Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 215 – 227

Introduction

Trends and opportunities framing innovation for sustainability

in the learning society
G.P.J. Dijkema a,*, P. Ferrão b, P.M. Herder a, M. Heitor b
a
Tu Delft Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management Energy and Industry Group, Jaffalaan 5,
2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands
b
Center for Innovation, Technology and Policy Research, Instituto Superior Técnico, Technical University of Lisbon,
Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal

Received 5 January 2006; accepted 6 January 2006

Abstract

Innovation, a broad social and economic activity within emerging societies, transcends any specific technology,
even if revolutionary, and is tied to attitudes and behaviours oriented towards the exploitation of change by adding
value. In this context, we analyse on-going paths towards innovative societies taking into consideration their
sustainable development. The solution-space for innovation for sustainability is characterised by three dimensions:
1) the entire lifespan of a product; 2) the entire socio-technic network of which a particular plant is part of, or from
which a particular product emerges; and 3) stakeholders and decision processes, including business organisations
and strategies; and public institutions, policy and regulatory frameworks. All theses three dimensions are shown to
be critically related with the social appropriation of a broad knowledge base, which calls our special attention to
the systems of innovation and competence building shaping our societies.
Societies and their organisations differ in their approach to sustainability. Distinguishing between different
types of stakeholders helps to elucidate barriers to change, and to exploit the solution-space for innovation. The
contributions in this Special Issue illustrate various dimensions of the innovation-space and their related
knowledge base. The examples addressed support the conclusion that the framework presented has general
applicability to analyse and foster innovation for sustainability.
D 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 15 278 2727.

E-mail addresses: g.p.j.dijkema@tbm.tudelft.nl (G.P.J. Dijkema)8 ferrao@ist.utl.pt (P. Ferrão)8 p.m.herder@tbm.tudelft.nl
(P.M. Herder)8 mheitor@ist.utl.pt (M. Heitor).

0040-1625/$ - see front matter D 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2006.01.001
216 G.P.J. Dijkema et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 215–227

1. Introduction

Since the publication of the report of the Club of Rome [1], the sustainability of humanity has become a
concern of the public at large, a strategic notion for many companies, and a guiding principle for national
and international policy-making. In 1987, after extensive consultation of a variety of stakeholders, these
ecological and societal concerns have been coupled with economic development, and an early definition of
sustainable development was phrased in the Brundtlandt Report [2] as follows: bdevelopment that meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to their own needsQ.
At the same time, much evidence has been given about the accelerated rate of technical change we
live in, with firms and individual consumers increasingly able to innovate for themselves, in a path
leading to the dominance of user-centered innovation processes [3]. But can we guarantee that the fact
innovation is rapidly becoming democratized can improve our route to sustainability?
For example, the Mauna Loah CO2 concentration may be considered as an indicator of a continuously
increasing stress on our global climate. Our present use of fossil resources far exceeds the use of renewable
energy sources [4]. Essential metal resources may become scarce by some 20 years only. The global
biodiversity is at risk because of deforestation, the drainage of wetlands for agriculture, industrial
agriculture and fishing. Water management has become an issue on global, continental and national
agendas because of global warming, desertification and unsustainable farming and industrial practice.
In this context, in order to address the question above, the understanding of innovation adopted in this
Special Issue encompasses the way in which firms and entrepreneurs create value by exploiting change
[5]. Change can be associated with technological advances, but also with modifications of the regulatory
framework of industry, shifts in consumers tastes, changes in demographic makeover, or even major
alterations of global geopolitics. Further, in the current socio-economic context, innovation increasingly
means the ability to cope with uncertainty in diversified environments, which are particularly influenced
by social and institutional factors [6].
To choose such an ambitious definition of innovation presents important challenges. First, it calls for
an analysis of many economic, social and institutional issues. Our effort cannot attempt to deal with
these issues comprehensively. We will rather attempt, throughout this Special Issue, to discuss important
trends that are likely to influence innovation for sustainability in the presence of diversity, looking at the
specific environment in which firms and governments conduct their activities, and, consequently,
determine the conditions and opportunities for innovation.
The choice of such an ambitious definition of innovation limits equally the extent to which clear-cut
solutions and recommendations to enhance the sustainable performance of our societies can be provided.
Our hope is that by raising and discussing some selected questions and concerns we contribute to a better
awareness of possible weaknesses and potential strengths of the systems of innovation within a
diversified environment.
Recent work within the framework of the OECD International Futures Program suggests two broad
policy-related conclusions [7]. The first is that if one is to build on the opportunities offered by the
considerable progress that has been made in key technological sectors, if one is to reap to the full the
economic benefits of rapidly integrating markets and the emerging knowledge society, and if solutions
are to be found to tackling the challenges that the management of such a rapidly changing world raises,
then what is needed are innovative, creative societies. The second is that in achieving that higher degree
of innovativeness and creativity, policy will matter. The way ahead does not necessarily mean less
government, not less policy but – certainly in some key areas – different policy.
 G.P.J. Dijkema et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 215–227 217

In this introductory paper, we briefly address the process of technical change and expand it by
presenting a concise taxonomy of innovation for sustainability. Subsequently, this taxonomy is used to
introduce the contributions in the Special Issue and to address sustainability from a number of
stakeholder perspectives.

2. Technical change and innovation for sustainability

A number of authors, working together and independently, developed the theory of techno-economic
paradigms to conceptualize the interaction between technological change and shifts in socio-economic
conditions [8]. A techno-economic paradigm embodies a relatively stable cluster of core technologies,
around which innovation and economic activity take place, as briefly summarized in Table 1. Thus,
Table 1
Major techno-economic paradigms and their features
Approximate period Description Key sectors Economic organization
1770s to 1840s Early mechanization Textiles, canals, Individual entrepreneurs
turnpike roads and small firms; local
capital and individual
wealth
1830s to 1890s Steam power and Steam engines, railway, Small firm competition,
railway world shipping but emergence of large
firms with unprecedented
size; limited liability
corporations and joint
stock ownership
1880s to 1940s Electrical and heavy Electrical engineering, Giant firms, cartels, trusts;
engineering chemical process mergers and acquisitions;
industries, steel ships, state regulation and
heavy armaments enforcement of anti-trust;
professional management
teams
1930s to 1980s Fordist mass Automobiles, aircraft, Oligopolistic competition;
production consumer durables, emergence of multinational
synthetic materials corporations; rise of foreign
direct investment; vertical
integration; technocratic
management styles and
approaches
1970s to . . . Information and Computers, software, Networks of large and small
communication telecommunications, firms based increasingly
digital technologies on computer networks;
wave of entrepreneurial
activity associated with
new technologies; strong
regional clusters of
innovative and
entrepreneurial firms
Source: Adapted from Ref. [8], based on the early discussion of Ref. [15].
218 G.P.J. Dijkema et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 215–227

within a paradigm, innovation occurs namely as the core technologies become more and more pervasive
and influence ever more wider realms of production and distribution of products and services. For
example, the steam engine influenced not only transportation (by land, with the railroad, and by sea), as
is well known, but equally all modes of industrial production and manufacturing. Later, a new core
technology, electricity, became crucial in manufacturing, but also in transportation once again, in
telecommunications and, indeed, in the way it expanded the overall possibilities of hours available for
production through the diffusion of electric light, to say nothing about the changes in day-to-day life.
The most influential author that has influenced the theory of techno-economic paradigms is, naturally,
Schumpeter, who argued that the expectations of profits would drive the bentrepreneurQ to innovate [9].
The entrepreneur’s drive towards innovation is motivated by the temporary monopolistic position from
which the innovator would benefit. Schumpeter regarded this position as temporary because the
advantages from this privileged position would eventually bperish in the vortex of the competition which
streams after themQ, since other firms would copy the innovator. Schumpeter called this process dcreative
destructionT, stressing the importance of the process of change, which he decomposed into invention,
innovation and diffusion (Schumpeter [10]; as cited in Ferguson and Ferguson [11]).
More recently, the work of a generation of economists and other social scientists has fought the
tendency to oversimplify the impact of new skills and ideas on development and the conceptual
framework proposed by Schumpeter has been a constant guide for theorizing about growth. The body of
work of these scholars has provided sophisticated conceptual insights into the way that technology is
related with economic growth [12,13]. The bnew growth theoriesQ are a prime instance of the effort to
introduce some of those insights into the formal economic modelling framework inherited from Solow.
Romer [14] provides a non-technical overview of the main existing variants.
It is important to stress that two important dimensions of the techno-economic paradigm theory are
btime and spaceQ. Time is, indeed, crucial, since the process of technological change and its economic
and social impact is seen as a progress, more stable within a certain techno-economic paradigm, and very
different across techno-economic paradigms, which differ over time. Space is equally important, since it
is not clear that a certain techno-economic paradigm will not affect all the regions of the world similarly.
Certainly there will be different rates of adoption of new core technologies when there is a paradigm
shift, or even, within a paradigm, different ways in which specific innovations and modes of economic
organization develop in different countries and different regions. Some countries may originate or lead
the development of a new techno-economic paradigm, and others may lag behind, or even stay closer to
older than the new techno-economic paradigm.
An important idea joining the time and space dimensions of the techno-economic paradigm theory is
that of technological trajectories within (national or regional) innovation systems. The idea of trajectories
in national innovation systems (developed, with a comparative analysis across countries, in Nelson [16],
for example) speaks to the fact that each country follows its own developmental path, within the general
framework of the existing techno-economic paradigm, but also – and this is crucially important –
influenced by the past history and specific conditions of the local context.
This brings to the discussion the idea of catching-up, which, in essence, refers to the concept that
some economies do catch-up with the latest techno-economic paradigm later than in the countries that
led or originated the new techno-economic paradigm. The asymmetries in country performance cannot
be understood merely by looking at the neoclassical models of growth. More recently, economic growth
has been understood in a way that incorporates the teachings of the techno-economic paradigm concept.
According to this emerging view, economic progress and technological change are understood as being
 G.P.J. Dijkema et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 215–227 219

dependent on what we could call with generality the knowledge accumulation through blearningQ
processes.
Conceptually, the foundations for the relationship between learning and economic growth are well
established in the recent literature [17], and stem from a combination of the pure Solownian perspective
with the Schumpeterian view. Learning is reflected in improved skills in people and in the generation,
diffusion, and usage of new ideas. Likewise, organizational learning reflects social processes driven by
collective cultures and appropriate management attitudes. The ability to continuously generate skills and
ideas (which is to say, to accumulate knowledge through learning) is the ultimate driver of an economy
long-run prospects [18].
The question that does arise has resulted in the theme of this Special Issue in terms of the conditions
fostering innovation for sustainability. Following the recent analysis of Ashford [19], are the social
pressures driven by emerging trends associated with unsustainable practices, as well as related economic
impacts, important enough to be able to force society to accelerate its path towards sustainability? And,
the way in which firms and entrepreneurs create value by exploiting change will allow sustainable
trajectories?
We argue in this paper that the analysis of these questions is important to be discussed under a broad
context of the processes of technical change because they may require important shifts in the current
techno-economic paradigm framing our society. Where traditionally the focus has been on innovation
within the boundaries of each corporation, either production plants for particular products or,
alternatively, on development of innovative products, we conjecture that improved paths fostering
sustainability may result from innovation of: 1) the entire lifespan of a product; 2) the entire network of
which a particular plant is part of or from which a particular product emerges; and 3) stakeholders and
decision processes. The latter category includes: a) business organisations and strategies; and b) public
institutions, policy and regulatory frameworks.
Fig. 1 illustrates our rationale. It considers the environment of production plants or any organization
framed by: 1) operation, after plant realisation; 2) system, that indicates the plant is often part of and

Decision Process

Design
Technical
problem

Plant or
Organization
SYSTEM NETWORK:
Individual
Momentous company Industrial
Complex
OPERATION Product or or
Service
Infrastructure
Entire
LIFESPAN
Fig. 1. Rationale for analysing the conditions fostering innovation for sustainability.
220 G.P.J. Dijkema et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 215–227

dependent upon some larger production network; and 3) design, which illustrated the whole process of
bringing a plant into being between private and public stakeholders. The arrows around dplantT indicate
resource and energy supply, products, by-products, waste, emissions, information flow.

3. The corporate domain: fostering sustainable enterprises?

Since the late sixties aspects such as dsafetyT, decologyT and dsustainabilityT have become important
strategic concerns of business leaders in industrial sectors. While binnovative design and clever process
modifications are essential to the economic health of the producer of commodity chemicalsQ [20],
companies differ in their degree and development with regard to innovation strategies for sustainability.
Many process innovations have been successfully implemented over the years that have reduced harmful
emissions and increased efficiency, in response to regulatory and legislative change [4]. Organisational
changes have been introduced to lower lifespan environmental impact. Many innovative products have
been introduced that result in lower environmental impact of many complex consumer products [21].
Sousa and Wallace, in this Special Issue, address the product innovation process, in terms of
conditions enabling the invention of products with a sustainable lifespan (i.e., dimension 1, above). They
observe an increasing awareness of sustainability. As a consequence, product designers have articulated
a demand for banalytically based conceptual design methods for integrated life-cycle assessment (LCA)Q.
The data requirements, however, are prohibitive for development of such tools. They report development
of an approximate life-cycle assessment concept based upon learning algorithms, a product innovation
itself to support product innovation process. By way of innovative classification schemes and
algorithms, they report achieving useful results for sustainable product design purposes, which proactive
companies may adopt for sustainable product innovation strategies.
Moors and Dijkema, also in this Special Issue, conclude that both embedded ness in a production
network (i.e., dimension 2, above) and in a social context (i.e., dimension 3) complicates innovation of
zinc production and its transition towards sustainability. To develop a solution for the industry’s major
waste problem, dominant conditions appeared to be technological capability and favourable economics.
Adequate stakeholder management, however, was found to be crucial to deal with social pressure
exerted, to get any transition strategy externally accepted and bring knowledge of external actors into the
company and align it with in-house capabilities. They conclude that both the technical network,
organisational and social embedding of new technologies are crucial for successful innovation.
It should be noted that zinc production is part of the base metal industry, one of the industrial sectors
that provide intermediates. In response to the growing demand for sustainability, many other industrial
sectors, such as the food industry, the chemical industry and oil refining, are attempting to adopt new
forms for network and chain management. The general objective is to successfully communicate and
implement their concern for sustainable products and production across the company’s boundaries,
including suppliers and customers, competitors, governments, NGO’s and shareholders.
In the following paper of this Special Issue, Conceição, Heitor and Vieira consider the relationship
between environmental concerns and innovation in the context of Portuguese manufacturing firms.
Environmental foresight is discussed based on three groups of variables that allow considering the
industrial context that frames firm’s actions, the economic performance of the firm and its innovation
patterns. Their results show that the development of innovation due to environmental concerns is
positively associated with the firm’s size and exports share, and negatively associated with the firm
 G.P.J. Dijkema et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 215–227 221

technological content. Moreover, it is shown that firms that introduced innovations due to environmental
concerns are likely to belong to an economic group, to have performed continuous R&D, or received
public support. It is also shown that black of organizational flexibilityQ and black of receptivity by
customersQ are the two most relevant innovation barriers for these firms.
With respect to overall business strategies, the evidence provided in the papers included in this
Special Issue is that there are a few dearly adoptersT or dtrend-settersT that have realised and
acknowledged that sustainability is crucial for their long-term continuation. Some companies have
formulated a sustainability strategy in interaction with external stakeholders, while others perceive
sustainability as a continuous development process, in which the specific goals repeatedly need
redefinition and reformulation, as schematically represented in Fig. 2.
Absence or inadequacy of such strategies in the near future may endanger the license-to-operate and
license-to-sell of traditional corporations. For example, current paths within the food-sector make this
very clear, suggesting a need for new ways of communication and of information-exchange on the safety
and ecological aspects of products related to the means and economics of production. The need for this
process of information exchange to go over corporations and get within the production chains and
sectors requires firms to address issues of mutual interest [22]. They must find new ways to address
short- and long-term ecological consequences of their products and production processes with suppliers,
government and consumers, but any path to sustainability may require new entrants and new
technologies, as well as new policies to govern consumption, trade and employment [19].
The evidence supported by the material included in this Special Issue is that the path to sustainable
enterprises comprises the following phases, as described in Fig. 2:

! Phase I companies or sectors react to societal pressure to ddo something for the environmentT through
standards, procedures and environmental care systems. Their dleitmotivT is to dclean-up their act
because they mustT, largely to preserve their license-to-operate.
! Phase II companies consider sustainability on the agenda. They discuss internally: How can we deal
with it? What stakeholders are of relevance? What new activities do we envisage? Which innovation
activities can be reframed?
! Phase III companies realise and acknowledge that sustainability is crucial for their long-term
continuation and extend their value chain, namely through new entrants and adopting new processes.

Company B
I II III IV
environmental sustainability - seed sustainability - sustainability - a
management strategic process
sustainability = slogan how to deal with it? how to - institutionalised
Time - aspects are addressed - what commonalities? institutionalise - concrete activities
separately: - what innovation Development define - clear definitions &
environment: potential of operationalise concepts
ISO1400x - which stakeholders Company A effectuate - accept 'fuzziness' of
quality: ISO 900x internally / externally organize goals
safety: ISO, NEN etc - cash upon / reframe - invention - continuous process
- innovation: existing activitities - innovation internalised
no incentive; ad-hoc - which dilemmas? pilots / prototypes certified (ISO-
relabeling - diffusion integrated)
- reactive attitude marketing
prevails

Fig. 2. Phases in thinking/acting in relation to dsustainabilityT (adapted from Ref. [22]).

222 G.P.J. Dijkema et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 215–227

! Phase IV companies formulate sustainability strategies in interaction with external stakeholders.

Sustainability is perceived as a continuous process. The innovation activities repeatedly need
redefinition and reformulation, beyond firm’s boundaries.

Following Hart and Milstein [23], the dynamics of creative destruction will work against firms that
rely only on incremental improvements. Although new entrants have become critically important for
extending the enterprise value chain to allow sustainable strategies, the analysis clearly shows that the
perception of time plays a critical role in the interaction between sustainability and innovation, as
emphasized in Fig. 2. It schematically represents the pattern of strategic change in environmental
management strategy that has been generally followed over the past several decades by firms [24]. The
two axes of the figure portray the temporal and the socio-technical or organizational frame that sets the
context for strategic thinking in a firm. The vertical direction is a measure of the planning or economic
horizon of a firm. Historically, environmental strategies of firms have moved generally from the lower
left to the upper right quadrant, with firms operating in the lower left quadrant of Fig. 2 being immersed
in some form of business-as-usual strategy, where sustainability beliefs and norms are only weakly
present, if at all.
Again, the evidence supported by this Special Issue is that leading firms have developed competitive
advantages in anticipating regulations for pollution and waste. This general movement has been to
stretch the temporal and spatial context of strategy, although it requires a further expansion of a firm’s
strategic horizons [19].
To frame our analysis in terms of Fig. 2, two interpretations are suggested. The first is based on a
context of organizational frame, ranging from a focus completely within the plant boundaries to
extended corporate networks. The second interpretation considers the relative scale of environmental
impacts, which ranges from nearby specific impacts on air or water, to far-reaching life cycle,
aggregate, global consequences. Again, the papers included in this Special Issue confirm that Life
Cycle Assessment methodologies (LCA) have had a critical effect in expanding both corporate
horizons and the environmental scale of their impacts. But the analysis also suggest that such paths are
particularly forced (see, for example the analysis of [25]) by public policies based on a framework of
bextended producer responsibilityQ, which has forced firms to think about their strategies along the
product chain right through the ultimate disposal step, promoting product-oriented environmental
policies.

4. The public policy domain: which strategies fostering sustainability?

Technology forcing has enjoyed considerable public support in the past, and legislators and regulators
are likely to continue to forward the technology-forcing option [25]. In particular the threat of global-
warming in the last decade of the twentieth century have allowed governments to believe that dramatic
change is required in a not too distant future to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, based on
global simulations and scientific evidence, the IPCC [26] has concluded that only minor global warming
will have dramatic impact on societies around the world. Amongst others, the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the International Energy Agency (IEA) have
projected that fossil resources eventually will be depleted and somewhere around 2015 the horizons of
crude oil and gas availability will definitely shorten.
 G.P.J. Dijkema et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 215–227 223

Focusing our analysis on Europe, an emission-trading system is to be implemented in each of its

Member States, leading to a new market for emission-rights as an instrument to effect CO2 emission
reduction (i.e., dimension 3 in Fig. 3 above). In this context, Amaral and Ferrão, in this Special Issue,
analysed the EU policy and objectives with respect to realising sustained availability of resources for the
automobile manufacturing industry. They scrutinise the incentives resulting from EU policy and address
the economics of the transition involved. Focusing on the automobile sector, they conclude that
innovative shredder technology and regulatory framework must be realised to achieve the targets
established in the European legislation.
Beyond technology forcing, the evidence provided by the papers included in this Special Issue
suggest that public policies also play a critical role in fostering social demand as an effective process by
which knowledge and information flows mobilize the requisites needed for a successful environmental
innovation. In fact, Lee et al. in this Special Issue adopt a wider focus approach to analyse the impact of
public policies to enhance product innovation for sustainability. They developed a conceptual framework
to analyse the process of social demand articulation, thus analysing how environmental awareness
trickles through demands perceived by companies and stimulating them to innovation for improved
sustainability. Statistical analysis of literature published on environmentally oriented product and process
innovations to combat air pollution and global-warming yielded significant results. In general, the
authors conclude that institutionalizing knowledge and information flows among firms and societal
stakeholders can set a path for environmentally conscious markets in which greener products are valued
highly and give competitive advantage to environmentally innovative firms.
Also in this Special Issue, Verhoef et al. address the innovation of complex public infrastructures (i.e.,
dimension 2 in Fig. 3), and elaborate about decision-making on waste infrastructures (dimension 3). This
is a critical function of emerging public policies because waste management is a complex, politically
loaded and emotionally charged issue that is neither well structured, nor well understood. They suggest
enhancing traditional design engineering with new knowledge derived from studies in industrial ecology,
notably its prescriptive tier, to build a roadmap for transition of the networked systems involved.
Industrial ecology can provide organising principles for more sustainable practices, including closed
material cycles, cascaded energy use and flexible system configuration. These engineering concepts

Sustainability

LONG
Prevention

TEMPORAL
HORIZON
Compliance
SHORT

Business-as-usual

INDEPENDENT/NEAR INTERDEPENDENT/FAR
ORGANIZATIONAL OR SOCIO-TECHNICAL HORIZON

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of an environmental strategic matrix, as discussed by Ref. [24].

224 G.P.J. Dijkema et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 215–227

provide a simple, yet powerful means to assess policies for critical infrastructures with respect to
sustainability, but the main issue derived from the evidence provided is that it requires adequate
knowledge and information flows between domains, together with integrated public policies fostering
the sustainable development.
To illustrate the type of issues raised, namely in terms of policy integration, it should be noted that the
Club of Rome [1] already identified many intertwined mechanisms that would lead to the depletion of
fossil resources and metals. For example, it has been demonstrated recently that for many metal
resources depletion and situations of unavoidability can emerge due to: 1) the metal mixes introduced in
many consumer products that make recycling economically and technically infeasible; and 2)
interdependencies in the metal production network, where a range of metals is only produced as by-
product of a limited number of primary metals [27]. If primary resources of these matters dwindle and
production decreased, we may also face scarcity of the linked by product metals. Finally, it has become
clear that many regions of the world are facing water problems, where water is required for agriculture as
well as many industrial processes.

5. Learning to change: which barriers and incentives?

The analysis above identifies important shifts in the current techno-economic paradigm framing our
society in order to guarantee a path towards sustainable societies. Potential barriers to change are many.
These include system complexity and system entrenchment, emphasis on short term-profits and
economic growth, divergent strategic agendas of stakeholders involved and lack-of-knowledge.
For example, on the interface of dimensions 2 and 3 in Fig. 3, the sustainability and potential
transition of complex infrastructure systems involves networked systems and elaborates decision-making
on waste infrastructure in both the public and private domain [27]. On the interface of dimension 1 and
3, the example of the Dutch government in promoting a product-oriented environmental policy is
interesting because it requires corporations within sectors and production chains to closely monitor and
report on the environmental aspects of their products and processes. In addition it involves a reliable,
rather complete and accessible database on environmental product and process information. The
prospect of such a policy is rather threatening for many corporations because it requires transparency of
data on the environmental aspects of their products and processes. This transparency of course may
influence or threaten market positions because strategic information may be revealed or products may be
– wrongfully or rightfully – named and shamed for poor environmental performance [28]. As a result,
the lack of success in environmental information exchange has been partly explained by two factors,
namely: 1) fear of revealing strategic information; and 2) substantial costs.
Many contributions in recent years have confirmed the perception that the success of developing
strategies fostering innovation for sustainability, either at national or regional levels, depend on the
creation, dissemination and accumulation of knowledge, which per se are fundamental factors for the
promotion of economic growth [19]. However, the scarcity of empirical data on intangible economic
factors makes it extremely difficult to demonstrate the growing importance of knowledge.
Economic growth has traditionally been explained as being the result of increases in the labour and
capital factors, with technological change contributing as an exogenous — that is, boutsideQ of the realm
of economic modelling – factor [6,8]. However, the challenge posed by the endogenous growth theories
to this traditional approach has led to a need to rethink how these three factors influence the process of
 G.P.J. Dijkema et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 215–227 225

economic development. This rethinking has been taking place, in part, by bringing together other
perspectives on the process of the relationship between technological change and economic growth, such
as the evolutionary theory [29] and the perspective of techno-economic paradigms (see discussion
above).
Our inspiration to frame the process of knowledge accumulation comes from the contribution of
Lundvall and Johnson [30], who introduced the simple, but powerful idea of learning. They suggest that
a blearning economyQ, rather than a bknowledge economyQ, describes better the way in which knowledge
contributes to economic development, promoting innovation. The fundamental difference between the
two terms is associated with the fact that the former considers a dynamic perspective. According to these
authors, some types of knowledge do indeed become more important, but there is also knowledge that
becomes less important. There is both knowledge creation and knowledge destruction. By forcing us to
look at the process, rather than at the mere accumulation of knowledge, we add a dimension that makes
the discussion more complex and more uncertain, but also more interesting and intellectually fertile.
Following the concept of the learning economy, which is further demonstrated in the volumes edited by
Ref. [8], innovation is the key process that characterises a knowledge economy understood from a dynamic
perspective. The learning economy is, therefore, about new knowledge replacing old knowledge. This
dynamics is very close to Schumpeter’s concept of bcreative destructionQ, which is a standard description
of the innovation process. Innovation is associated with creativity, with the generation of new ideas, but
also with initiative and risk-taking. Innovation entails bringing new ideas to fruition in the marketplace,
satisfying demands or creating new needs, in a process that improves overall welfare.
Beyond innovation, the evidence provided in this Special Issue also considers the need to look at
competence, as the foundation from which innovation emerges, and which allows many innovations to
be enjoyed. In other words, competence contributes both to the bgenerationQ of innovations (on the
supply side of the knowledge economy) and to the butilizationQ of innovations (on the consumptions side
of the knowledge economy). Competence is also fuelled by innovation itself. Competence is associated
with skills and capacities, both individual and collective ones. When we consider competence, we focus
on bhigher order of skillsQ [8]. These generic skills include higher levels of education, but also capacities
that are more generic, such as creativity, risk-taking, and initiative.
To illustrate this issue, we note that, for a number of years, environmental engineering and
sustainability have been important elements and guiding many engineering curricula. Only in the last
decade, systems thinking has become at the core of the body-of-knowledge for bridging the gap between
engineering specialists, on the one hand, and policy-makers, on the other [31]. This is combined with
basic knowledge of a selected technological application domain, as well as the associated legislation,
economics and public management in that domain. But in process design engineering practice both the
life-span perspective and the network perspective are not fully operational yet and will present a huge
challenge to generations of process design engineers to come. Sustainability requires that engineering
professionals address not only technical aspects, but also social and environmental aspects, whether they
are engaged in design activities or in plant operations [32].

6. Conclusion

The emerging context of innovation for sustainability is discussed throughout this Special Issue under
a framework introduced in this paper, which is characterised by three main dimensions: 1) the entire
226 G.P.J. Dijkema et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 215–227

lifespan of a product; 2) the entire network of which a particular plant is part of, or from which a
particular product emerges; and 3) stakeholders and decision processes, including business organisations
and strategies, as well as public institutions, policy and regulatory frameworks. This framework is
supported by the various contributions included in this Special Issue, which bring the necessary evidence
to illustrate that innovation for sustainability requires the social appropriation of a broad knowledge
base. This calls for our special attention to the systems of innovation and competence building shaping
our learning societies and the need to foster their related knowledge base.
It should be noted that innovation is a shared goal of firms, regions and many countries. We argue that
this unified goal when coupled with the idea of a sustainable future requires policies that are designed in
an integrated and systemic way, but that are implemented with diversified actions. bPolicy integrationQ
should occur across a bportfolio dimensionQ, since innovation policies require coordination across
several areas: science and education policies; social and health policies; environmental and industrial
policies; employment and market regulation policies. However, the implementation of policies designed
in an integrated way need, in a multi-country and multi-cultural context, to consider differences across
countries, regions and cultures, thus requiring action diversification. In fact, balancing action
diversification with policy integration involves significant problems that extend into the very systemic
nature of the relationships between country governments and the role and mission of multi-national
political institutions, apart from specific regional and local contexts.
Innovation for sustainability should then be understood as a broad social and economic activity within
the framework of the learning society. It should transcend any specific technology, even a revolutionary
one, and should be tied to attitudes and behaviours oriented towards the exploitation of change by adding
economic and social values.

References

[1] D.H. Meadows, D.L. Meadows, The Limits to Growth; A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of
Mankind, New American Library, New York, 1972.
[2] G.M. Brundtlandt, Our Common Future, World Commission on Economic Development, 1988.
[3] E. Von Hippel, Democratizing Innovation, The MIT Press, 2005.
[4] A. Grubler, N. Nakicenovic, W. Nordhaus (Eds.), Technical Change and the Environment, RFF Press, 2002.
[5] P. Conceição, M.V. Heitor, Innovation for All? Learning from the Portuguese Path to Technical Change and the Dynamics
of Innovation, Praeger, Westport and London, 2005.
[6] P. Conceição, M.V. Heitor, B.-A. Lundvall (Eds.), Innovation, Competence Building, and Social Cohesion in Europe —
Towards a Learning Society, Edward Elgar, London, 2003.
[7] OECD, Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard, OECD, Paris, 2005.
[8] P. Conceição, M. Heitor, Techno-economic paradigms and latecomer industrialization, UNESCO Encyclopedia of Life
Support Systems (EOLSS), Eolss Publishers, Oxford, UK, 2003.
[9] J. Schumpeter, The Theory of Economic Development, Harper and Row, New York, 1911.
[10] J. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Harper and Row, New York, 1942.
[11] P.R. Ferguson, G.J. Ferguson, Industrial Economics, Issues and Perspectives, The Macmillan Press Ltd., London, 1988.
[12] J.C. Fuhrer, J.S. Little (Eds.), Technology and Growth: Conference Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Boston,
MA, 1996.
[13] P. Stoneman (Ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change, Blackwell, Oxford, UK, and
Cambridge, MA, 1995.
[14] P. Romer, The origins of endogenous growth, J. Econ. Perspect. 8 (1) (1994) 3 – 22.
[15] C. Freeman, L. Soete, The Economics of Industrial Innovation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997.
[16] R. Nelson, National Innovation Systems, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1991.
 G.P.J. Dijkema et al. / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 215–227 227

[17] H.J. Bruton, A reconsideration of import substitution, The Journal of Economic Literature XXXVI (June 1998) 903 – 936.
[18] World Bank, World Development Report 1998: Knowledge for Development, Mimeo.
[19] N.A. Ashford, Pathways to sustainability: evolution or revolution? in: M. Van Geenhuizen, D. Gibson, M. Heitor (Eds.),
Regional Development and Conditions for Innovation in the Network Society, Purdue University Press, West Lafayette,
2005, pp. 35 – 59.
[20] J. Wei, T.W.F. Russell, et al., The Structure of the Chemical Processing Industries, Function and Economics, McGraw-Hill,
Inc., New York, 1979.
[21] E. Datschefski, The Total Beauty of Sustainable Products, RotoVision, London, 2001.
[22] I.S. Mayer, G.P.J. Dijkema, Towards an Infrastructure for the Exchange of Product-Related Environmental Data, TU Delft,
ISBN: 90-5638-046-X, 1999 (in Dutch).
[23] S. Hart, M.B. Milstein, Global sustainability and the creative destruction of industries, Sloan Management Review (FAll
1999) 23 – 33.
[24] J. Ehrenfeld, P. Ferrão, I. Reis, Tools to support innovation of sustainable product systems, in: P. Conceição, D. Gibson, M.
Heitor, F. Veloso (Eds.), Knowledge for the Inclusive Development, Quorum Books, 2002, pp. 417 – 433.
[25] D. Gerard, L.B. Lave, Implementing technology-forcing policies: The 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments and the
introduction of advanced emission control systems in the United States, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 72 (7) (2005)
761 – 778.
[26] IPCC, Intergovernmental panel on climate change, Proceedings, Melbourne, 2001.
[27] E.V. Verhoef, G.P.J. Dijkema, M.A. Reuter, Process, knowledge, system dynamics and metal ecology, J. Ind. Ecol. 8 (1–2)
(2004) 23 – 43.
[28] G.P.J. Dijkema, I.S. Mayer, Information exchange on sustainable product chains in the Dutch chemical industry? 3rd
European Congress on Chemical Engineering, Nurenberg, Germany, 2001.
[29] R.R. Nelson, S.G. Winter, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,
Cambridge Ma, 1982.
[30] B.-A. Lundvall, B. Johnson, The learning economy, Journal of Industry Studies 1/2 (1994) 23 – 42.
[31] W.A. Thissen, Systems engineering education for public policy, Int. J. Technol. Manag. 19 (2000) 408 – 419.
[32] P.M. Herder, Z. Verwater-Lukszo, A novel perspective on chemical engineering education — experiences with a broad,
ICT-supported course on the integrated design of industrial systems, Proceedings of the 6th World Congress of Chemical
Engineering, Melbourne, Australia, 2001.