by an external consultancy • An Evaluation report on the activities of Malmö Cleantech City by an external consultancy • Newsletters
Project manager Type of organization: Non-membership-based organization
supporting companies mainly within the environmental goods and services sector
Size: 2 employees working full-time Funding: 100% from Malmö city Year established: 2010 as a project
Scope of intermediation: Sweden, Malmö City
Regional council of Scania • Development manager • Business manager
Type of organization: Regional financer and administrative
authority for some intermediaries in region Scania (e.g. Sustainable Business Hub) and tasked with regional development
Funding: Public taxes Year established: 1999
Scope of intermediation: Sweden, Region Scania
ALMI Scania Innovation advisor Type of organization: Non-membership based regional
branch of the national business development organization with support targeted at all types of companies
Size: 26 employees, a subsidiary to Almi Företagspartner AB,
owned by the Swedish government
Funding: parent company and regional owners (e.g. regional
councils)
Year established: parent company started in 1994 Scope of intermediation: Sweden Region, Scania
North Rhine Westphalia, Germany
The Greentech
Cluster • Webpages • A survey
report of client satisfaction conducted by an external consultancy on the Energy Agency • A survey conducted by the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy on energy consulting for SMEs • A survey conducted by the climate protection agency, region Hannover on initial energy consulting for SMEs • A survey conducted by the German Environment Ministry on support for Eco-management • Principal • Innovation radar coordinator
Type of organization: Non-membership-based cluster
initiative focused on the environmental goods and services sector
Size: 5-6 employees working variably in time
Funding: Ministry of Environment, European Union and
regional development funds
Year established: 2009
Scope of intermediation: Germany, North Rhine Westphalia
The Efficiency
Agency Head of consulting Type of organization: Government mandated organization with technical experts on material and energy efficiency in
different sizes of companies and sector
Size: 30 employees working full-time in six locations Funding: Ministry of Environment, NRW
Year established: 1998
Scope of intermediation: Germany, North Rhine Westphalia
The Energy
Agency Manager of the Department for
Information and Advice
Type of organization: Government mandated organization
with technical experts on energy efficiency in different sizes of companies from different sectors
Size: 120 employees working in Düsseldorf, Gelsenkirchen
and Wuppertal
Funding: state of North Rhine Westphalia, regional
development funds
Year established: 1990
Scope of intermediation: Germany, North Rhine Westphalia
Agency for business promotions, Duisburg
Two project
managers Type of organization: Shareholders are the city of Duisburg 50 % and 50% private companies. A general focus intermediary supporting different kinds of companies
Size: 20 employees
Funding: City of Duisburg and private companies Year established: 1988
Scope of intermediation: Germany, North Rhine Westphalia
Essen Economic Development Agency
Person responsible for energy, water, and environment
Type of organization: 50 % owned by the city of Duisburg
and 50% owned by association of businesses e.g. utilities, savings banks, real estate companies. A general focus intermediary supporting different kinds of companies
10
and Audit
Scheme Funding: 95% by city of Essen, association of businesses Year established: 1991
Scope of intermediation: Germany, North Rhine Westphalia
4.2 Support roles of intermediaries for eco-innovations
From our empirical findings and with corroboration from previous literature, we synthesize eight roles of intermediaries for firms in eco-innovation. See Table 2 below for an overview on these intermediation roles, including their specific content, examples of intermediaries working with them and their relation to previous scientific literature. Note that, the related examples in previous literature do not always use the same wording as we present in Table 2 below.
Nonetheless our understanding of the content of the intermediation roles find these references as relevant examples. It should also be observed that in practise, there are interactions between the different roles which mean that some of them may be difficult to differentiate from each other. And as can be observed from the various examples of intermediaries working with the identified roles, it is evident that intermediaries are not homogenous entities but work with several different roles at the same time. We present the content of the different roles in the next paragraphs. Table 2: Support roles of intermediaries in eco-innovation
Roles Content Examples of studied
intermediaries providing service
Related examples from literature
1. Forecasting and
roadmapping Generating a portfolio of cutting-edge
eco-innovations and providing avenues for firms to develop them further.
“Innovation radar”- an annual list of cutting edge eco-innovations for firms (v) Howells, (2006); Kivimaa (2014); (Agogué et al., 2013) 2. Information gathering and dissemination Gathering and disseminating of information to foster eco-innovation.
Providing arenas for meeting and information sharing, gathering and distributing information among key stakeholders
(i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, viii, ix)
Howells, (2006); Bessant and Rush (1995); Geels and Deuten (2006) 3. Fostering
networking and partnerships
Providing arenas and facilitating networking and the development of partnerships between firms and key stakeholders regarding eco-innovation.
Providing arenas for meetings; facilitating collaborations between key stakeholders(i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, viii, ix)
Bessant and Rush (1995); Klerkx and Leeuwis (2009); Kivimaa (2014) Hodson and Marvin (2010)
4. Prototyping and
piloting Providing platforms such as testbeds and
pilot projects for field-testing and
measurement, evaluation and showcasing of eco-innovations.
• Arenas for full-scale
demonstration(i)
• Provision of test beds conditions(ii)
Matschoss and Heiskanen, (2017)
5. Technical
consulting Providing technical knowledge on
eco-innovation in company processes and offerings.
Technical expertise on energy and material efficiency, and their related project
implementation (vi; vii)
Howells, (2006)
6. Resource
mobilisation Mobilising, distributing and
providing access to financial, human and
• In-house financing
support(iv)
• Assistance with financial
applications(vi)
Howells, (2006) Bessant and Rush (1995); Polzin et al.
11
knowledge resources
for eco-innovation. • Information on sources of finance and human
capital(i, viii, ix)
(2016); van Lente et al. (2003)
7. Commercialisation Assistance with the
commercial exploitation of eco-innovations both on local and international markets.
• Assistance with market entry (vii)
• Export promotion services(i; vii)
Howells (2006); Bessant and Rush (1995); van Lente et al., (2003)
8. Branding and
legitimation Using different means to create a distinct
brand and social acceptance and compliance with relevant institutions for eco-innovation and the environmental goods and services sector.
• Promoting the environmental goods and services sector as a major source of eco-innovation (i, ii, v)
• Undertaking
intermediation programs with environmental targets (vi, vii, viii, ix)
Kivimaa (2014)
List of intermediaries
i. Sustainable Business Hub ii. Malmö Cleantech City iii. Regional council of Scania iv. ALMI Scania
v. The Greentech Cluster vi. The Efficiency Agency vii. The Energy Agency
viii. Agency for business promotions, Duisburg ix. Essen Economic Development Agency
1. Forecasting and road mapping
In forecasting and roadmapping, intermediaries give advice to companies regarding which cutting edge eco-innovations to develop or adopt based on their expert evaluation. The overarching goal of this role is to give guidance and provide concrete visions regarding eco-innovation for the region and its key stakeholders. Furthermore, the intermediaries provide possibilities for the companies to form networks and partnerships to develop eco-innovations of their mutual interest. For example, the “innovation radar” is an intermediation support program run by the Greentech Cluster in North Rhine Westphalia to develop a yearly roadmap for eco-innovation in the region. Under the innovation radar, the Greentech Cluster generates a portfolio of cutting edge eco-innovations for each year based on their relevance for the region of North Rhine Westphalia and also their market potential. This portfolio of eco-innovations is then narrowed down and companies and other relevant stakeholders (e.g. researchers, funders) are brought together to dialogue and to develop the eco-innovations further even including market introduction (interviews with innovation radar coordinator, Greentech Cluster, NRW). To be able to provide such a forecasting and roadmaping support, the Greentech Cluster, NRW has the capacity to forecast promising eco-innovations from newsletters from different sources, press releases about scientific activities and research. A central component of this support role is the ability of the Greentech cluster to bring together the appropriate networks and partnerships of businesses, universities, funders, policy makers and also to achieve collaborations between these actors which is new along the eco-innovation value chain. These actors are purposively selected
12
based on how well their competence fits the eco-innovations being considered (interview with innovation radar coordinator, Greentech cluster, NRW).
2. Information gathering and dissemination
Gathering and disseminating information on eco-innovation is one of the common support roles among the studied cases (see Table 2 above). This role also interacts with other roles for example “technical consulting”, “branding and legitimation”, and “commercialisation”. Information gathering and dissemination can be accomplished through seminars around specific topics, matchmaking meetings, workshops, and through the distribution of newsletters, virtual platforms and magazines (interviews, Sustainable business hub; Malmö Cleantech City; agency for business promotions, Duisburg; Essen Economic Development Agency). The information provided can range from specific technical information about particular types of eco-innovation to general information about market conditions for eco-innovations. For example, the Energy Agency in NRW provides technical information to companies on energy weak spots and opportunities (ranging from heating systems and heat recovery, to insulation against heat and cold, leak detection and drawing up energy concepts) for energy efficiency in their offerings (products or services) and processes. Furthermore, the Energy Agency, NRW offers continuous training seminars for different types of actors such as institutions, corporate associations and federations, institutions of higher education, local authorities and companies in North Rhine Westphalia together with an on-line platform on energy efficiency (interview, Energy Agency, NRW).
3. Fostering networking and partnerships
Fostering networking and partnerships outside the traditional boundaries of firms is a common intermediation activity among the studied cases (see Table 2 above). The provision of arenas such as meetings, seminars and workshops which both formal and informal settings can facilitate contacts between different types of stakeholders engaged with the development or adoption of eco-innovations. As can be seen in Table 2, most of the intermediaries provide meeting avenues and opportunities for interactions and developing partnerships between different kinds of stakeholders (e.g. suppliers, academia) which might be challenging for companies to do on their own. Such networking and partnership facilitating activities provided by intermediaries facilitates learning and knowledge sharing between the different actors and organisations and are also important for mobilizing and accessing key resources for eco-innovation. For example, at Sustainable Business Hub, Region Scania, the approach to fostering networking and partnership is to serve as a “spider in the web” and develop relations with universities, private consultants, technical experts and other specialized actors in the region with different expertise and then provide access to member competences using meetings, matchmaking events, presentations and seminars on specific eco-innovation topics (interviews with person responsible for R&D and innovation, Sustainable Business Hub; interviews, Malmö Cleantech City).
4. Prototyping and piloting
In prototyping and piloting, the studied intermediaries focus on assessing and evaluating eco-innovations. The outcomes of such assessments are often reported in energy, material and
financial savings under test bed, pilot and full-scale conditions. For example, Sustainable Business Hub gives opportunities and arenas for firms engaged with eco-innovations to demonstrate and test their offerings under real life situations. Furthermore, Sustainable Business Hub operates as a link between companies seeking piloting and testing opportunities and municipalities/cities willing to showcase new and cutting-edge solutions while also tackling some of their pressing challenges such as air pollution. Piloting and prototyping activities are often connected to public competitions, in which firms can compete with their eco-innovations for a prize and public visibility (interviews with business developer, Sustainable Business Hub). In the case of Malmö Cleantech City, the support activity is targeted at companies in the early product development phase. This is usually accomplished using two paths, either a company proactively seeks
13
assistance from Malmö Cleantech City to test prototypes of their eco-innovations in the city or that the city of Malmö identifies priority urban challenges related to sustainability for Malmö Cleantech City to scout and invite relevant companies to tackle. Outcomes from these assessment activities provide input to further product development and are shared publicly to gather support among relevant stakeholders (interviews with project manager, Malmö Cleantech City).
5. Technical consulting
With this support, intermediaries provide technical expertise to assist companies identify, evaluate and implement eco-innovations in their processes and offerings (products and services). This technical expertise can cover energy and material efficiency, environmentally conscious design, and cleaner production practices. The Efficiency Agency, NRW provides consulting with a focus on problem diagnostics and setting objectives after which direct technical advice can be provided or possible solutions for the next line of action can be defined e.g. technical consulting regarding energy efficiency or material efficiency projects. Some companies can also be denied this
technical consulting support when the companies have in recent years implemented cutting edge technologies to which the Efficiency Agency cannot provide any economically feasible
alternatives or replacements. In other cases, companies which are not receptive to change can be refused the technical support since the agency has to utilise its limited resources efficiently. The Efficiency Agency, North Rhine Westphalia strongly reiterated that, in their case, technical consulting does not only end up with planning measures but goes further into seeking financing (writing tenders, writing loan applications, evaluating offers) and implementation of the eco-innovation measure (interviews with head of consulting, the Efficiency Agency, NRW).
6. Resource mobilisation
The resource mobilisation role of intermediaries’ deals with assisting directly or indirectly companies to access different kinds of resources needed for eco-innovation. Key resources mobilised by intermediaries for firms engaged with eco-innovation include human and financial capital. In some cases, these resources can be provided directly by the intermediary themselves while in other cases the intermediaries serve as a linkage between companies and specialised organisations providing particular resource e.g. banks, universities, suppliers. For example; ALMI Scania works to complement the private sector by providing loans and venture capital to
companies at different stages of development particularly in instances where risks are high and access to capital from the market is difficult (interview with innovation advisor, ALMI Scania). In the Efficiency Agency, North Rhine Westphalia, there is an employee dedicated to financing resource efficiency projects and translating energy and material resource efficiency project ideas into banking feasible projects covering production efficiency and new product development (interviews with head of consulting, the Efficiency Agency, NRW). Many of the intermediaries do not provide direct financial support to companies but rather serve as a bridge through which companies can receive information and advice on key resources and also as a vital linkage to organisations specialized in providing such resources e.g. universities and banks (interviews with business developer, Sustainable Business Hub; agency for business promotions, Duisburg; Essen Economic Development Agency).
7. Commercialisation
Commercialization as an intermediation support role refers to activities aimed at exploiting eco-innovations beyond niche market activities by identifying or creating markets, customers and subsequently developing strategies to serve those local and global markets. For example, one of the strategic action areas for Sustainable Business Hub is to increase exports among its member companies. In specific, they provide export assistance services for their members regarding
14
accessing financial support schemes available for exporters, information about foreign market conditions, participation in trade visits with member companies, arranging meetings with key stakeholders (e.g. foreign businesses and politicians), and providing business coaching on export marketing and export management (interviews, business developer, Sustainable Business Hub). Similarly, the Energy Agency is responsible for an economic cluster in the environmental goods and services sector where different stakeholders collaborate to undertake eco-innovation projects, reduce their time-to-market and capture their economic benefits including export (interview, Energy Agency, North Rhine Westphalia)
8. Branding and legitimation
In this role, intermediaries employ different avenues and activities to create a distinct brand and social acceptance for eco-innovation together with compliance with the expectations of relevant institutions such as regulations. Legitimation can also be an outcome of the different
intermediation activities such as the labels the intermediaries put on certain innovations and firms as being eco-innovative. Building legitimacy could be through being a member of clusters, accreditations and participation in certain intermediation programs. Legitimation is important for mobilising financial, human capital and knowledge resources for an eco-innovation, for
customers to trust and buy into the innovation and for actors such as policy makers and businesses to give their support to the eco-innovation. For example, affiliations with
intermediaries such as sector specific clusters and technical experts (e.g. Sustainable Business Hub, the Efficiency and Energy Agency, and the Greentech Cluster) which focus on
sustainability issues can be expected to offers companies some form of branding and legitimation as working with the broad issues of sustainability and eco-innovation. Similarly, participating and certification in intermediation programs can also give an image of being environmentally oriented e.g. Ecoprofit® – registered trademark about environmental improvements in companies which is run by some intermediary cases from Germany (interviews, local business development organization-Duisburg).
5 Discussion
Since the roles of intermediaries in general is an extensively explored topic, this discussion section extends this discourse by focusing on the roles of intermediaries particularly in relation to the specific characteristics of eco-innovations. In addition, we discuss how the roles of intermediaries in eco-innovation differ from the roles of intermediaries in “other” innovation.
The roles of intermediation in firm-level innovation has been extensively researched in the innovation literature (see e.g Chesbrough, 2006; Howells, 2006). On the other hand, in the eco-innovation literature, the specific roles of intermediaries in eco-eco-innovation is rather emerging (cf. Kivimaa et al., 2017). In addition to the unique characteristics of eco-innovations such as
generating environmental benefits, the influence of regulations, and the “double externality” problem, the eco-innovations process also differs in certain aspects from “conventional”
innovation (De Marchi, 2012). Specifically, networking and cooperation with external partners is essential with regards to how eco-innovations are conceived and realised due to their complexity and systemic nature (De Marchi, 2012) which may require different forms of knowledge
(Marzucchi and Montresor, 2017). Eco-innovation often requires changes in raw material or components used, logistical or technical integration with external partners and the re-design of products and services (Kanda et al., 2016b). Thus, cooperation with suppliers is essential to access inputs or components with environmentally friendly features. Furthermore, to develop products and services with lower environmental impacts require information and skills such as eco-design, life cycle thinking which are often different from the traditional knowledge base available in industry (De Marchi, 2012). Thus, cooperation with knowledge institutions such as
15
universities, consultant, and research centres are even more important in eco-innovation than for “other” innovation (cf. Hjelm and Lindahl, 2016). In addition, eco-innovators are expected to develop proper interfaces between research and above all business partners to effectively utilise internal and external knowledge for different kinds of eco-innovation (Marzucchi and Montresor, 2017). These attributes make it particularly relevant to analyse what roles intermediations play in eco-innovation since intermediaries have been identified as brokers and bridge builders between different entities.
The different roles of intermediaries for eco-innovation identified from our empirical cases have connections to roles of intermediaries for innovation in general identified in previous literature (see Table 2 above). This can be explained by the fact that, eco-innovation falls under the broad umbrella of innovation and shares several similar characteristics with innovation in general such as knowledge externalities (since firms cannot capture the total entirety of value created during innovation) and demand pull and technology push factors (Carrillo-Hermosilla et al., 2009). On the other hand, many of the studied intermediaries take a broad generalist approach to
intermediation in innovation with only a few roles tailored specifically in content for eco-innovations characteristics. This broad generalist approach to intermediation is linked to their mandate, and lack of financial and knowledge resources. For example, business development organisations such as ALMI Scania, Agency for business promotion Duisburg, and Essen Economic Development Agency did not explicitly emphasize specific characteristic of eco-innovations as influencing the content of their intermediation activities. This may be linked to the complementary role of such publicly-funded intermediaries to market initiatives and the activities of specialised intermediaries (e.g. The Greentech Cluster, Sustainable Business Hub, and the Efficiency Agencies), their limited resources, and the broadness of eco-innovation which cuts across several industrial domains. This broad-generalist approach can also be observed with different public support initiatives for eco-innovation (Kanda et al., 2016a), and even though justifiable given limited resources can be stifling for sustainability goals given limited time frames within which to achieve radical environmental improvements (Kivimaa, 2014).
However, some identified intermediation roles are particularly relevant for the characteristics of eco-innovations. When the content of the roles identified from our empirical cases are analysed with regards to the specific characteristics of eco-innovation, the intermediation roles appear to be targeted at validating the environmental benefits of eco-innovations and also to tackling the positive spillovers in the innovation and diffusion of eco-innovations. For example,
intermediation activities such as bridging to funders and also directly providing financial support assists companies to tackle the externalities in the early phases of eco-innovation (cf. Polzin et al., 2016) while aggregating the views and opinions of different actors for policy changes (e.g.
subsidies and tax exemptions) as found in previous literature (e.g Kivimaa, 2014) are targeted at addressing environmental externalities.
Furthermore, the studied intermediaries worked actively with branding and legitimation for eco-innovations through several activities such as test beds and demonstration projects where the environmental benefits of these innovations can be measured, validated and also made visible to key stakeholders such as the general public and policy makers. Such legitimacy building activities are important for resources to be mobilised, for demand to form and for actors related to the eco-innovation to gain political strength (cf. Bergek et al., 2008). And even though the studied intermediaries were aware of the significant influence of policy in the development and diffusion of eco-innovations, a few of their intermediation roles can be regarded as directly targeted at policy change as identified in the study of “systemic” intermediaries by Kivimaa, (2014). This is because the intermediaries that we studied have a regional mandate, coupled with limited resources in terms of number of employees, financing (but for a few cases such The Efficiency Agency and The Energy Agency in North Rhine Westphalia, Table 2), and thus should not be
16
expected to take on such systemic roles such as policy change and renewal (cf. Kivimaa, 2014). However, some of the roles we identified, for example, branding and legitimation of eco-innovations, information gathering and dissemination, and prototyping and piloting can be argued to provide in-direct input for policy change and renewal on a national level (or at least on the regional level). The differences in our findings compared to previous literature regarding the scope and different types of intermediation roles suggests that different characteristics of intermediaries (e.g. their resources, mandate, motivation, scope) influences their intermediation roles and that not all intermediaries can be expected to perform certain roles (Mignon and Kanda, 2018).
Furthermore, though clients and key stakeholders recognize the relevance of intermediary roles and their activities, it is difficult to justify the value addition of intermediaries to (eco)-innovation processes due to attributional challenges and the intangibility of their inputs (Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2009). However, intermediation roles such as technical consulting, piloting and prototyping can be relatively easily evaluated after implementation using indicators such as monetary, energy and material savings (interviews, the Energy Agency, Material Agency, NRW). This difficulty in demonstrating the added value of intermediaries is especially pronounced for intermediation roles such as facilitating networking and partnerships, information gathering and dissemination, and branding and legitimation since they are based on complex social processes with in-direct outcomes because of contingency effects. Thus, such broad intermediation activities are often suitable for public funding as compared to very specific and tailored intermediation activities which gives direct and tangible benefits to clients being favourable for private funding (cf. Mignon and Kanda, 2018). And this difficulty in establishing value addition of intermediaries influences their access to financial resources from key stakeholders, the longevity of their mandate, and the balance between general and customised support roles. For intermediaries seeking to facilitate sustainability transformations, their longevity as an entity is important since eco-innovations require long term sustained and tailored support if they are to move beyond niche markets and compete effectively with existing innovations (Azar and Sandén, 2011;
Englund et al., 2017). On the other hand, intermediaries which have been established over longer periods of time risk suffering from lock-in to current un-sustainable practices and should thus strive for a balance between routine activities and experimentation including new types of intermediaries.
Ultimately, the crucial question for scholars and policy makers is whether eco-innovations require specific intermediation roles compared to “other” innovations. As synthesized in Table 3 below, from the literature review, the eco-innovation literature highlights two main aspects that
differentiates eco-innovations from other innovations. These aspects are: (i) externalities in the innovation and diffusion phase of eco-innovations, the “double externality problem” and (ii) the regulatory push/pull effect (Rennings, 2000). These pronounced characteristics of
eco-innovations suggest the need for some specific intermediation roles in addition to the roles already captured in innovation literature (cf. Howells, 2006).
Table 3: Pronounced characteristics of intermediation in eco-innovation as compared to other innovations (source: authors with inspiration from Di Marchi, 2006)
Eco-innovation Innovation
Externalities • Knowledge and
environmental externalities
• Knowledge externalities
Drivers • Demand-pull, technology
push and regulatory push/pull factors
• Demand-pull and technology push factors
17
Purpose of intermediation
roles • To tackle knowledge externalities, stimulate demand pull and technology push • To validate the environmental benefits of eco-innovations • To tackle the environmental externalities in of eco-innovations • To tackle knowledge externalities, stimulate demand pull and technology push
Reconciling the roles of intermediaries synthesized in the article to eco-innovation characteristics, it is evident that though intermediation in eco-innovation shares several similarities with
intermediation in innovation in general, two purposes of intermediation are pronounced for eco-innovations as compared to “other” eco-innovations as shown in Table 3. These relate to: (i) the ambition to validate the environmental benefits of eco-innovations (e.g. through branding and legitimacy for eco-innovations to gain public support) and (ii) tackling the environmental externalities related to eco-innovations (e.g. advocating for policy changes such as tax
exemptions, subsidies to favour innovations). These intermediation targets emerge since eco-innovations often seek to serve the same purpose as other eco-innovations but with a less
environmental impact and thus have to compete with negative externality producing innovations which are often established on mainstream markets. Thus, intermediaries in eco-innovation tend to take on roles which seek to highlight the positive aspects of eco-innovations and also aggregate view of eco-innovators to potentially influence policy for sustainability transformation of
products, services and organisations.
6 Conclusions and policy implications
This article started with a goal to synthesise and analyse the roles of intermediaries in eco-innovation. To the best of our knowledge, this article is the first to explore further the discourse on the roles of intermediaries and discuss them explicitly in relation to eco-innovation
characteristics. This contribution is timely because there is increasing evidence that eco-innovators and their developers face certain pronounced challenges which warrant additional kinds of intermediation roles compared to “other” innovation. The discussions of our empirical cases suggest that, though the content of many intermediation roles for eco-innovations are similar to intermediation roles identified for “other” innovations, some intermediation roles are targeted to the specific characteristics of eco-innovations. In particular, our discussions indicate that, the intermediaries we studied worked actively to demonstrate the environmental benefits of eco-innovations for the general public through prototyping and piloting activities, information gathering and dissemination and also work with branding and legitimation issues which are essential for resources to be mobilised, customers to buy-in and favourable policies to be developed for eco-innovations which can ultimately address the challenges of environmental externality. This contribution thus makes clear the additional intermediation roles and objectives in eco-innovation compared to innovation in general.
For policy makers, our results taken together suggests that, intermediaries which support eco-innovations need to assume roles particularly relevant for eco-eco-innovations in addition to intermediation roles in “conventional” innovation. This suggests the need for complementarity between different kinds of intermediaries guided by awareness, learning and aggregation, and interaction among each other. Furthermore, many of our studied intermediaries did not have a
18
systematic and outspoken approach to support eco-innovation and have relatively little experience in supporting companies developing eco-innovations. This finding is in-line with previous studies which analysed different types of entities acting as intermediaries such as universities, technology transfer centres, and incubators and found negligible or marginal systematic intermediation activities for eco-innovation (cf. Bank and Kanda, 2016; Fichter and Tiemann, 2018; Kivimaa et al., 2017). Ultimately, this raises the question of how existing
intermediaries can be capacitated to systematically integrate eco-innovation specific support into their existing intermediation activities. In this regard the knowledge competencies among the employees of intermediaries and also procedures (e.g. concepts, methods, tools and their application) to support eco-innovations are important avenues for improvement. Capacitating intermediaries can be undertaken with potential support from entities (e.g. universities, research centres) with eco-innovation specific competence, an activity which would not only enhance the services provided by intermediaries but essentially create internal value for intermediaries needed for their long-term survival.
Acknowledgements:
We are grateful to Formas (The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning) for funding project “SHIFT” through ECO-INOVERA and the European Unions’ Interreg programme for funding project “SUPER” from which this article is developed. Our sincere gratitude also goes to the intermediaries who have participated in our study. An earlier draft of this article was presented at the Global Cleaner Production and Sustainable Consumption Conference, November 1-4, 2015, Sitges-Barcelona, Spain.
19 References
Agogué, M., Berthet, E., Fredberg, T., Le Masson, P., Segrestin, B., Stoetzel, M., Wiener, M., Yström, A., 2017. Explicating the role of innovation intermediaries in the “unknown”: a contingency approach. J. Strategy Manag. 10, 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-01-2015-0005 Agogué, M., Yström, A., Le Masson, P., 2013. Rethinking the role of intermediaries as an architect of
collective exploration and creation of knowledge in open innovation. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 17, 1350007.
Azar, C., Sandén, B.A., 2011. The elusive quest for technology-neutral policies. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 1, 135–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.03.003
Bank, N., Kanda, W., 2016. Tenant recruitment and support processes in sustainability-profiled business incubators. Ind. High. Educ. 30, 267–277.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422216659567
Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S., Rickne, A., 2008. Analyzing the functional
dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Res. Policy 37, 407–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.003
Bessant, J., Rush, H., 1995. Building bridges for innovation: the role of consultants in technology transfer. Res. Policy 24, 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(93)00751-E
Biernacki, Waldorf, 1981. Snowball Sampling: Problems and Techniques of Chain Referral Sampling. Sociol. Methods Res. 10, 141–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/004912418101000205
Bryman, A., 2015. Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press.
Carrillo-Hermosilla, J., del Río, P., Könnölä, T., 2010. Diversity of eco-innovations: Reflections from selected case studies. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 1073–1083.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.02.014
Carrillo-Hermosilla, J., del Río, P., Könnölä, T., 2009. Eco-Innovation - When Sustainability and Competitiveness Shake hands.
Chesbrough, H.W., 2006. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business Press.
De Marchi, V., 2012. Environmental innovation and R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. Res. Policy 41, 614–623.
del Río, P., Peñasco, C., Romero-Jordán, D., 2016. What drives eco-innovators? A critical review of the empirical literature based on econometric methods. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 2158–2170.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.009
Englund, A., Tekie, H., Strandberg, J., Carlman, I., 2017. Coming of age: from start-up to expansion within environmental technology (No. C 263). IVL Swedish Environmental Research Instittute. European Commission, 2018. The Eco-Innovation Scoreboard and the Eco-Innovation Index.
Fichter, K., Tiemann, I., 2018. Factors influencing university support for sustainable entrepreneurship: Insights from explorative case studies. J. Clean. Prod. 175, 512–524.
Finnveden, G., 2000. On the limitations of life cycle assessment and environmental systems analysis tools in general. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 5, 229. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02979365 Geels, F., Deuten, J.J., 2006. Local and global dynamics in technological development: a
socio-cognitive perspective on knowledge flows and lessons from reinforced concrete. Sci. Public Policy 33, 265–275. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154306781778984
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M.P., Hultink, E.J., 2017. The Circular Economy – A new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 143, 757–768.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048
Gliedt, T., Hoicka, C.E., Jackson, N., 2018. Innovation intermediaries accelerating environmental sustainability transitions. J. Clean. Prod. 174, 1247–1261.
20
Hakkarainen, L., Hyysalo, S., 2016. The Evolution of Intermediary Activities: Broadening the Concept of Facilitation in Living Labs. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 6, 45–58.
Hjelm, O., 2011. The SIMPLE methodology for supporting innovations in the field of renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Hjelm, O., Lindahl, M., 2016. Roles of Academia in Supporting Eco-Design in Small Companies for Better Environmental and Economic Performance. Procedia CIRP 50, 745–750.
Howells, J., 2006. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Res. Policy 35, 715– 728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005
Jaffe, A.B., Newell, R.G., Stavins, R.N., 2005. A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy. Technol. Change Environ. 54, 164–174.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.12.027
Kanda, W., 2017. Stimulating the diffusion of environmental technologies through export (PhD Thesis). Linköping UniversityLinköping University, Environmental Technology and
Management, Faculty of Science & Engineering. https://doi.org/10.3384/diss.diva-139979 Kanda, W., Hjelm, O., Mejía-Dugand, S., 2016a. Promoting the export of environmental technologies:
An analysis of governmental initiatives from eight countries. Environ. Dev. 17, 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2015.09.009
Kanda, W., Sakao, T., Hjelm, O., 2016b. Components of business concepts for the diffusion of large scaled environmental technology systems. New Approaches Transit. Low Foss. Carbon Soc. Promot. Oppor. Eff. Dev. Diffus. Andimplementation Technol. Policies Strateg. 128, 156–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.040
Keskin, D., Diehl, J.C., Molenaar, N., 2013. Innovation process of new ventures driven by sustainability. Sustain. Innov. Bus. Models 45, 50–60.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.012
Kivimaa, P., 2014. Government-affiliated intermediary organisations as actors in system-level transitions. Res. Policy 43, 1370–1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.02.007
Kivimaa, P., Boon, W., Antikainen, R., 2017. Commercialising university inventions for sustainability— a case study of (non-)intermediating ‘cleantech’ at Aalto University. Sci. Public Policy 44, 631–644. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scw090
Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., 2009. Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: Insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 76, 849–860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.10.001
Klewitz, Zeyen, Anica, Hansen, Erik G., 2012. Intermediaries driving eco-innovation in SMEs: a qualitative investigation. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 15, 442–467.
https://doi.org/10.1108/14601061211272376
Martiskainen, M., Kivimaa, P., 2017. Creating innovative zero carbon homes in the United Kingdom — Intermediaries and champions in building projects. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.08.002
Marzucchi, A., Montresor, S., 2017. Forms of knowledge and eco-innovation modes: Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. Ecol. Econ. 131, 208–221.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.08.032
Matschoss, K., Heiskanen, E., 2017. Making it experimental in several ways: The work of
intermediaries in raising the ambition level in local climate initiatives. Exp. Clim. Change Solut. 169, 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.037
Mignon, I., Kanda, W., 2018. A typology of intermediary organizations and their impact on sustainability transition policies. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit.
Nikolaou, I., Nikolaidou, M., Tsagarakis, K., 2016. The response of small and medium-sized
enterprises to potential water risks: an eco-cluster approach. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 4550–4557. Pacheco, D.A. de J., ten Caten, C.S., Jung, C.F., Ribeiro, J.L.D., Navas, H.V.G., Cruz-Machado, V.A.,
2017. Eco-innovation determinants in manufacturing SMEs: Systematic review and research directions. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 2277–2287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.049
21
Polzin, F., von Flotow, P., Klerkx, L., 2016. Addressing barriers to eco-innovation: Exploring the finance mobilisation functions of institutional innovation intermediaries. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 103, 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.10.001
Rennings, K., 2000. Redefining innovation — eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics. Ecol. Econ. 32, 319–332.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00112-3
Rogers, E.M., 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition. Free Press.
van Lente, H., Hekkert, M., Smits, R., van Waveren, B., 2003. Roles of Systemic Intermediaries in Transition Processes. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 07, 247–279.
https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919603000817
Yin, R.K., 2017. Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage publications.
Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., 2013. Drivers and barriers of extended supply chain practices for energy saving and emission reduction among Chinese manufacturers. J. Clean. Prod. 40, 6–12.
