Advertisement

Exploring the Role of Instrument Design and Instrument Interaction for Eco-Innovation: A Survey-Based Analysis of Renewable Energy Innovation in Germany

  • Karoline S. RoggeEmail author
  • Joachim Schleich
Chapter
Part of the Sustainability and Innovation book series (SUSTAINABILITY)

Abstract

Empirical research on eco-innovation has produced a substantive body of literature on the relevance of regulation for stimulating such innovation. Much of this work on the role of policy for eco-innovation relies on econometric analyses of company survey data. In this regard, the eco-innovation module introduced in 2008/2009 in the Community Innovation Survey serves as an important data source that has helped improve our under-standing of the role of environmental and innovation policy for eco-innovation in the European Union (EU). However, so far, this data source has provided only limited opportunities to generate insights into the role of instrument design and instrument interaction for eco-innovation. In this chapter, we present a first attempt to measure such aspects in a company innovation survey based on the example of renewable energy innovation in Germany. In particular, we explore to what extent the design of the German Renewable Energy Sources Act (and the interaction of its feed-in tariffs with the EU emissions trading system) correlates with innovation in renewable power generation technologies. We find instrument design features but not instrument type to be related to eco-innovation. In addition, our exploratory study provides evidence for an interaction effect between climate policy and renewables support policy. Based on these findings, we discuss implications for future research on the role of policy in eco-innovation.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This chapter was written in the context of Fraunhofer ISI’s internal project TransPoSi, which investigates transformative policy processes for system innovation, and the corresponding role of visions, targets and instruments. The data underlying our analysis was collected as part of the GRETCHEN project (2012–2015), funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within its FONA funding initiative “Economics of Climate Change” (Econ-C-026).

References

  1. Barney, J. (2001). Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. Journal of Management, 27(6), 643–650.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(01)00115-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergek, A., & Berggren, C. (2014). The impact of environmental policy instruments on innovation: A review of energy and automotive industry studies. Ecological Economics, 106, 112–123.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BMWi. (2014). Act on the development of renewable energy sources (Renewable Energy Sources Act – RES Act 2014). EEG, Berlin.Google Scholar
  4. BMWi. (2015). The energy of the future – Fourth “energy transition” monitoring report – Summary: A good piece of work. Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, Berlin.Google Scholar
  5. BMWi. (2016a). 10-point agenda: A clear roadmap for the energy transition. Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy. http://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/EN/Dossier/energy-transition.html. Accessed 27 Jun 2017.
  6. BMWi. (2016b). Bundesbericht Energieforschung 2016: Forschungsförderung für die Energiewende. Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, Berlin.Google Scholar
  7. BMWi, BMU. (2010). Energy concept for an environmentally sound, reliable and affordable energy supply, federal ministry of economics and technology. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Berlin.Google Scholar
  8. Borghesi, S., Cainelli, G., & Mazzanti, M. (2015). Linking emission trading to environmental innovation: Evidence from the Italian manufacturing industry. Research Policy, 44(3), 669–683.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.10.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bröcker, M. (2013). Regierung plant Bremse für den Strompreis. Rheinische Post.Google Scholar
  10. Bruns, E., Ohlhorst, D., Wenzel, B., & Köppel, J. (2011). Renewable energies in Germany’s electricity market: A biography of the innovation process. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cantner, U., Graf, H., Herrmann, J., & Kalthaus, M. (2016). Inventor networks in renewable energies: The influence of the policy mix in Germany. Research Policy, 45(6), 1165–1184.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Costantini, V., Crespi, F., Martini, C., & Pennacchio, L. (2015). Demand-pull and technology-push public support for eco-innovation: The case of the biofuels sector. Research Policy, 44(3), 577–595.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.12.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cunningham, P., Edler, J., Flanagan, K., & Laredo, P. (2013). Innovation policy mix and instrument interaction: A review. Nesta working paper series 13/20. NESTA, p. 47. www.nesta.org.uk/wp13-20.
  14. Dechezleprêtre, A., & Glachant, M. (2014). Does foreign environmental policy influence domestic innovation?: Evidence from the wind industry. Environmental and Resource Economics, 58(3), 391–413.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-013-9705-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. del Río, P. (2006). The interaction between emissions trading and renewable electricity support schemes: An overview of the literature. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12(6), 1363–1390.Google Scholar
  16. del Río, P. (2009). The empirical analysis of the determinants for environmental technological change: A research agenda. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 861–878.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.07.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. del Río, P. (2010). Analysing the interactions between renewable energy promotion and energy efficiency support schemes: The impact of different instruments and design elements. Energy Policy, 38(9), 4978–4989.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. del Río, P. (2012). The dynamic efficiency of feed-in tariffs: The impact of different design elements. Energy Policy, 41, 139–151.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.08.029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. del Río, P., & Cerdá, E. (2017). The missing link: The influence of instruments and design features on the interactions between climate and renewable electricity policies. Energy Research & Social Science, 33, 49–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. del Río, P., & Peñasco, C. (2014). Innovation effects of support schemes for renewable electricity. Universal Journal of Renewable Energy, 2, 45–66.Google Scholar
  21. del Río, P., Carrillo-Hermosilla, J., Könnölä, T., & Bleda, M. (2015). Resources, capabilities and competences for eco-innovation. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 22(2), 274–292.  https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2015.1070301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. del Río, P., Peñasco, C., & Romero-Jordán, D. (2016). What drives eco-innovators?: A critical review of the empirical literature based on econometric methods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 2158–2170.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Demirel, P., & Kesidou, E. (2011). Stimulating different types of eco-innovation in the UK: Government policies and firm motivations. Ecological Economics, 70(8), 1546–1557.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Di Stefano, G., Gambardella, A., & Verona, G. (2012). Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions. Research Policy, 41(8), 1283–1295.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Doblinger, C., Dowling, M., & Helm, R. (2015). An institutional perspective of public policy and network effects in the renewable energy industry: Enablers or disablers of entrepreneurial behaviour and innovation? Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(1–2), 126–156.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2015.1109004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Edler, J., Georghiou, L., Blind, K., & Uyarra, E. (2012). Evaluating the demand side: New challenges for evaluation. Research Evaluation, 21(1), 33–47.  https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvr002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Flanagan, K., Uyarra, E., & Laranja, M. (2011). Reconceptualising the ‘policy mix’ for innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 702–713.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.02.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Frondel, M., Horbach, J., & Rennings, K. (2008). What triggers environmental management and innovation? Empirical evidence for Germany. Ecological Economics, 66(1), 153–160.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gallagher, K. S., Grübler, A., Kuhl, L., Nemet, G., & Wilson, C. (2012). The energy technology innovation system. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 137–162.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-060311-133915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gawel, E., Strunz, S., & Lehmann, P. (2014). A public choice view on the climate and energy policy mix in the EU — How do the emissions trading scheme and support for renewable energies interact? Energy Policy, 64, 175–182.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ghisetti, C., & Pontoni, F. (2015). Investigating policy and R&D effects on environmental innovation: A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 118, 57–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Grau, T. (2014). Responsive feed-in tariff adjustment to dynamic technology development. Energy Economics, 44, 36–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2014.03.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Greene, W. H. (2012). Econometric analysis. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  34. Guerzoni, M., & Raiteri, E. (2015). Demand-side vs. supply-side technology policies: Hidden treatment and new empirical evidence on the policy mix. Research Policy, 44(3), 726–747.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.10.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hašcic, I., Johnstone, N., & Kalamova, M. (2009). Environmental policy flexibility, search and innovation. Finance a Uver – Czech Journal of Economics and Finance, 59(5), 426–441.Google Scholar
  36. Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M. A., & Singh, H. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. Hermwille, L. (2016). The role of narratives in socio-technical transitions—Fukushima and the energy regimes of Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Energy Research & Social Science, 11, 237–246.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hoffmann, V. H., Trautmann, T., & Schneider, M. (2008). A taxonomy for regulatory uncertainty-application to the European emission trading scheme. Environmental Science & Policy, 11(8), 712–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hoppmann, J., Peters, M., Schneider, M., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2013). The two faces of market support—How deployment policies affect technological exploration and exploitation in the solar photovoltaic industry. Research Policy, 42(4), 989–1003.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hoppmann, J., Huenteler, J., & Girod, B. (2014). Compulsive policy-making—The evolution of the German feed-in tariff system for solar photovoltaic power. Research Policy, 43(8), 1422–1441.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Horbach, J. (2008). Determinants of environmental innovation—New evidence from German panel data sources. Research Policy, 37(1), 163–173.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.08.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Horbach, J., Rammer, C., & Rennings, K. (2012). Determinants of eco-innovations by type of environmental impact—The role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull. Ecological Economics, 78, 112–122.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Horbach, J., Oltra, V., & Belin, J. (2013). Determinants and specificities of eco-innovations compared to other innovations—An econometric analysis for the French and German industry based on the community innovation survey. Industry and Innovation, 20(6), 523–543.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2013.833375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Huenteler, J., Schmidt, T. S., Ossenbrink, J., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2016). Technology life-cycles in the energy sector—Technological characteristics and the role of deployment for innovation. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 104, 102–121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.09.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. IEA. (2011). Interactions of policies for renewable energy and climate. Paris.Google Scholar
  46. IEA, IRENA. (2017). Perspectives for the energy transition: Investment needs for a low-carbon energy system. International Energy Agency, International Renewable Energy Agency, Paris, Bonn.Google Scholar
  47. IRENA. (2013). Renewable energy innovation policy: Success criteria and strategies. International Renewable Energy Agency, Bonn.Google Scholar
  48. Jacobsson, S., & Bergek, A. (2004). Transforming the energy sector: The evolution of technological systems in renewable energy technology. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(5), 815–849.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dth032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jaffe, A. B., Newell, R. G., & Stavins, R. N. (2002). Environmental policy and technological change. Environmental & Resource Economics, 22(1–2), 41–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Johnstone, N. (Ed.). (2007). Environmental policy and corporate behaviour. Cheltenham: Elgar.Google Scholar
  51. Johnstone, N., Haščič, I., & Popp, D. (2010). Renewable energy policies and technological innovation: Evidence based on patent counts. Environmental and Resource Economics, 45(1), 133–155.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-009-9309-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kammerer, D. (2009). The effects of customer benefit and regulation on environmental product innovation. Ecological Economics, 68(8–9), 2285–2295.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.02.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kemp, R. (1997). Environmental policy and technical change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  54. Kemp, R., & Pearson, P. (2007). MEI D15 – Final report MEI project about measuring eco innovation: Deliverable 15. UM-MERIT, Maastricht.Google Scholar
  55. Kemp, R., & Pontoglio, S. (2011). The innovation effects of environmental policy instruments—A typical case of the blind men and the elephant? Ecological Economics, 72, 28–36.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kesidou, E., & Demirel, P. (2012). On the drivers of eco-innovations: Empirical evidence from the UK. Research Policy, 41(5), 862–870.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.01.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lauber, V., & Jacobsson, S. (2016). The politics and economics of constructing, contesting and restricting socio-political space for renewables – The German renewable energy act. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 18, 147–163.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.06.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lehmann, P. (2010). Using a policy mix to combat climate change – An economic evaluation of policies in the German electricity sector. PhD thesis, Universität Halle-Wittenberg.Google Scholar
  59. Matthes, F. C. (2017). Energy transition in Germany: A case study on a policy-driven structural change of the energy system. Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, 14(1), 141–169.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40844-016-0066-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mowery, D., & Rosenberg, N. (1979). The influence of market demand upon innovation: A critical review of some recent empirical studies. Research Policy, 8(2), 102–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Belknapp Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  62. OECD. (2005). Oslo manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. 3rd ed., Paris.Google Scholar
  63. OECD. (2009). Eco-innovation in industry: Enabling green growth. Paris.Google Scholar
  64. OECD. (2011). Better policies to support eco-innovation. Paris: OECD Studies on Environmental Innovation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. OECD. (2015). System innovation: Synthesis report. Paris.Google Scholar
  66. OECD/IEA/NEA/ITF. (2015). Aligning policies for a low-carbon economy (p. 242). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  67. Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13(6), 343–373.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(84)90018-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pegels, A., & Lütkenhorst, W. (2014). Is Germany’s energy transition a case of successful green industrial policy? Contrasting wind and solar PV. Energy Policy, 74, 522–534.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.06.031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Peters, M., Schneider, M., Griesshaber, T., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2012). The impact of technology-push and demand-pull policies on technical change – Does the locus of policies matter? Research Policy, 41(8), 1296–1308.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Quitzow, R. (2015). Dynamics of a policy-driven market: The co-evolution of technological innovation systems for solar photovoltaics in China and Germany. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 17, 126–148.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2014.12.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Quitzow, L., Canzler, W., Grundmann, P., Leibenath, M., Moss, T., & Rave, T. (2016). The German energiewende – What’s happening? Introducing the special issue. Utilities Policy, 41, 163–171.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2016.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Reichardt, K., & Rogge, K. (2016). How the policy mix impacts innovation: Findings from company case studies on offshore wind in Germany. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 18, 62–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rennings, K. (2000). Redefining innovation—Eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 32(2), 319–332.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00112-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rennings, K., & Rammer, C. (2011). The impact of regulation-driven environmental innovation on innovation success and firm performance. Industry and Innovation, 18(3), 255–283.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2011.561027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rogge, K. S. (2016). Reviewing the evidence on the innovation impact of the EU emission trading system. In S. Weishaar (Ed.), Research handbook on emissions trading (pp. 161–194). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rogge, K. S., & Dütschke, E. (2018). What makes them believe in the low-carbon energy transition? Exploring corporate perceptions of the credibility of climate policy mixes. Environmental Science and Policy, 87, 74–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.05.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rogge, K. S., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2010). The impact of the EU ETS on the sectoral innovation system for power generation technologies. Energy Policy, 38(12), 7639–7652.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.07.047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rogge, K. S., & Reichardt, K. (2016). Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis. Research Policy, 45(8), 1620–1635.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rogge, K. S., & Schleich, J. (2017). Do policy mix characteristics matter for low-carbon innovation? A survey-based exploration for renewable power generation technologies in Germany. SPRU working paper series (SWPS) 19. University of Sussex, Brighton.Google Scholar
  80. Rogge, K. S., & Schleich, J. (2018). Do policy mix characteristics matter for low-carbon innovation? A survey-based exploration of renewable power generation technologies in Germany. Research Policy (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  81. Rogge, K. S., Kern, F., & Howlett, M. (2017). Conceptual and empirical advances in analysing policy mixes for energy transitions. Energy Research & Social Science, 33, 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Schleich, J., Walz, R., & Ragwitz, M. (2017). Effects of policies on patenting in wind-power technologies. Energy Policy, 108, 684–695.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Schmidt, T. S., Schneider, M., Rogge, K. S., Schuetz, M. J. A., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2012). The effects of climate policy on the rate and direction of innovation: A survey of the EU ETS and the electricity sector. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 2, 23–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.12.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sorrell, S., & Sijm, J. (2003). Carbon trading in the policy mix. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19(3), 420–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Spyridaki, N.-A., & Flamos, A. (2014). A paper trail of evaluation approaches to energy and climate policy interactions. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 40, 1090–1107.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Strunz, S. (2014). The German energy transition as a regime shift. Ecological Economics, 100, 150–158.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.01.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Taylor, M. (2008). Beyond technology-push and demand-pull: Lessons from California’s solar policy. Energy Economics, 30(6), 2829–2854.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2008.06.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509:AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Veugelers, R. (2012). Which policy instruments to induce clean innovating? Research Policy, 41(10), 1770–1778.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.06.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Vollebergh, H. (2007). Impacts of environmental policy instruments on technological change. OECD, Paris. p. 34. Accessed 29 Jun 2014.Google Scholar
  91. Weber, K. M., & Rohracher, H. (2012). Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change: Combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework. Research Policy, 41(6), 1037–1047.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wieczorek, A. J., & Hekkert, M. P. (2012). Systemic instruments for systemic innovation problems: A framework for policy makers and innovation scholars. Science and Public Policy, 39(1), 74–87.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scr008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SPRU – Science Policy Research UnitUniversity of SussexBrightonUK
  2. 2.Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISIKarlsruheGermany
  3. 3.Grenoble Ecole de Management Univ Grenoble Alpes ComUEGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations