Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 215–223

www.cleanerproduction.net

Sustainable development and the challenge of innovation

Frans A. Vollenbroek
Department of Strategy, The Ministry of Environment, PO Box 30945, 2500 GX The Hague, The Netherlands

Accepted 30 August 2001

Abstract

Innovation does not automatically lead to societal progress, as is implicitly assumed in technology push-oriented policies. This
assumption is an inheritance of the Enlightenment; i.e., the belief that science will automatically lead to a better quality of life.
The strive for sustainable development needs an approach towards innovation that can be characterised as society pull: the society
has to decide which (balance of) economical, ecological and social goals are to be met. Society pull can be organised by developing
shared perspectives for the future, which are inspiring for public and private policy-makers and investors. In this paper this is
worked out as transition management: a process approach directing innovation towards sustainable development. A crucial aspect
of transition management is that innovation is no longer driven by the past, but attracted by the future.  2002 Elsevier Science
Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Innovation; Sustainable development; Transition management

1. Introduction should not only result in economic strength, but also in

Technological developments and innovation play a
key role in the growth of Western economies. In the past
a variety of technologies enabled the production of crops
with a decreasing number of workers in agriculture, thus
freeing human resources to be used for a tremendous
growth in industrial activities, a strong increase of pros-
perity, and radical changes in social structures. In the
future, information and communication technology
(ICT), nano-technology and genomics are likewise
expected to have great impact on economic and social
structures. Because technology and innovation play a
key role, most governments have developed subsidy
schemes to stimulate research and development (R&D)
within companies and through public–private partner-
ships. These subsidies are legitimated by the argument
of market failure: the costs of R&D are to be paid by
only a few actors, while the benefits of R&D are spread
over many actors and eventually over the society as a
whole. These benefits are expressed in terms of competi-
tiveness, economic growth and increasing prosperity.
Although this reasoning is still valid in many countries,
there is an increasing consciousness that innovation
E-mail address: frans.vollenbroek@minvrom.nl
Vollenbroek).
a better quality of the environment. After all, the quality
of life does not depend only on the availability of money
and the opportunity of buying goods and services, but
also — if not primarily — on the safety and healthful-
ness of the living environment.
This raises the fundamental question whether econ-
omic growth and improvement of the environmental
quality can be combined. In the White Paper on the
Economy and the Environment [1] the Dutch govern-
ment has answered this question positively, although the
paper emphasises that the direction in which the econ-
omy grows should be changed: the environmental burden
per unit of gross national product must be reduced con-
siderably. In this, technology can play a crucial role,
according to the White Paper, which was confirmed by
a technology foresight study by TNO [2,3]. In order to
implement this vision, the programme EET (Economy,
Ecology, Technology) was developed in which economi-
cal and ecological objectives meet in one subsidy
scheme.1 Although this scheme is very successful, it is
1
EET is a joint programme of three Dutch ministries stimulating
innovation, co-operation and knowledge building, with the object of
ecological and economical benefits. Recently the publication Breaking
(F.A. through sustainability was issued, highlighting some aspects of the
programme (available via www.EET.nl).

0959-6526/02/$ - see front matter  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 5 9 - 6 5 2 6 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 4 8 - 8
216 F.A. Vollenbroek / Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 215–223
not expected to be sufficient to reach the ultimate goal:
substitution of current technologies by new environmen-
tally benign technologies or product–service combi-
nations. In order to reach this goal, policy coherence
between economic, science, technology and industry
policy is needed, thus contributing to the formation of
an innovation system that is directed towards sustainable
development and which creates opportunities for pro-
ducers and consumers.
This paper reflects some of the work that has been
done in the course of preparation of the fourth Dutch
National Environmental Policy Plan (NEPP-4), with the
focus on technology and innovation. First, the role of
innovation in historical perspective is examined, includ-
ing the relation between innovation and quality of life.
Then the concept of sustainable development is dis-
cussed, including the finality of world resources, the
need for system innovations and the concept of tran-
sitions. Subsequently transition management is exam-
ined more closely, including the relation between current
environmental policies and transition management. The
paper ends with an epilogue.
2. The role of innovation in historical perspective
Innovation — the successful introduction of an inven-
tion in society — resulted in a steady increase in the
prosperity of Western societies during the 20th century.
This tempted many countries to a positive attitude
towards innovation, Japan being the most pronounced
example. This does not mean, however, that innovation
is — and has been — always regarded positively. There
are many examples of social tensions that were caused
by the introduction of new technologies or machines,
mainly because workers were fired or had to learn new
skills. Looking back further in history, there is evidence
that authorities even restricted the introduction of new
technologies. Thus a 16th century English court ordered
the destruction of machines for knitting stockings since
these were undermining the stability of the society [4].
This changing attitude towards innovation started with
the Enlightenment: science instead of myths and the
Bible became the most important source of truth. The
concept of truth should be understood here as knowledge
that was effective in providing explanations for natural
events such as thunder and lightning and in providing
technology that was suitable to handle these phenomena.
An example of this is the lightning conductor on
churches, which was recognised to be more effective in
fire prevention than praying!
2.1. Cultural transition
The changing attitude of people and institutions
towards innovation throughout the ages can thus be
understood as a consequence of a cultural transition from
a traditional sacral society to a modern economic
society. In the traditional society the desires of individ-
uals are restricted by religious laws and/or diverted to
rites: desires are in fact considered as a potential threat
for the stability of society [5]. In the modern economic
society, this view has changed into its reverse: desires of
individuals are considered as a driving force for learning,
development and innovation, which is believed eventu-
ally to improve the quality of people’s lives. In fact,
Francis Bacon described this belief in his book entitled
The New Atlantis (1627), which is a technological uto-
pia. Since then technology and innovation have been
anchored deeply in our culture.
2.2. Innovation and the quality of life
Francis Bacon believed strongly that by using natural
science the distress of his time could be relieved. In his
book he mentioned several scientific achievements that
would help people to build a better life. Interestingly
Bacon was inspired religiously: he believed that the Fall
of man not only caused loss of innocence, but also loss
of sovereignty over nature. His idea was that man had
the duty to recover sovereignty by developing and using
science as an instrument. One important aspect Bacon
did not write about is the process or mechanisms that
should lead to this better life. It was Adam Smith who
filled this gap in his book The Wealth of Nations (1776),
in which he described economical price mechanisms.
Like Bacon, Adam Smith showed a strong belief in the
power of his concept: the invisible hand of the price
mechanism would lead inevitably to paradise. In 1848,
however, Marx observed in his Manifesto that the
(capitalistic) system was collapsing and causes misery
for whole nations. Looking back, Marx seems to have
been wrong: capitalism is the winning paradigm. This
may be true, but we should not forget the many insti-
tutional changes that were required to create mechanisms
that were able to (re)distribute the benefits of technologi-
cal progress and innovation among a majority of people.
Moreover, these mechanisms are still not effective to
prevent distress in Third World countries, to prevent
environmental deterioration, and to prevent the existence
of some disadvantaged people in an otherwise affluent
society.
Learning from history, we may say that, more than
ever, there is a need to develop a vision of the coherence
between technology development, innovation, the work-
ing of institutions and societal progress. In fact, the pub-
lic debate in the 1970s about the role of new technology
in societies (in The Netherlands the focus was mainly
on nuclear energy) was a first step to such a system
approach, giving rise to a variety of technology assess-
ment methodologies. In the 1980s, companies were also
confronted with the fact that the technology push
 F.A. Vollenbroek / Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 215–223
approach was no longer successful: the influence of non-
governmental organisations (NGOs) increased strongly,
consumers became more critical and governments
required commitment to environmental goals.
3. Sustainable development and innovation
The World Commission on Environment and Devel-
opment (1987) has defined sustainable development as
“ensuring the needs of the present generation without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs”. Although this definition is powerful
and appeals strongly to the responsibility of the present
generation, it is not obvious how to work it out. The
concept of ‘needs’ is especially problematic, because of
various reasons. First, we do not know the needs of
future generations. Obviously they need food, shelter,
clothing and transportation, but what resources do they
need to meet these functions? Should we save some of
our natural gas reserves and other resources? Assuming
that future economies will be built on new emerging
(energy) technologies, fossil fuels might even be
superfluous in the future. Second, needs have the tend-
ency to grow. New technologies give rise to new needs,
as is exemplified by the mobile telephone: in one decade
people revealed a unrestrained need to communicate at
any time and at all places. In fact this illustrates that
needs are social constructions and may thus be unlimi-
ted. This discussion makes clear that the present gener-
ation should develop knowledge, which can be used by
next generations to construct and meet their needs, rather
than focusing on saving some non-renewable resources.
One might thus say that knowledge is a virtual and
vital resource.
It is obvious that physical resources will also play a
crucial role, but since we cannot predict the way next
generations fulfil their needs, it is difficult to manage
particular resources. Moreover, it is extremely difficult
to ascertain the magnitude of the reserves of a particular
resource. Economics plays an important role here, since
when scarcity threatens certain known deposits, search
for new reserves and new technologies will start. Pre-
viously unviable reserves will become attractive, either
because a higher price is paid on the market or because
new technologies are developed enabling mining of low
concentration deposits. Another factor that makes
resource management complex is substitution. If copper
becomes scarce, the price mechanism will drive users to
other materials such as polymers. Replacement may also
occur because of other reasons such as performance.
Thus glass fibre replaces copper wiring because telecom-
munication through glass fibres is more effective.
217
3.1. Key resources
This discussion makes clear that resource stocks are
rather fluid and management of these resources is diffi-
cult. Apparently, a higher level of aggregation is
required to analyse resources. In researching this prob-
lem within a project in the Ministry of Environment,
three so-called key resources were identified: energy,
space and biodiversity [6]. The basic idea behind this
concept is that these three key resources are always
required to maintain and built natural and industrial eco-
systems, respectively. In other words: these resources are
always part of the fulfilment of human needs (see Table
1). Obviously, the three key resources are not inde-
pendent. In one way or another, space is required to cap-
ture the 70 W/m2 of sunlight that hits the earth’s surface
to make it accessible to consumers and industry. More-
over, any decision about agricultural use, industrial
settlements or urban planning has an impact on the qual-
ity of space and thus on biodiversity. The concept of key
resources may therefore be used to structure the possible
effects of decisions that are to be taken in the future and
thus help public and private policy-makers to optimise
their decisions concerning innovation and investments.
3.2. Environmental quality and innovation
Sustainable development relates to economical, eco-
logical and social developments. Possibilities to co-
optimise these developments depend strongly on the
availability of technologies, innovation strategies, and
the institutional conditions that are set by government
policies. In The Netherlands, the environmental policies
that were developed in the last decades resulted in a sig-
nificant improvement of the quality of the environment,
while at the same time the economy has grown. This
achievement is mainly due to improvement of existing
technologies and/or using end-of-pipe technologies. In
order to combine economic growth in the next decades
and the improvement of environmental quality,
incremental improvements are not expected to be suf-
ficient. Thus system changes are required, which will
enable the fulfilment of needs in an entirely new manner.
This can be visualised as shown in Fig. 1.
The Dutch programme for Sustainable Technology
Development, which has recently completed its five-year
term and is now in a dissemination phase, estimated the
required improvement in eco-efficiency to be a factor of
at least 20 [7]. The programme also demonstrated that
such achievements are possible by using future visions
to derive the R&D agenda of today. Another important
element of the programme is the co-evolution of tech-
nology, structure and culture. This means that not only
technology should be considered as a driver for inno-
vation, but also societal needs and goals must also be
factored in. Obviously this means that public policy-
218 F.A. Vollenbroek / Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 215–223

Table 1
The key resources: energy, space and biodiversity

Energy
Both natural and industrial (eco)systems require energy to drive conversion processes. In natural ecosystems, sunlight is used to convert CO2
and nutrients into plants, which serve as an energy source for all other organisms. The industrial system requires energy for mining,
purification, manufacturing, transport, etc. Closing material cycles in industry in order to create industrial ecosystems does not change this,
since recycling requires energy as well. Crucial is the fact that energy itself can not be recycled, as is taught by the second law of
thermodynamics. This means that natural and industrial ecosystems will always require an external source of energy (i.e., the sun). Price
mechanisms or technological developments and/or substitution effects cannot change this. Energy may thus be regarded as a key resource.
Space
It is obvious that space is required for all human activities: housing, agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, etc. Some countries do not
have enough space to match all these functions, which means that space is needed abroad. The Netherlands, for example, uses 15 million
hectares of agricultural land in other countries, whereas 2 million hectares are used within The Netherlands. Since more land is needed to
manage the water from the big rivers and since people wish more space for living and development of natural areas, even more agricultural
land has to be ‘hired’ in other countries. This development may even accelerate in the future if The Netherlands shifts their energy supply
from fossil fuels to renewable sources such as wind and biomass. Thus the space which is required for the total energy demand of the Dutch
economy amounts to 400 km×400 km, which is much more than the surface of the country as a whole. Large-scale import of biomass is thus
necessary. If the energy is generated by wind parks (on the sea) then 180 km×180 km is needed, which is a considerable part of the North
Sea area. If energy is generated directly from sunlight (using photovoltaic silicon devices) 100 km×100 km is required, which is much more
than the sum of all roof surfaces in The Netherlands, but much less than the area biomass production requires. Moreover, photovoltaic
systems may be placed in regions outside The Netherlands with poor soil quality and a deficit of water (a desert for instance), whereas
biomass production requires fertile soil, water and a modest temperature. It is obvious that this resource-based analysis does not match with
economics: energy derived from biomass is less expensive than energy from photovolaics. The reason for this is, however, that the economic
price of space does not reflect the value of it as a public good.
Biodiversity
Living organisms support industrial and natural ecosystems. They deliver food, renewable feedstock and they contributes to the system
dynamics of natural ecosystems: a tree can only survive by virtue of its symbiosis with the many species of mycorrhiza in the root zone.
Moreover, humans can survive only because of the many species of bacteria in the large intestine, which help with digestive processes. In
fact, the diversity of organisms is crucial, rather than the quantity. In other words: biodiversity is the third key resource.

object of creating shared perspectives of the future

and/or agreement on the transition agenda. An example
of a transition is shown in Fig. 2 [9]. The shared perspec-
tive in this transition is to create an energy supply system
that does not contribute to an increase in CO2 concen-
tration in the atmosphere. The various technologies are
examples of possible solutions, but the question of which
solutions are to be developed and scaled to large oper-
ational units, depends on the opportunities that are seen
by the market parties in relation to (intentionally) chang-
ing institutional arrangements (regulation, fiscal meas-
ures, subsidy schemes, etc.). These aspects are all part
Fig. 1. Improvement of existing technologies is not sufficient to meet
the environmental goals.

makers should be able to create conditions which are

attractive enough for private parties to co-operate. On
the other hand, private parties should be prepared to
commit to public goals.
The required system innovations can also be described
as transitions, which refer to a set of simultaneously
changing parameters: technology, structure, culture and
intentions [8]. One important characteristic of transitions
is that many actors and a variety of factors are usually
involved, which give the impression that the develop-
ment as a whole is an autonomous one. Managing tran-
sitions may thus be practically impossible unless a multi-
actor communication process can be organised, with the Fig. 2. Transition from a fossil to a CO2-neutral energy supply.
 F.A. Vollenbroek / Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 215–223
of the transition agenda and should be negotiated with
the parties involved.
3.3. Variation and selection
The evolutionary approach of technological develop-
ment and innovation, in which variation and selection
are the main characteristics, can easily be combined with
the transition concept. This is visualised in Fig. 3. The
figure shows the transition from a dynamic equilibrium
A to a new equilibrium B. In the initiation phase, vari-
ation and learning are essential to explore and develop
new possibilities. In the acceleration phase, learning
about up-scaling (technological problems, economy-of-
scale effects, etc.), public acceptance and institutional
requirements is important. Based on this learning,
decisions are to be made by the private parties, eventu-
ally resulting in the stabilisation phase.
The role of the government is pluralistic and follows
from market deficiency. First, the management of the
transition process should be organised by the govern-
ment, since driving forces for private parties are lacking.
This does not mean that the government is the (only)
transition manager. On the contrary: the initiative from
the government should have the objective of forming a
transition team. This team may consist of high-level
officials from leading companies, scientific institutions,
consumer organisations, etc.2
Second, the government should match its various poli-
cies with the transition requirements. Thus technology
policies may be directed to generate new options in the
initiation phase, strategic niche management [10] may
be applied to stimulate private parties to invest in learn-
ing and tax schemes and other institutional arrangements
may be adjusted to stimulate the selection process.
Fig. 3. Variation and selection are important elements of a transition.
2
In The Netherlands this way of organising a transition may match
perfectly with the Dutch ‘poldermodel’, although this model may not
create enough drive for innovations. This aspect is to be investigated.
219
4. A closer look at transition management
Transitions are not a new phenomenon. Many tran-
sitions have occurred in the past, such as the transition
from sailing ships to steamships. More recently the tran-
sition from coal to natural gas occurred in The Nether-
lands, which led to the closure of coal mines in the
southern province of Limburg. The striving towards sus-
tainable development raises the question whether tran-
sitions can be managed in such a way that economical,
ecological and social goals are met in one concerted pro-
cess. In order to explore the possibilities of transition
management, the Ministry of Environment committed a
research project on this subject in the course of the
NMP-4 process [11]. Thus it was found that managing
transitions requires in the first place a thorough analysis
of the actors involved. This analysis should make
explicit the perspectives of the various actors, on which
one transition objective is based. The transition objective
should be described in such a manner that it is con-
sidered as a shared perspective. Moreover the transition
objective should be reachable via various transition
paths, which makes it attractive for various actors. In
managing transitions, the following principles seem to
be important:
앫 long-term goals are leading for short-term policies;
앫 thinking in terms of multi-domain, multi-actor and
multi-level is required;
앫 learning processes should be organised;
앫 improvement and system change should be com-
bined; and
앫 a large number of options should be kept open.
The aim of transition management is to motivate the
various actors (companies, universities, technological
institutions, NGOs) to commit and contribute to the tran-
sition agenda. This generates synergy and may speed up
the transition process considerably. Obviously this com-
mitment will only be given if the private parties see busi-
ness opportunities.
4.1. Transition management and environmental policy
The concept of transition management fits well in the
environmental policy development, at least in The
Netherlands. Fig. 4 illustrates this; the vertical axis
shows the degree of government control, the horizontal
axis the degree of co-operation between business and
government.
Beginning with a market-driven situation in the 1970s,
environmental problems became apparent. Due to public
awareness and political pressure, strict environmental
regulation was enforced. This command and control
mechanism was effective, since a lot of measures were
taken in a short period of time. On the other hand, it
220 F.A. Vollenbroek / Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 215–223
Fig. 4. Environmental policy cycle. This figure is a modified version of a figure in Kuijjer [12].
resulted mainly in the development and implementation
of end-of-pipe technologies. In order to make further
improvements, the Dutch government started in 1990 to
formulate environmental targets and objectives for vari-
ous sectors (target groups) and started negotiations with
these sectors about time scales, technology subsidy
schemes, distributions of costs, etc. The results of these
co-operative actions were described in covenants. Essen-
tial is that industry is largely left free in determining the
means to reach the targets, thus stimulating environmen-
tal innovation. Nevertheless innovation is focused on
optimisation within existing systems, one reason being
the relatively short time horizon of the covenant agree-
ments (5–10 years). An evaluation in the course of prep-
aration of NEPP-4 revealed that there are persisting
environmental problems, such as CO2 and NOx emis-
sions, emissions from agricultural activities, loss of
biodiversity, etc., which cannot be solved with the cur-
rent policy approach and perhaps not with existing
actors.3 These problems can only be solved by system
innovations, which enable the fulfilment of needs in an
entirely new manner. Transition management has the
objective to stimulate this type of innovation, thus being
the logical next step following on the target group pol-
icy. Transition management is also characterised by a
close co-operation between industry and government.
The role of the government, however, changes from con-
troller to partner in a transition. As a partner the govern-
ment should initiate institutional changes and develop
new instruments, such as tax and subsidy schemes, that
3
Ashford [13] argues that dominant technologies are unlikely to
displace themselves and that new entrants are needed to bring about
the required sustainable changes.
are considered to be necessary by the transition partners.
Eventually this process may lead to a new market-driven
situation, in which there is a great deal of policy coher-
ence and prices that stimulate environmentally benign
innovation.
A more detailed overview of the similarities and dif-
ferences between the target group policy and transition
management is shown in Table 2. Fig. 4 and Table 2
may suggest that transition management makes the target
group policy superfluous, but this is not the case. In fact,
the target group policy is a short-term policy, which is
part of the transition agenda. This is visualised in Fig.
5. The figure shows that the current policy is based on
forecasting or foresight methodologies over a period of
10 years. In the best case it anticipates on technologies
that are under development, but in essence it is following
scientific and technological developments. Transition
management includes the formation of a transition
agenda based on long-term targets, thus stimulating
environmentally benign technologies. The challenge
here is to combine the long-term agenda with the earlier
agreed short-term actions in such a way that synergy
arises.
4.2. Transition management and the Dutch
poldermodel
The culture of consultation and consensus building is
deeply rooted in The Netherlands. This is often called
the poldermodel. This model has been functioning for
the economy for a long time and the target group policy
was the start of the ‘green poldermodel’. Although this
model seems to be useful for transition management pur-
poses as well, there is a serious problem to face. This
 F.A. Vollenbroek / Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 215–223 221

Table 2
Characteristics of target group policy and transition management

Target group policy Transition management

1. Actors involved 1. Sectors 1. Stakeholders

2. Target 2. Target 2. Target
앫 formulation 앫 environmental objectives 앫 sustainable development
앫 qualitative or quantitative 앫 quantitative 앫 qualitative and quantitative
앫 time horizon 앫 2010 앫 2001–2030
3. Type of innovation 3. Optimisation 3. System innovations
4. Monitoring 4. Emission reductions 4. Process parameters
5. Government actions 5. Negotiate and control 5. Establish right conditions
6. Primary action of business 6. Implementation 6. Development
7. Planning 7. Forecasting, technology following 7. Backcasting, technology forcing
(ALARA)

leading companies (or new entrants) and the pioneers of

Fig. 5. The current (target group) policy and transition management.
problem is visualised in Fig. 6: on the left there is a
group of companies that are not active at all if innovation
is concerned and thus tend to be backwards to new
developments. In the middle there is a large group of
reactive companies. The majority of these companies act
in the sense of ‘business as usual’ and are not willing
to take the lead in new developments. At the right there
is a relatively small group of leading companies (perhaps
new companies or entrants are required) that are innov-
ative and may be willing to take the lead in sustainable
entrepreneurship. As is shown in the figure the polderm-
odel is typically centred around the left part, where the
speed of innovation is probably determined by the slow-
est movers. Since transition management relies on the
the middle group, the transition arena may be different
from the polder arena. It is difficult to say how severe
this problem is. Thinking in terms of the various phases
of transitions (see Fig. 3), it may be possible to create
changing coalitions during the transition process. NGOs
may be able to play a very important role here since they
can generate rewards for companies that are willing to
commit to public goals. Moreover, the government can
develop instruments, such as insurances for first movers,
revolving funds for pioneers and tax schemes that make
polluting technologies expensive and clean technologies
cheaper. The latter may generate a mechanism that cata-
lyses the creative destruction principle as described by
Schumpeter, i.e., investments in new (environmentally
benign) technologies are financed by taxing the older
polluting technologies.
4.3. Transition management, the production of
knowledge and the role of universities
Technological developments in the second half of the
20th century appear to be quite manageable as is shown
by the industrial research facilities and big projects such
as the first-man-on-the-moon project. Another well-

Fig. 6. The ‘poldermodel’ and the ‘transition model’.

222 F.A. Vollenbroek / Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 215–223
known example of research planning is silicon tech-
nology: Moore’s law, which says that each new
microchip contains twice as much capacity as its prede-
cessor and each microchip being released within 18–24
months of the previous one, is a good example of a man-
made law. In other words, the various companies
involved match their investments in R&D and new pro-
duction facilities in order to make Moore’s law come
true (the costs of capital equipment to build semiconduc-
tors appears to double every four years). The companies
involved act like this because they are convinced that
their competitors will do the same. Thus Moore’s law
has been functioning as a ‘shared perspective for the
future’ for more than two decades. Transition manage-
ment may use the same mechanism to stimulate system
innovations in the field of energy supply, transport (air
and ground) and food production.
Planning of fundamental research is much more peril-
ous since serendipity plays an important role. Moreover,
the creativity of scientists may become in danger if there
is not enough freedom in fundamental research. There-
fore universities should not be controlled by government
too much. On the other hand, universities should develop
a vision on the concept of sustainable development and
the way they can contribute to this goal. The building
of students with multidisciplinary skills and attitudes
reflecting commitment to societal goals are important
aspects of this contribution.
5. Epilogue
History has shown that technological developments
and innovation do not lead automatically to prosperity
and a better quality of life for all. Nevertheless, at the
end of the 1960s, most people in Western economies
seemed to benefit from technological progress. One
could even imagine that the prophecy of Keynes — that
in the year 2030 scarcity would not exist any more —
would came true [14]. This prophecy was based on the
calculation that from 1930 to 2030 the productivity of
man would increase by a factor of seven, which would
be sufficient to abandon scarcity completely. This
increase in productivity would change the 21st century
man into a superman compared with his grandfather.
Obviously this superman was helped by machines, pow-
ered by (fossil) fuel, which seemed to be inexhaustible
at that time. The 1973 oil crisis and The Club of Rome
made clear that oil and other resources, respectively, are
not infinite. Moreover, at the end of the 20th century it
became clear that the regenerative power of nature is
also limited, thus frustrating the economic growth opti-
mism. The challenge of innovation is to deal with these
limitations and to generate as much prosperity as people
wish for, without compromising the abilities of future
generations. Obviously this means that the environmen-
tal burden per unit of prosperity must be minimised. This
requires a thorough rethink of the way we fulfil our
needs. Developing shared perspectives for the future,
from which transition agendas can be derived, may
facilitate this process. Referring to the technological uto-
pia of Francis Bacon, transition management may help
to articulate and monitor societal goals in time (after all,
targets are moving in time) and help policy-makers in
government, universities and companies to match their
agendas with these goals.
An important aspect is that new knowledge and new
technologies tend to give rise to ‘new’ needs. Permanent
societal debates are therefore necessary to find out which
needs are to be met and which will and can not (the
concept of key resources may be helpful here). In fact,
this means that the technology push tradition has to be
replaced by a society pull mechanism. An example of a
need that may emerge in the next decades is space tour-
ism. The question to be answered here is whether we
want to establish this need — it is under construction
already — and if so, what (ecological) price we are pre-
pared to pay.
The challenge of innovation is therefore also a chal-
lenge for mankind: homo faber should work closely
together with homo volens. In other words: technology
should follow people and not the other way around.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank the following persons for
valuable contributions and/or discussions: Ineke Baas,
Maurits Butter, Leendert van Damme, Ronald Fredriksz,
Koos de Groot, Paulien van der Hoeven, Annelieke
Kwak, Mark Overman, Paul Pilgram, Elsbeth Roelofs, Jan
Ros, Paul Tops, Silvie Warmerdam and Rob Weterings.
References
[1] Policy Document on Environment and Economy, Ministry of
Environment, Den Haag, 1998.
[2] Vollenbroek FA, Weterings RAPM, Butter M. Technology
options for sustainable development. In: OECD Proceedings of
the Budapest Workshop: Technology Foresight and Sustainable
Development, 11 December 1998.
[3] Weterings, RAPM, Kuijper, J, Smeets E, Arnokkée GJ, Minne
B. 81 options, technology for sustainable development. Report
by TNO/STB, Delft, 1997.
[4] Heilbroner RL. The worldly philosophers. New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1986.
[5] Tijmes P. Sacraliteit en schaarste. De dubbele huishouding van de
mimese. In: Girard R, editor. Het labyrint van verlangen. Agora:
Pelckmans, 1996 [in Dutch].
[6] Keys for sustainable development: energy, biodiversity and
space. The Hague: Dutch Ministry of Environment, 1999.
[7] Weaver P, Jansen L, van Grootveld G, van Spiegel E, Vergragt
P. Sustainable technology development. Sheffield: Greenleaf
Publishing, 2000.
 F.A. Vollenbroek / Journal of Cleaner Production 10 (2002) 215–223
[8] Te Riele HRM, Duifhuizen SAM, Hötte M, Zijlstra G, Sengers
MAG. Kunnen drie mensen de wereld doen omslaan? [Are three
individuals able to change the world?]. Report by Twynstra
Gudde. The Hague: Ministry of Environment; 2000 [in Dutch].
[9] Van saneren naar innoveren, Report by the Dutch Ministry of
Environment, Den Haag 2000 [in Dutch].
[10] Kemp R, Schot J, Hoogma R. Regime shifts to sustainability
through processes of niche formation. The approach of strategic
niche management. Technol Anal Strategic Manag
1998;10:175–95.
[11] Rotmans J, Kemp R, van Asselt M, Geels F, Verbong G, Molend-
ijk K. Transities and transitie-management. In: Report. Maas-
tricht: International Centre for Integrative Studies (ICIS), Univer-
sity of Maastricht, 2000.
223
[12] Kuijjer HH. From environmental management towards sus-
tainable entrepreneurship. In: Hitchens DMWN, Clausen J,
Fichter K, editors. International environmental management
benchmarks. Berlin: Springer, 1999.
[13] Ashford N. Government and environmental innovation in Europe
and North America. In: Sonnenfeld DA, Mol APJ, editors.
Environmental transformation, governance, and globalization
[special issue]. American Behavioral Scientist, in press.
[14] Keynes JM. Economic possibilities for our grandchildren. In:
Heilbroner RL, editor. The not idly philosophers. New York:
Simon and Schuster, 1986.