Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Université de Versailles Saint‐Quentin‐en‐Yvelines Master “Management of Eco‐innovation” – Class 2010‐2011 Integration Seminar – “How to Eco‐innovate to Generate the Eco‐City of the Future” Instructor: Dr Keith Culver Simulation exercise of an eco‐innovation consulting firm Sample of contribution to work group project
“Proposing an Eco‐innovation Governance System to Saint‐Quentin‐en‐Yvelines”
By Alexandre Gobbo Fernandes
The Eco‐Innovation Governance system – EI Gov – for the city of Saint‐Quentin‐en‐Yvelines is
designed to support planning, coordinating and executing of all the tactics and actions to accomplish
the objectives of each one of the three strategies that lead to our SQY vision. This plan for SQY EI Gov
was designed to enable our 30 year vision: ‘A prosperous community that is broadly recognized for
transforming urban living through eco‐innovation’ and three strategies: ‘Peering,’ ‘Pilot Friendly,’ and
‘Attract & Synergy’. The mission of the EI Gov is to translate the city’s eco‐innovation agenda into
programs and frameworks that can deliver the vision and strategies in the long term. Hence, the EI Gov
structure will include the expertise needed to gather intelligence, design, build, and run networks and
frame dedicated issues. Five dimensions guide the actions of EI Gov: Policy, Funding, Urbanity,
Collaboration, and Communication.
1 Figure: “SQY Eco‐innovation Governance Structure”
Eco‐Innovation Governance Dimensions
Collaboration: The management of EI Gov will be based on shared principles, transparency, and
collaboration amongst the city’s stakeholders. Although the responsibility will lay within the EI Gov
Office, the goal is not necessarily the creation of new institutions, but rather the coordination of
cooperation among existing organizations. Supporting the actions of the WP4: Community Cohesion, EI
Gov will facilitate the creation of SQY city principles with input from all city stakeholders. This will align
and communicate a shared vision for the future and engage the community in the process of
accomplishing that vision. EI Gov will provide a platform for co‐management by linking the existing
groups, institutions, and organizational knowledge structures. The sharing of management power will
involve multiple linkages amongst a diverse set of stakeholders to form strong networks.
Communication: SQY EI Gov communication will focus on engaging society in a cultural change.
Eco‐innovation initiatives will be communicated to allow citizens to collaborate more easily. This
dimension will coordinate with other initiatives to make use of communal media assets and cultural
activities, public service broadcasts and other trusted media channels, online discussion forums for
collaborative feedback and decision making, social networks, and online petitions.
Urbanity: EI Gov will use urban planning to create an “eco‐innovation engine” that connects
citizens and integrates with other eco‐innovation initiatives in order to foster knowledge creation and
sharing. Embracing new partnership methods, it will integrate participation in the early stages of
planning and design as well as in construction, operation, management, and creation of the retail mix.
EI Gov will also orient urban planning towards resilience and building the city’s capacity for
transformation in order to deal with the uncertainty and change arising from social and environmental
issues. It will support an urban planning strategy to maintain and enhance essential ecosystem services
and take a regional view to create paths for collaboration, entrepreneurship, and social equity.
Policy: EI Gov will influence public policy in order to create a positive environment for eco‐
innovation in SQY. It will mobilize resources (financial, human and organizational) by orienting
programs and projects, gathering strategic information (road‐mapping, technology diffusion and
coordination), and facilitating institutional processes to influence the legal environment (legal acts,
regulatory rules).
Funding: EI Gov will prospect and develop relationships with many sources for funding eco‐
innovation such as development agencies, financial institutions, seed capital funds, angel investors,
venture capital funds, and public incentive funds at different levels. It will assist the initiatives in WP3:
Business Services by offering entrepreneurs strategic help with project financing, eco‐innovating,
creativity, and planing funding models for projects.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Roseland, M. (2000) “Sustainable community development: integrating environmental, economic, and
social objectives”, Progress in Planning 54.
Clark, G. (2010) “Leadership and Governance of OPEN Cities”, URBACT Report, OPEN Cities Thematic
Paper 1.
Olsson, P. et al. (2001) ” Adaptive Co‐management for Building Resilience in Social–Ecological Systems
Environmental Management”. Vol. 34, No. 1.
Ernstson, H. et al. (2010). “Urban Transitions: On Urban Resilience and Human‐Dominated Ecosystems”.
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
OECD (2009) “How Regions Grow: Trends and Analysis”, OECD Publishing.
European Com...........
mission (2009) ”The Impact of Culture on Creativity”, (Directorate..........................................................
‐.General for Education ...................
and Culture).............
Université de Versailles Saint‐Quentin‐en‐Yvelines Master “Management of Eco‐innovation” – Class 2010‐2011 Module 4: Social Acceptability Instructor: Prof. Martin O'Connor Scientific paper review
The Four Spheres Framework for Sustainability ‐ Martin O'Connor
review by Alexandre Gobbo Fernandes
This text will formalize a perception about the article “The four spheres framework for
sustainability” written by Martin O'Connor, bringing to light some points, ideas, methods, and others
that could be relevant to innovation process assessment. The analysis focus on the proposed
framework called “Tetrahedral Model” to the sustainability of complex systems, in regards on the
concept of triple bottom line arguing for the systems integrity and ethical integrity as complements.
The framework relates to the four capitals – economic, natural, social and human – and to the
question of monetary evaluation of changes in social and environmental domains. The definition of
innovation as an “invention that reaches the market” is a simplification and needs a wider view. Some
highlights of the article will bring some ideas and points that can be helpful to broad the concept of
innovation in regard of the concept of sustainability and the triple bottom line.
In the context which the innovation is embedded, the interdependence of the three spheres
of sustainability and its process of co‐evolution leads to the need of a fourth sphere to regulate the
interactions – choices, conflicts – between the economical, social and environmental principles of
performance and quality as so the rights, respect or responsibilities principles. This fourth sphere, the
political sphere, has the role of the “referee” that arbitrates in relation to the different claims
between the actors of the economical and social spheres or to regard of the environmental sphere.
When analyzing a success of innovations, the interface aspects between spheres seem to be a key
factor since it is characterized through investigation of the “claims” and “demands” made by each
sphere, in each relation to the others. All the aspects from anthropological, symbolic, and moral
dimensions seem to be of most relevance for assessing the success of innovations if it aims to be
accepted by the market. The tetrahedral model proposed in the article structures the articulation of
two complementary axes that together portray “the problem of social choice”, being the axis of
feasibility – the interdependence between ecologic and economic spheres – and the axis of
desirability – the interference between political and social spheres. These are the factors that should
be a concern by any attempt of innovation to the questions about the value of the innovation for the
market, and the service that this innovation can provide to the environment in addition to the
institutional arrangements and governance that coordinate the different stakeholders from society. In
this point, we could define that innovation should be a “pathway” for the use of the society to reach
the aim of better conditions of living and prospering, considering the ethics and the culture of the
time and locality. An innovation that is able to serve the needs of the social sphere, should be aware
of the governance structure that supports or limits the extensions of this innovation and of course,
have to fulfill the interests of the economical sphere who is the one that supports and help to its
spread.
For the innovation issue, the analysis of merit for a certain community seem to be particularly
important to its assessment, particularly when it is concerned about what should be an opportunity
or a benefit to this community, an even more complicated if the innovation incurs in defining a risk or
a costs to one part of the society. The difficult question is to judge the fairness in the distribution of
opportunities, benefits, costs and risks within each community of interest. In a primary level to
analyze the merit of classes of communities and the 'ethics of conduct' as an expression of the
respect, and a second level to analyze the fairness of each class of the community not just to the
access to services and opportunities but also stresses and risks. In special to the relations of the
innovation with the social, economical, environment and governance issues, the Idea of “accepting
the dilemmas of evaluating performance against multiple bottom lines of systems integrity and
ethical engagement, within spheres that are co‐evolving through time, admitting complexities of
sustainability questions” seems to be a good approach for the analysis of a innovation. Also because
is crucial to admit the uncertainties of an innovation results in a long term and either admit the need
of engagement and responsibility within all spheres in “putting into practice” a innovation, or like
quoted by the author “to embark on the risk together”.
1
Université de Versailles Saint‐Quentin‐en‐Yvelines Master “Management of Eco‐innovation” – Class 2010‐2011 Module 2: Methods and tools for economic and environmental evaluation Instructor: Prof. Jean‐Paul Vanderlinden Sample of contribution to work group scientific paper
“Devising an indicator system for eco‐innovations regarding
Rare Earth Elements (REE) material flows”
by Alexandre Gobbo Fernandes
An Innovation Perspective
The world’s materials scarcity is an important issue making companies to invest in rare earth
metal mining stocks. As the same for ‘energy security’, nations began to act in a ‘materials security’
behavior to prevent rare earth metals shortages. In this path, the mining companies understand that
the raw materials in mines are running out, and so start to lead the way to raw materials recovery
from products to guarantee supplies (Mulhall, 2011). This will need innovation on today‘s
manufacturing and recycling companies to be able to recycle materials which are competitive in
price, quality, and volume with “virgin” materials. In an Innovation perspective, from a life cycle
assessment of the material flows within an industrial process or in a production chain, progress
includes structural changes, particularly regarding eco‐quality of the industrial metabolism which
requires the development and implementation of new technologies, rather than modification of
mature systems already in place (Huber, 2008). The empirical findings from the analysis of material
and energy flows (MEFA) in supply chains shows that “the more products and production processes
are placed chain‐upwards, the more important the potential of their environmental impact tends to
be”. This statement is supported by the following findings:
a) The hidden or indirect flows of unused materials occurs in the first steps of extracting raw
materials, (e.g. mining waste, the ‘backpack’ of earth and ground ‐ water displacement and
non‐natural erosion).
b) The waste and unwanted by‐products and emissions are still on a large scale in the
subsequent steps of materials processing (i.e. transforming the materials by physical,
chemical and biological processes).
2
c) The extraction and processing of materials are the steps in the chain where usually most
energy is consumed (with energy still being the lead indicator of environmental impact).
d) In contrast to these upstream steps, the downstream steps of final assembly or finishing of
end‐products, and final use or consumption, causes comparatively less impact. (Huber,2008)
Finally, in the aim to measure the goals of materials flows, it is necessary to provide
information about benefits regarding: “Materials security” (i.e. get it when it is required at
competitive price), “Technosphere materials” (safe and verifiable materials that can be used in
manufacturing and recovered at similar quality) and “Biosphere materials” (safe materials that can
be used in verifiable stages of the processes until return to the natural environment).
Eco‐Innovation in Materials Flows
The challenge of materials flows eco‐innovations is the transition from a ‘take, make, waste’
approach from the current design and manufacturing, to one in which the industrial material streams
are treated as valuable and renewable nutrients that can be reused (Lichtenstein, 2008). Materials
flows need innovations with focus on the structural and qualitative side of technology. It calls for a
“metabolic consistency” approach that embeds the “industrial metabolism” within nature’s
metabolism by introducing new technosystems, regimes and practices which enables changing of
technological structures and the properties of products and processes, rather than mere quantity of
turnover within old structures (Huber, 2008). The Materials Pooling provides innovation to maintain
the resources for high‐quality technical materials that are rare and precious, the cadmium used in
solar collectors for example, within materials flows. It works essentially as a system designed so the
materials can be used for a defined period and then returned to a common pool, providing technical
resources for the next generation of high quality, high‐tech products (Braungart 2002). Materials
Pooling is a multi industry effort collaboration to create economies of scale in purchasing sustainable
materials that could be used by a variety of companies, as holders of assets that are in continual use
and reuse maintaining ‘materials banks’. Providing a service rather than a product, companies
maintain ownership of their materials while profiting from the services they offer. With the right
design the product is returned and its ingredients can be used again in new products (Braungart
2002). Designing for recovery and reuse also gives companies the opportunity to specify high‐quality
materials because they never lose their investment. Products designed for disassemble, for example,
might contain high‐tech parts that can be easily re‐used in the next generation of evolving high‐tech
machinery. In this manner, business‐to‐business cooperation are emerging as innovative companies
3
explore the future of REE materials. Hence, to be truly successful on a large scale, REE material banks
will have to be adopted throughout industry.
Description of the Indicator System
Ideally, the primary goal in a survey that covers eco‐innovation should be to include
questions that are relevant to developing policies that will encourage firms to invest in eco‐
innovation and also inform policy makers of possible problems and benefits, such as the effect of
eco‐innovation on competitiveness (Arundel, 2009). Based on Andersen, M.M. et al., the eco‐
Innovation frame for the indicator system must be build on combining 3 elements described as
following:
The Taxonomy of Eco‐Innovation
An operational taxonomy that entails key types of eco‐innovations with respect to their
different roles is necessary in order to identify, assess or solve environmental problems. Materials
pooling covers technological eco‐innovations and also other innovations in market‐based
instruments or substitution of materials. Eco‐innovations for the creation of Materials pooling are all
technologies, products and services that accounts for the improvement in material flows. These
innovations, to be measured by the indicators, must be one of the following types:
a) Integrated innovations (cleaner technological processes and cleaner products):
Innovations in materials flows which contribute to the solutions of environmental
problems within the company, changing production and consumption practices. The
innovations that enables energy and resource efficiency, enhance recycling and the
substitutions of toxic materials in production process or the product. The innovations can
be technical or in the organization of production and management. Companies may
invest in integrated innovations for materials flows also for other purposes such as
productivity aims.
b) technological system innovations (new technological paths): Innovations in materials
flows which represent a technological discontinuity and offer very different solutions to
existing systems. Are Radical innovations that have wide systematic effects and are built
4
on new theories, competencies and practices and may demand a change of both
production and consumption patterns, cycles of production or products design.
c) organizational system innovations (new organizational structures): Innovations in
materials flows that entail new concepts for new ways of organizing production and
consumption at the companies system level, with new functional interplays between
organizations. These innovations may imply changes in the regional and physical
planning and technical infrastructure in varied ways. The innovations are mainly
organizational and may be conceptually very radical, but not necessarily technically
radical. These innovations are to a large degree, within the domain of public authorities,
which need to cooperate with companies to develop the solutions.
The Innovation System
From an innovation system perspective, the companies materials pooling knowledge
generation is an interactive process between many actors from multiple sources focusing on the
interplay and the synergies between the different companies within a sector, making the sub‐
elements of the system work effectively together to achieve an overall high innovative capacity. The
Indicators should seek to identify the knowledge producers and the patterns of their interaction, and
also identifying the framework conditions for the innovation process. The element for developing
indicators for Materials Pooling eco‐innovations must targets the monitoring and understanding the
knowledge flows (input‐output analysis, trade statistics, and labor mobility, surveys/patent and
text/bibliometric analysis on collaboration and knowledge sources) between companies in their
innovation chain steps. The Innovation chain encompasses the following steps of the innovation
chain: Research, Development, Market analysis, Pilot & Development, Venture capital, Regulations
and Commerce.
The Innovation Chain
The innovation chain‐linked model represents a much more complex perspective on
innovation, with multiple knowledge sources, feedback and parallel sequences in the stages of the
innovation process and open innovations to more complex non‐linear process (Andersen, M.M. et al.
2006.). The eco‐innovation indicators system for Materials Pooling should cover innovation activities
5
mostly in the steps of competence or “innovation input” (investments in research and development,
skills and education, organizational development) and “Innovation output” (eco‐efficiency & sector
analysis, patents, LBIO). The indicator system for eco‐Innovation must also provide information about
the organizational innovation and business model innovation.
Based on the MEI classification, is proposed a focus on measurements of the organizational
eco‐innovations in the chain management for cooperation between companies so as to close
material loops and to avoid environmental damage across the value chain (from cradle to cradle).
These indicators must describe the industry eco‐innovations progress in collaboration and sharing
knowledge on: Technologies for clean manufacturing process; Product and service innovation
offering environmental benefits; and Alternative systems of production and consumption that are
more environmentally benign than existing systems. In this manner, the analysis should take a
“subject approach” to the assessment of the innovative behavior and activities of the enterprise as a
whole looking for the key knowledge producers (companies and knowledge institutions) and the
surrounding institutional set up.
Devising on a Framework to Guide an Indicator System
The following framework was created with the aim to guide an indicator system on materials
flows innovations for REE Materials Pooling:
a) for clean manufacturing technologies
b) for product and service innovations
c) for alternative systems of production and consumption
Sharing and collaborating in the stages of innovation (in REE Materials Pooling) (in REE Materials Pooling)
(in REE Materials Pooling)
1) Formulation: Ideas
I ‐ input indicators: e.g collaboration between research groups II‐ output indicators: e.g shared patents released
2) Invention: R&D
I ‐ input indicators: e.g participation in open innovation networks II ‐ output indicators: e.g collaboration in scientific articles
3) Technology: Pilot & Development
I ‐ input indicators: e.g collaboration in pilot programs II ‐ output indicators: e.g shared prototyping
4) Production: Manufacture
I ‐ input indicators: e.g exchange best practices II ‐ output indicators: e.g integration on production chains
5) Marketing: Commercial
I ‐ input indicators: e.g cooperation of waste recovery systems II ‐ output indicators: e.g participation in networks for reverse logistic
6
1) Formulation stage of innovation: Ideas sharing and collaborating
Input indicators: e.g participation in REE Materials Pooling open innovation networks
Output indicators: e.g collaboration in REE Materials Pooling scientific articles
a) for clean manufacturing process technologies
b) for product and service innovations
c) for alternative systems of production and consumption
2) Invention stage of innovation: R&D sharing and collaborating
Input indicators: e.g collaboration between REE Materials Pooling research groups
Output indicators: e.g shared REE Materials Pooling patents released
a) for clean manufacturing process technologies
b) for product and service innovations
c) for alternative systems of production and consumption
3) Technology Development stage of innovation: Pilot & Development sharing and
collaborating
Input indicators: e.g collaboration in REE Materials Pooling pilot programs
Output indicators: e.g shared REE Materials Pooling prototyping
a) for clean manufacturing process technologies
b) for product and service innovations
c) for alternative systems of production and consumption
4) Production stage of innovation: Manufacture sharing and collaborating
Input indicators: e.g exchange of REE Materials Pooling best practices
Output indicators: e.g integration on REE produ production chains
a) for clean manufacturing process technologies
b) for product and service innovations
c) for alternative systems of production and consumption
5) Marketing stage of innovation Commercial sharing and collaborating
Input indicators: e.g cooperation of waste recovery systems in REE
Output indicators: e.g participation in networks for reverse logistic services in REE
a) for clean manufacturing process technologies
b) for product and service innovations
c) for alternative systems of production and consumption
7
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Braungart, M. (2002), Intelligent Materials Pooling: Evolving a Profitable Technical Metabolism.
Article originally available at: www.mbdc.com.
Lichtenstein, B. B.; et al. (2008). Materials Pooling (A): Opportunity and Potential of the Sustainability
Consortium . Copyright © Massuachusetts Institute of Technology.
McDonough, W. (2009). “The Natural Advantage of Nations: Business Opportunities, Innovation and
Governance in the 21st Century: business opportunities, innovation and governance in the
21st century” edited by Karlson Charlie Hargroves and Michael H. Smith. Book Preface, pg
XXVI.
Horbach, J. & Rennings, K. (2007), (Panel‐) Survey Analysis of Eco‐Innovation: Possibilities and
Propositions: Deliverable 4 & 5 of the MEI (Measuring Eco‐Innovation Project, Report edn.
Huber, J. (2008), Technological environmental innovations (TEIs) in a chain‐analytical and life‐cycle‐
analytical perspective, The Journal of Cleaner Production xx (2008) 1‐7, article in press
(available on‐line).
Mulhall, D. (2011), The C2C Materials Pooling Charter ‐ Pathway to a new Materials Security
Mechanism, forum Nachhaltig Wirtschaften Magazine.
Andersen, M.M. et al. (2006). Eco‐innovation indicators, European Environment Agency.
Anthony Arundel and René Kemp, 2009 Measuring eco‐innovation, UNU‐MERIT Working Papers.