I have been waiting to write about this article for SO long time:
"Green Tech for Green Growth? Insights from Nordic Environmental Innovation"
recently published together with
Mikael Skou Andersen
A thread...🧵
First, this is the result of the work done under the NOWAGG project that run between 2017-19.
Yes, it took a long time to publish results, but better late than never...🤷♂️
In this study we started from a simple premise: achieving a "green growth" means relying A LOT on technological solutions to decouple growth and emissions — but evidence shows that bringing new "green" technologies to the market is actually not so easy...🤔
(parenthesis:
Green technology = "a tech considered environmentally friendly based on its production process or supply chain"
We chose it to match the “green growth” term and among various synonymous (“environmental technology,” “green tech” and “cleantech”...))
So why is it difficult to get more green tech? 🤔Why shortening the distance from their early conception to their large-scale adoption and upscaling remains a serious challenge?🤔We wanted to find out.
Note: there have been entire books on the topic of tech innovation and development, but we wanted an empirical study on the nordics.
Because: the nordic countries are often taken as leaders in environmental innovation - so...it would be interesting to see what happens there...
We used a mixed-methods approach: quantitative (patent analysis) and qualitative (interviews). I was not used to any of those so...it wasn't easy.
Why the patents? Because it's a proxy for innovation, and it's relatively good data. Very organised, very structured, quite easy to retrieve (after you learn some SQL...)
So we got data for all the patents submitted in 2000–2017 in the Nordic countries: 🇩🇰, 🇫🇮, 🇳🇴, and 🇸🇪 and selected the "green" ones based on an existing classification (Haščič & Migotto, 2015).
Here green patents classified according to technological domains (data from EPO).
- increasing steadily since 2000 (after 2015 the decrease is due to delays in reporting).
- but country-specific tech development pattern (strongholds or preferred areas)
And here the result, we were able to find a structure that fits basically all stories and described the "life cycle" or "journey" of a green tech from conception to market. 7 steps influenced by 4 factors: Organisation, Funding, Technology, Market.
Not surprisingly, this scheme fits previous theories about innovation and the different steps in technology development (there are several models in the literature about this...).
So what is the new stuff here?????
The new stuff is that we have now a pretty good picture of what is happening in the Nordics when it comes to green tech development. And all the juicy details are in the paper and I can't possibly summarise here. Some key points.
☑️The process of environmental innovation is COMPLEX. One does not just...bring a green idea to market. This journey is complicated by several obstacles, technological, organisational, economic, political.
☑️If you think technology is going to save us, you have to arm yourself with patience. Green tech development takes LONG time. The scales are HUGE. The money is SCARCE. The failure rate HIGH.
☑️Funding 💰: a lot of research money but when it comes to upscaling...the costs are orders of magnitude higher and ---there is no money (valley of death issue for green tech).
☑️“catch 22” problem or “chicken-and-egg” 🐓🥚problem: investors want to see the green techn at work in real scale before investing, but funding is required precisely to proof that the techn can work at large scale (because pilot and industrial are hugely different)
☑️What is scale up for green tech? From building many large plants of relatively low-tech machinery operating on huge amounts of material (biomass valorisation) to mass-produce high-tech components with high degree of automation (fuel cells)
☑️Policy 👩💼, it's tricky. Sometimes policies that try to favour one type of green tech innovation prevent another. E.g. incentives for biofuels do not help developing high value products from biomass.
☑️Investors: when it comes to green technology are risk-averse and keen to ensure stable market conditions in the long term, which is only rarely achieved. They want policy to make the market stable...and secure...😵
☑️(This was great) To get the funding many responded one needs “the right guy” or “the guy who is good at getting money”. Forget about green tech as just engineers, this is a business issue just as much.
..and much more.
Read the paper. Here the link, plenty of details there. 👇Enjoy
https://link-springer-com.zorac.aub.aau.dk/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-08313-6_8
@massimopizzol Hello! Your paper for me is behind a paywall, which I sadly cannot afford. Would you be willing to send me a copy? I'd love to read it. Cheers!
@Clementulus (I know it's paywalled unfortunately). I can definitely share. Send me either a mail to massimo@plan.aau.dk or a request here please https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360243965_Green_tech_for_green_growth_Insights_from_Nordic_environmental_innovation
@massimopizzol Wonderful! I sent a request through researchgate. Looking forward to reading your work.
So far so good, we get the big picture: a lot of green tech development going on in all countries, with country specific differences in the type of techs developed.
But we don't know the details of this picture....
So we went qualitative: interviews. 🎤📘🎤📘🎤📘
Conveniently, patent data include names of inventors... It's a gigantic phonebook...but without phone numbers ☹️
So we found the mails/phone numbers of about 200 inventors. Contacted them. Interviewed > 40.
What did we ask? In simple terms, to tell us a story of their technology, what went well, what went wrong, and why. Then we made a qualitative content analysis to summarise findings.