Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122696

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore

Multi-sector technology diffusion in urgent net-zero transitions: Niche

splintering in carbon capture technology
Jørgen Finstad *, Allan Dahl Andersen
TIK Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo, Norway

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Transitioning to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century requires rapid diffusion of low-carbon
Carbon capture technologies across numerous sectors. Multi-purpose technologies are expected to solve sustainability prob­
Net-zero transition lems in several sectors. Given the mid-century deadline, diffusion of such technologies must happen in multiple
Diffusion
sectors simultaneously instead of sequentially. Since different sectors have their own set of preferences, technical
Multiple sectors
Sustainability
needs, and institutional characteristics, simultaneous interactions with several sectors increases the complexity
Multi-purpose technologies of diffusion processes. We contribute a new perspective on the diffusion of multi-purpose technologies in the
context of urgent grand challenges. Drawing on insights from the ‘niche anchoring’ and ‘technology speciation’
literatures, we present a framework that puts actors and their sense-making at the centre of the diffusion process.
The framework is applied to the case of carbon capture in Norway, which has recently been applied in multiple
new user sectors simultaneously. We find that diversity in needs, expectations, and technological solutions leads
to increased uncertainty and ‘niche splintering’, which hampers rapid anchoring and diffusion of carbon capture.
In addition to our framework for multi-sector technology diffusion, the paper also contributes by highlighting
challenges for diffusing carbon capture to multiple sectors at the rate seen in many net-zero strategies and
mitigation scenarios.

1. Introduction (Ohlendorf et al., 2023), and a deeper understanding of how such

Past failures to change the trajectory of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions imply that the world economy needs to decarbonize at un­
precedented speed, scale, and depth to avoid uncontrollable climate
change. The challenge is encapsulated in the growing commitment to
achieving net-zero GHG emissions across all sectors by mid-century
(Höhne et al., 2021; IEA, 2021), which presents several new chal­
lenges to transition scholars and policymakers (Andersen et al., 2023;
Markard and Rosenbloom, 2022). Due to the required speed of the
change, multiple sectors need to transition in parallel, which calls for
attention to the issue of multi-sectoral interactions in transitions
(Andersen and Markard, 2020; Kanger et al., 2021; Rosenbloom, 2020).
One manifestation of this issue concerns the diffusion of multi-purpose
technologies that can solve sustainability problems in multiple sectors.
For example, technologies like carbon capture and hydrogen fuel cells
are expected to diffuse rapidly in multiple hard-to-abate sectors at the
same time (Huppmann et al., 2018; IEA, 2021). The multi-sectoral
aspect of technology diffusion increases the complexity of the process
technologies diffuse and what shapes their speed of diffusion is needed
(Andersen et al., 2023; Grubler et al., 2016; Sovacool, 2016).
Traditionally, the diffusion of innovation has been understood as
product adoption by optimizing users in market-based processes that
involve learning, imitation, and feedback effects that, in turn, can alter
the initial innovation (Griliches, 1957; Hall, 2009; Rosenberg, 1972).
More recent work has gone beyond focusing on diffusion of products to
also consider services, ideas, or policies by looking at non-commercial
diffusion processes, and by increasingly seeing diffusion as a process
of societal embedding in terms of economic, social, and cultural di­
mensions (Kanger et al., 2019; Meelen et al., 2019; Sengers et al., 2021;
Wigboldus et al., 2016). The latter reflects a shift from understanding
the process of innovation as a series of discrete steps (e.g. invention,
development, implementation) towards seeing innovation as a non-
linear process in which steps unfold in parallel and one that remains
an ongoing unfinished accomplishment (Garud et al., 2016; Garud et al.,
2013). The perspective calls attention to the fragility of diffusion pro­
cesses that involve continuous re-embedding, experiments, and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jorgen.finstad@tik.uio.no (J. Finstad).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122696
Received 1 July 2022; Received in revised form 7 June 2023; Accepted 8 June 2023
Available online 23 June 2023
0040-1625/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
J. Finstad and A. Dahl Andersen
negotiations; indeed, “it is just as easy for an innovation to fragment, as
it is to cohere” (Garud et al., 2013, p. 798). Aligned with the latter
perspective and building on the multilevel perspective (Geels, 2002,
2004), the notion of niche anchoring provides a sector-oriented
approach for understanding diffusion of a niche technology, as it em­
beds in idiosyncratic sectors that vary in terms of actors and networks,
institutions (e.g., rules and expectations), and technology (Elzen et al.,
2012; Seifu et al., 2020).1 Existing literature considers niche anchoring
across different sectors as a sequential process in which diffusion in one
sector becomes the stepping stone for anchoring in the next one (Geels,
2002; Raven, 2007). As a consequence, the issue of simultaneous
anchoring in multiple sectors has received limited attention.
Insights into what happens when a technology interacts with multiple
sectors can be found in the literature on multi-purpose technologies. A
key characteristic of such technologies (e.g. steam power or lithium-ion
batteries) is that they must satisfy heterogenous service characteristics
across different sectors2 (Bresnahan and Trajtenberg, 1995; David and
Wright, 2003; Malhotra et al., 2021). If user sectors’ service character­
istics differ greatly, new technology variations can appear in ‘speciation
events’ (Frenken and Nuvolari, 2004; Moehrle and Caferoglu, 2019).3
However, the literature on technology speciation largely focuses on
technical factors and downplays institutional and actor dimensions.
Against this background, we ask: How do multi-purpose technologies
anchor and diffuse in multiple sectors simultaneously, and what are the main
challenges?
To engage with the research question, we combine insights from both
the niche anchoring literature and the technology speciation literature
to articulate a conceptual framework that provides a comprehensive
understanding of what happens when a niche technology anchors in
multiple sectors simultaneously. In particular, we draw on the concept
of ‘splintered regimes’ (van Welie et al., 2018) to introduce the notion of
‘niche splintering’ as a multidimensional view of technology speciation,
which we link to anchoring and diffusion.
We apply our framework to a case study of carbon capture technol­
ogy in Norway, where carbon capture was recently applied in many new
user sectors simultaneously. We analyse how such broadening in­
fluences actors’ anchoring activities by focusing on technology de­
velopers and new users of carbon capture technologies. Our data consist
of 21 semi-structured interviews with carbon capture actors, as well as
information obtained from desktop research and a database of R&D
projects.
We find that even though carbon capture is anchoring in multiple
sectors in parallel to advance diffusion, actors tend to pursue diverging
strategies and have diverging expectations about the future carbon
capture technology landscape, which results in niche splintering. We
find that actors are the main enablers of anchoring and splintering, and
that their expectations, sense-making, and strategies as mechanisms of
speciation can be more important than different technical requirements.
If their visions continue to diverge, niche splintering dilutes the chances
of rapid diffusion of carbon capture.
1
Elzen et al. refers to anchoring as the linking between a niche and a regime.
In this paper sector is synonymous with a regime in Elzen et al.’s
conceptualization.
2
Service characteristics traditionally refer to the services a technology can
perform for its users (i.e. a technology property) (Frenken et al., 1999; Saviotti
and Metcalfe, 1984). Because relevant service characteristics are determined by
user sector specificities (e.g. user preferences, institutional conditions, and
technical demands) (Malhotra et al., 2021), we use the term to refer to how user
sectors differ in which service characteristics they demand (i.e. a sector prop­
erty). Diffusion of a technology thus depends on matching its technical char­
acteristics with the service characteristics of user sectors.
3
We view anchoring both as a pre-condition for wide adoption and diffusion
in a specific sectoral setting (Elzen et al., 2012; Seifu et al., 2020) and as a
continuous process that may encounter setbacks and challenges during diffu­
sion (Garud et al., 2016).
2
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122696
The main contribution of our paper is to provide a novel perspective
that advances understandings of anchoring and diffusion of multi-
purpose technologies in multiple sectors that are pivotal in the current
phase of net-zero transitions. Empirically, our study provides a first look
at how actors are dealing with the shift in carbon capture from an
electricity sector technology to becoming a multi-purpose technology
that can help a myriad of different sectors.
2. Theory
In this section we first define how we understand technology and
distinguish between different technologies. Then, in the following sub­
sections we present our theoretical concepts and framework.
We understand technology as a tool that can be used to serve a
purpose (Arthur, 2009) and that comprises both a material artefact and
underlying knowledge bases (Bergek et al., 2008b). We follow Murmann
and Frenken (2006) in using the concept of operational principle to
delineate between different technologies. Operational principle refers to
the knowledge needed to build a technology that will work in the real
world in the desired way. Differences in operational principle across
technologies is a matter of degree; examples are electricity supplied by a
power plant versus a battery (large difference) and different types of
battery technologies such as solid-state versus lithium-ion (less differ­
ence). Even so, it is typically challenging for actors to command and
specialize in multiple technologies covering different operational
principles.
2.1. Niche anchoring and diffusion
Niche technologies are emerging sociotechnical configurations
comprised of three types of elements, which include technology, in­
stitutions, and actors. Development and diffusion of niche technologies
depend on cumulative core processes for each element. The first element
is the quality of learning in the niche in terms of technical performance
and cost of the core artefact, as well as user learning (i.e. whether users
adapt to and learn about the niche solution). The second element,
institutional embedding, includes (1) the existence of complementary
infrastructures, (2) robust shared expectations among niche actors about
future direction of development, and (3) alignment with the institu­
tional environment in which it is to diffuse. The third element is the
development of a broad network of supporting actors, including users,
producers, regulators, investors, and policymakers (Kemp et al., 1998;
Smith, 2007). Actors can mobilize financial, human, and other com­
plementary resources to support the niche technology (Bergek et al.,
2008a). Alignment of expectations both within and across producers and
users regarding directionality of the niche (e.g. agreement on problems
and solutions) is seen as a crucial precondition for technology diffusion
(Yang et al., 2020). These processes can have a cumulative nature that
results in niche momentum achieved through learning, embedding, and
continued mobilization of actors and resources (Geels et al., 2020; Schot
and Geels, 2007).
Niche momentum must be understood in relation to the needs and
particularities of the sectoral regimes in which the niche technology will
be used. The notion of niche anchoring describes how niches gain
foothold in sectors, which is necessary for diffusion to happen (Elzen
et al., 2012; Seifu et al., 2020; Sutherland et al., 2015). Anchoring takes
place in three dimensions corresponding to niche core processes (Elzen
et al., 2012). First, technological anchoring occurs when the technical
characteristics of a technology adapt to fit the needs of new users.
Network anchoring refers to changes in the actors that use, develop, and
produce the technology. In addition, stronger links and more frequent
exchanges between the actors within the network are an indicator of
network anchoring. Institutional anchoring refers to processes whereby
policies and regulations (formal institutions) and norms, visions, and
expectations (informal institutions) become aligned across the niche and
its new use environment (Edquist and Johnson, 1997; Elzen et al., 2012).
J. Finstad and A. Dahl Andersen
Anchoring reflects a process of societal embedding of a niche tech­
nology in a particular user context, which in our case are distinct sectors.
While existing literature acknowledges that exposure to new user en­
vironments can involve significant changes to the niche technology
(Malhotra et al., 2021; Seifu et al., 2020; Sengers et al., 2021), the issue
of niche anchoring in multiple new sectors simultaneously is rarely
discussed. In fact, Schot and Geels (2008) call for more attention to how
interactions with multiple sectors influence niche development patterns
and particularly to the diversity dilemma: although diversity is often
thought to be good for learning and actor enrolment, too much diversity
can create uncertainty, fragment resources, delay commitments, and
prevent emergence of stable institutions. Too much diversity can, in
other words, slow down diffusion.
The concept of anchoring further highlights how diffusion is enacted
by actors that work to create alignment across producers (niche tech­
nology developers) and users (new sectors) in the three dimensions in
which anchoring occurs. Anchoring can require significant resources
from actors, which may therefore have to focus attention on one or few
user sectors at a time (Raven, 2007).
2.2. Diffusion of multi-purpose technologies and speciation
Multi-purpose technology is defined as having multiple different
applications that involve distinct user groups and distinct value drivers
(Battke and Schmidt, 2015). For example, in the case of carbon capture,
applications and user groups range from low-carbon electricity over
green cement to green steel. These each have distinct value drivers in
terms of end markets, albeit the technology functionality (to capture
CO2) remains the same (similar for batteries that charge and discharge
electricity).
The diffusion of multi-purpose technologies such as steam power or
lithium-ion batteries typically starts in one place and one sector and then
spreads from there in largely sequential manner (Bresnahan and Traj­
tenberg, 1995; David and Wright, 2003). For example, steam engines
were first applied in mining to pump water to the surface, and were only
subsequently applied to manufacturing and transport (Frenken and
Nuvolari, 2004). Multi-purpose technologies can therefore be diffusing
in one sector, while several barriers may still exist in other sectors
(Schmidt et al., 2016).
A central feature of multi-purpose technology diffusion is speciation.
Speciation refers to emergence of a new technological ‘species’ as a
consequence of its insertion into a new use environment that has distinct
service characteristics (Adner and Levinthal, 2002; Levinthal, 1998). A
key issue in speciation is that the new ‘offspring’ may start to compete
with its ‘parents’ (Alexander et al., 2012; Levinthal, 1998).
Depending on the extent of difference in service characteristics in
new user sectors, speciation can require minor adaptations or
completely different technology designs (Frenken and Nuvolari, 2004;
Moehrle and Caferoglu, 2019). Indeed, the speciation literature
implicitly distinguishes between minor and major changes in the tech­
nology and knowledge bases (production) and changes in service char­
acteristics (consumption) (see Table 1). Some scholars emphasize major
changes in technology and its underlying knowledge bases in speciation
(Frenken and Nuvolari, 2004), while others emphasize the application of
a technology in a new context (also discussed as exaptation) (Adner and
Levinthal, 2002; Andriani and Cattani, 2016; Levinthal, 1998). We are
primarily interested in speciation that involves both new service char­
acteristics in user sectors and new operational principles that lead to the
emergence of a new technology species in terms of both production and
consumption (Table 1, cell D). For example, new varieties of carbon
3
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122696
capture technology based on distinct knowledge bases have emerged
because the technical needs of new user sectors differ from earlier user
sectors.
Speciation is thus integral to the diffusion of multi-purpose tech­
nology and can influence the process in two ways.4 First, the degree of
technical change needed to satisfy novel service characteristics indicates
how difficult and costly it is to make adaptations to the niche technol­
ogy. Second, the entry to new user sectors can mobilize resources
(financial, human, and complementary assets) from those sectors to
support niche development and potential technological adaptations. The
ability of a technology to attract resources from users depends on
matches with service characteristics and cost (Adner and Levinthal,
2002; Levinthal, 1998). Hence, diffusion of a niche technology in a new
user sector will likely be rapid if many resources are available and the
required adaptation is minor, and vice versa.
2.3. Analytical framework: niche anchoring and splintering
Above we have shown that while the literature on niche diffusion
and anchoring provides a useful multidimensional perspective on the
societal embedding of technologies, existing studies mainly consider
anchoring in one sector at a time (Bakker et al., 2015; Raven, 2007),
resulting in limited insights into challenges related to anchoring in
multiple sectors simultaneously and to speciation dynamics that seem
likely to occur.
We have also shown that, while the literature on multi-purpose
technology and speciation reveals important aspects of diffusion and
anchoring in multiple different sectors, existing studies mainly consider
diffusion and speciation in one sector at the time and they predomi­
nantly focus on technological aspects and ignore institutional and actor
anchoring (exemptions that foreground agency include Cattani, 2006;
Garnsey et al., 2008).
We suggest bringing together these insights under the concept of
niche splintering to gain a better understanding of anchoring and diffu­
sion processes for multi-purpose technologies. Splintering of socio­
technical configurations (regimes and niches) happens when their
performance attributes cannot meet the (changing) service characteris­
tics of users. For example, in Nairobi’s sanitation sector, major differ­
ences among users along the lines of income levels and ethnicity resulted
in differentiated service characteristics that gradually led to the splin­
tering of the regime into multiple sub-regimes, such as sewer-based
public sanitation, on-site sanitation, and container-based and coping
regimes that each involved distinct service providers, user groups, in­
stitutions, and technologies (van Welie et al., 2018).
At the niche level, splintering can happen when the niche technology
is exposed to unfamiliar service characteristics of the new user sectors.
Splintering is thus akin to speciation, but it is inherently multidimen­
sional because splintering into new and more niches not only involves
new technology (with novel operational principles) but also splits in
actor networks and in institutions.
We assume that splintering is a challenge for niche momentum and
diffusion because (1) it weakens directionality in the niche (i.e. increases
diversity and uncertainty), (2) more anchoring activities are needed,
and (3) multiple niche technologies are likely to compete against each
other as each of them tries to anchor in different sectors. Accumulated
resources are thus spread out more thinly than before (Fig. 1). In the
short term, this can slow down niche diffusion within individual sectors
and in the economy overall, due to need for additional learning, insti­
tutional embedding, and resource mobilization, but in the longer term it
may enable widespread diffusion due to better matching between
4
It should be noted that we discuss diffusion in terms of the technology class
(carbon capture) that solves a particular problem (CO2 emissions), whereas
speciation refers to variety of technological artefacts (building on distinct
operational principles) within that class.
J. Finstad and A. Dahl Andersen Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122696

Table 1
Types of speciation changes involved when a technology enters a new user sector.
User sector service characteristics (Consumption)

Change degree Minor Major

Technology (production) Minor A. Similar service characteristics Similar operational principle B. New service characteristics
Similar operational principle
Major C. Similar service characteristics D. New service characteristics
New operational principles New operational principles

Fig. 1. Analytical framework for understanding multi-sector technology diffusion in terms of two processes (A) niche momentum and (B) niche splintering. (A) an
anchoring and diffusion process whereby additional user sectors have similar service characteristics such that they can provide resources to the niche without major
changes in the niche. This leads to niche momentum as anchoring and diffusion progress. (B) an anchoring and diffusion process whereby additional user sectors have
different service characteristics that lead to niche splintering, such that resources are distributed across dispersed and uncoordinated actors.

4
J. Finstad and A. Dahl Andersen Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122696

solutions and sector-specific service characteristics. Obviously, the ef­ years 2021 and 2022. The interviewees were capture technology de­
fect of splintering can be softened by excess resource mobilization. velopers and users from different sectors, as well as various actors from
Whether niche splintering happens in response to diverse service char­ the broader carbon capture and storage (CCS) value chain (see Table 2
acteristics also depends on how actors perceive the availability of for an overview). The interviews lasted approximately 1 h and were
different resources and future market opportunities, and how they assess conducted and recorded online using video communication software.
uncertainties (Cattani, 2006; Garnsey et al., 2008). The recordings were subsequently transcribed. Taken together, our
While the notion of niche splintering seems useful for unpacking the choice of informants captured the wider changes in carbon capture.
particular challenges for diffusion of multi-purpose technologies, we From the technology supplier side, we captured both newer and more
have limited knowledge of how splintering processes happen and established companies with different niche technology designs. From
especially how actors navigate them. In the remaining part of this paper, the user side, we engaged more deeply with the most established sectors,
we therefore analyse how niche splintering unfolds in carbon capture in but we captured a breadth of user perspectives through interviews with
Norway and what the main challenges are. industrial clusters.
The interviews were supplemented with desk research of various
3. Case and methods document sources (e.g. company investor reports, industry reports, and
government White Papers) and analysis of the Norwegian CCS R&D
3.1. Background and case description funding programme, CLIMIT. CLIMIT is the Norwegian government’s
programme for funding research, development, and demonstration of
To assess our framework and expectations, we conducted a single CCS. It contains information about 149 research projects that focused on
case study, as this type of study is suitable for exploring empirically carbon capture in the period 2001–2019. When we use the reference
phenomena that existing theory does not adequately explain (Yin, “(CLIMIT)”, we refer to findings from this database analysis.
2009).
We focused on carbon capture technology in Norway as a unique case
3.3. Analysis
(Flyvbjerg, 2006). Carbon capture has been developed in Norway, which
is one of few countries that has actually deployed carbon capture in
Our analysis of data was structured around the three dimensions of
several projects, including in its oil and gas sector.
niche anchoring. Within each anchoring dimension we looked at the
We focused on the period 2014–2022, when carbon capture shifted
extent of diversity, where low diversity indicated strong anchoring and
from being applied in the oil and gas and electricity sectors towards
growing niche momentum, while high diversity indicated weak
simultaneous deployment in a broad range of sectors in Norway,
anchoring and niche splintering.
including waste-to-energy, cement, hydrogen, and other energy-
To analyse technology anchoring we analysed the extent of technical
intensive sectors involving processing (e.g. aluminium, ferroalloy,
adaptations to new sectors, the role of technology characteristics in
pulp and paper, lime, and steel production). There are several Norwe­
anchoring, and the availability of knowledge resources. Availability of
gian developers of carbon capture technologies, many of which are
knowledge resources were used to assess whether the niche actors had
actively engaged with a diverse set of sectors.
the knowledge base and necessary skills for anchoring and operating the
At the same time as new user sectors received attention, the variety
technology. Diversity indicated the extent of co-existing technical so­
of carbon capture technologies on the market increased (IEA, 2020;
lutions for carbon capture.
Leung et al., 2014; Mikulčić et al., 2019; Song et al., 2019). The main
For institutional anchoring we focused on niche and user actor’s ex­
categories with different operational principles include post-combustion
pectations regarding the future and on how institutional diversity
technologies, which involve capturing the CO2 from the flue gas of some
arising from new sectors influences anchoring. Diversity of regulations
processes after combustion has taken place. Pre-combustion technolo­
and policies across sectors suggests that niche actors must engage in
gies capture the CO2 before the combustion process has taken place. In
oxyfuel separation, the air in a combustion process is replaced by almost
pure oxygen. However, also within these categories, there are differ­ Table 2
Overview of the informants.
ences in operational principles. For example, there is a variety of ‘sub­
categories’ based on how the CO2 molecule is separated from a flue gas Informant code Role Sector
or process, including chemical absorption (with amines being the most Supplier 1 Supplier Carbon capture
common solvent), membrane capture, and others. These, in turn, have supplier
their own range of varieties, with several proprietary amines, mem­ Supplier 2 Supplier Carbon capture
supplier
branes, and other solvents (see Section 4.3.4). It is worth noting that a
Supplier 3 Supplier Carbon capture
lot of promising new capturing solutions are still at an early technology supplier
readiness level, while post-combustion with amines remains the most Supplier 4 Supplier Carbon capture
mature and established solution. supplier
Supplier 5 Supplier Carbon capture
Carbon capture has particular technology characteristics. It typically
supplier
comes in the form of large-scale and customized technologies con­ User 1 User Cement
structed at the site of the CO2-emitting facility. Projects have long lead User 2 User Cement
times – the development of some projects has taken a decade or more – User 3 User Waste-to-energy
and they have had a high rate of failure (Lipponen et al., 2017). For these User 4 User Waste-to-energy
User 5 User Industrial cluster
reasons, projects are costly and capital intensive, which makes experi­
User 6 User Industrial cluster
ments challenging (Malhotra and Schmidt, 2020). Industry association Represents users and suppliers Oil and gas
As carbon capture in Norway is anchoring in multiple sectors 1
simultaneously and showing signs of niche splintering, the case is suit­ CCS value chain 1 Transport and storage Oil and gas
able for understanding the challenges of technology diffusion across Public agency 1 Public R&D support agency N/A
Public agency 2 Public R&D support agency N/A
multiple sectors simultaneously. Public agency 3 Public R&D support agency N/A
R&D organization 1 R&D for organizations and N/A
3.2. Data universities
NGO 1 ENGO N/A
NGO 2 ENGO N/A
Our main data source was 21 semi-structured interviews held in the

5
J. Finstad and A. Dahl Andersen
significant and costly adaptation during the anchoring process. If
informal institutions such as business culture, worldviews, and visions
that shape expectations differ across sectors, this will have similar
effects.
To analyse the influence of actors and networks on niche anchoring,
we focused on the enrolment of new actors, diversity of users’ strategies,
and diversity of suppliers’ technology strategies. Diversity indicates
whether or not niche actors pull in the same direction in terms of
technological solutions and the problems they address.
On the basis of the above-described methods, we analysed the
interview transcripts and the data from the CLIMIT database. The
transcripts were coded in NVivo by the first author. For the first few
interviews, the second author was involved in the discussion and sense-
making of the coding and how it related to the theoretical framework.
Through the coding process we identified several phenomena of rele­
vance, which we categorized into our three dimensions of anchoring.
The empirical indicators in Table 3 were thus identified inductively from
the data. After analysing our data (Section 4), we discussed the findings
in relation to niche splintering and diffusion (Section 5).
4. Analysis
In this section we present our analysis of multi-sector anchoring of
the Norwegian carbon capture niche.
4.1. Technology anchoring
There are two features of the carbon capture niche that particularly
challenge technology anchoring: scale and complexity of the technol­
ogy, and the need for customization due to user sector differences. In
addition, scarce knowledge resources are a concern.
4.1.1. Qualifying capture technology for diverse user sectors and facilities
Capture technologies react differently to different flue gasses, and
different user sectors (and their industrial processes) emit different types
and concentrations of flue gasses. Hence, there is a range of different
capture technologies, each of which needs to be qualified for the service
characteristics of different user sectors and facilities. This typically re­
quires long test periods in each sector or at each facility. Such tests can
be performed either by building an on-site customized pilot plant or by
using a mobile pilot plant. This mode of experimentation implies that
technological anchoring is costly and time-consuming.
Extensive customization of carbon capture is often needed to
accommodate sector and plant specificities. For example, technology
components must be designed to fit the concentration of CO2 in the flue
gas. In a gas power plant with low CO2 concentrations, the dimensions of
components such as pipes and absorbers will have to be larger to allow
Table 3
Analytical scheme.
Dimension in multi-sectoral technology Examples of empirical Indicator
diffusion
Technology anchoring Scale of adaptations and qualification
measures
Supplier strategies for technology
anchoring
Availability of knowledge resources
Actor and network anchoring Enrolment of new and diversified actors
Intensification and diversification of
collaborations
Diversity of supplier’s user sector strategy
Diversity of suppliers’ technology strategy
Institutional anchoring Diversity of expectations
Diversity of technology expectations
Diversity of institutional environments
Diversity of policy needs for resource
mobilization
6
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122696
more flue gas to pass through the system compared with a sector with
higher CO2 concentrations (e.g. cement) (Suppliers 1, 3, Public agency
1). Other areas of customization include space availability, energy de­
mand, and waste heat availability. For example, carbon capture with
post-combustion amines requires a lot of heat and energy, but if waste
heat is available at a facility, it can be used to reduce the energy cost.
Heat will generally be available at waste-to-energy facilities, yet many
such facilities also supply district heating. The waste heat is a product in
itself, and there are requirements regarding how much district heating
companies are supposed to deliver. As such, if the heat is wanted for
carbon capture, it may be necessary to upgrade the heat for use/reuse for
district heating. As a consequence, the use of waste heat for carbon
capture in a facility connected to district heating might require much
more advanced integration of the capturing plant than the same process
requires in a different sector (Supplier 1). Meanwhile, a complete lack of
waste-heat in a sector/facility could make a technology such as mem­
brane technology a better fit than solvent-based capture (User 5).
In sum, there are important differences between user sector service
characteristics, which require the different technology designs to be
adapted. Understanding these differences has received increased focus
in the carbon capture niche (CLIMIT, R&D Organization 1, User 5). In
terms of R&D, 18 CLIMIT projects were motivated by understanding
adaptation to distinct sectors. Of those projects, 12 were funded in the
period 2016–2019, thus indicating an increase in attention to these
issues.
4.1.2. Supplier strategies for technology anchoring
One of the reasons users require extensive qualification procedures
and experiments is the high CapEx (capital expenditure) of carbon
capture. To ease the anchoring process, actors work to reduce both the
cost of qualifying the technology for use in new sectors and the cost of
capture overall.
To ease technology anchoring, Supplier 1 and 2 have developed
mobile pilot plants that they can bring to different facilities. The mobile
plants enable companies to faster and more easily, (1) adapt and qualify
the technology for a new flue-gas, and (2) de-risk projects for their
customers, since they can prove that the technology will work on the gas
of the customer’s facility without the need for building a custom pilot
plant. The development of such plants is also motivated by the inter­
action with multiple sectors, which increases the need to qualify their
technologies for use on vastly different flue gases.
To reduce costs, suppliers focus on standardization and modulari­
zation of their components and overall capture designs (Suppliers 1–5).
For smaller emissions sources, all suppliers have developed module-
based turnkey technology solutions. These can be built in a workshop,
fit in a container, and transported to the user facility for integration. By
standardizing and modularizing, suppliers expect to enable a much
greater potential for cost reduction through cheaper production pro­
cesses. For smaller emission sources, more modular designs could allow
for a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, which suppliers see as the best way to
make capture from small to medium emitters viable (Suppliers 1, 3, 4).
For the larger plants, standardization is also motivated by cutting costs,
but these plants are too large to be transported and instead have to be
built on-site. Therefore, the focus is on standardizing certain compo­
nents or modules within the plant, and not on developing a fully
modular capture design.
From the perspective of an urgent net-zero transition, the trade-offs
between standardization and customization have implications for how
fast carbon capture will anchor in multiple sectors. While standardiza­
tion enables cost reductions in technology production through learning,
it implies that capture cannot be optimized for the flue gas of specific
sectors. For example, a fully standardized solution might capture 70 % of
emissions from a facility in one sector, while capturing 90 % from
another (Suppliers 1, 2, 3). This means there are trade-offs between
decreasing the CapEx of carbon capture and its potential effectiveness
for reducing emissions from specific plants. At this stage of carbon
J. Finstad and A. Dahl Andersen
capture anchoring, the interviewed suppliers argued that it was more
important to get more (standardized) plants up and running fast, than to
capture the maximum amount of CO2 from each sector:
if it is cheaper to capture 50 %, we should focus on that rather than
capturing 100 %. Better to capture 50 % on two plants rather than 90
% on one.
(Supplier 3)
4.1.3. Availability of knowledge resources
Anchoring of a complex technology such as carbon capture requires
the right knowledge resources for both users and suppliers. Further­
more, carbon capture requires new types of knowledge in some sectors:
[now we] have two products. One product is the cement, as we have
done for more than 100 years, and the second one is liquified,
pressured gas, which is new to us.
(User 2)
Moreover, lack of knowledge about carbon capture within user
companies is a potential challenge in anchoring processes:
[some companies] are not even close to having an understanding of
the complexity of the whole infrastructure logistics. At first, you
think it’s a plug-and-play technology, but clearly there’s a lot more to
it than that.
(Supplier 3)
Some interviewees pointed to a lack of human resources in the
Norwegian carbon capture innovation systems, and that finding people
with the right competencies could prove challenging (Suppliers 3, 4,
User 4):
We need to educate new process engineers for the future. because if
you are talking to [users from more mature projects], they say ‘one
critical part is do you actually have the in-house competence’. […]
And that is the main challenge when it comes to CCS for the time
being I think, many companies don’t have that competence. […] But
we know that if you look at NTNU in Trondheim, I don’t think there
are any studies when it comes to process engineers from CCS. We
need people in place in 2025, 2026.
(User 4)
4.2. Institutional anchoring
4.2.1. Informal institutions
4.2.1.1. Visions of carbon capture as a mitigation option in the net-zero
transition. The vision of carbon capture as a decarbonization solution
has gone from a ‘possible decarbonization solution’ to a ‘must have’ one
in recent years in some sectors (e.g. in waste-to-energy and cement)
(Users 1–4, Supplier 4):
Now nobody talks about whether this is necessary. All say that this is
necessary. All agree that we need to do it.
(User 4)
This vision is based on expected market growth and cost declines.
Among suppliers there is a clear expectation that the market will grow
rapidly across multiple user sectors over the coming years. The expec­
tation is that the focus on standardization, combined with more projects
(at different scales) coming online, will unlock rapid cost reductions,
which in turn will allow for further diffusion and market growth (Sup­
pliers 1–5):
We are in a competition but at the same time we are also in the
market where the opportunities are almost endless.
(Supplier 2)
7
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122696
Actors in new user sectors expect that the cost of capture will
decrease while the cost of emitting will increase. They also expect cus­
tomers will be willing to pay a premium for green products. For
example, sectors with capture from biocarbon, expect there will be
customers willing to buy certificates/negative emissions from bio-
incineration/bioenergy with CCS (Users 1–5).
Broadly speaking, the interviewed users and suppliers seem to be
aligned in their expectations of the future availability of resources and
market growth. Their expectations were based on an expected increase
in the cost of emitting carbon, an expected decrease in cost of capture
technology, and the scale of CCS in most climate change mitigation
scenarios (Supplier 1–5, Users 1–3, 5).
4.2.1.2. Visions of technological solutions. Even though users and sup­
pliers share an overall vision, they differ in their understanding of how
that vision will be realized, especially regarding the technology mix.
Among users there is a focus on trying to understand which capture
design is most suited for the characteristics of their sector. Users thus
expect that a portfolio of capturing technologies will develop and that
different designs will be better suited for different sectors and facilities
(Users 1–5).
Although most ongoing projects use the most mature and thus
available technological option (post-combustion with amines), several
users are exploring other technology designs at the same time. There is a
strong expectation among users that multiple different designs will
diffuse over time (Users 1–5).
The expectation of a portfolio of technologies is not shared by all
technology suppliers, as can be seen by their user sector strategies (cf.
Section 4.3.4). As a consequence, many technology suppliers are tar­
geting the same markets, thereby making the different capture designs
compete. Overall, niche actors do not share a common vision for the
directionality of carbon capture. There is a high degree of diversity in
their expectations regarding the future technology landscape.
4.2.2. Formal institutions
4.2.2.1. Anchoring in multiple different institutional environments.
Anchoring in different user sectors requires adaptation by carbon cap­
ture suppliers to align with the institutional environments in which they
are anchoring. Several capture suppliers have roots in the oil and gas
sector. From there, they are used to clients with large engineering de­
partments, flexible budgets, and long technology qualification processes
that invest extensively in innovation (Andersen and Gulbrandsen,
2020). In the new user sectors there is less flexibility in project designs,
smaller profit margins, and limited in-house engineering competencies,
as well as a more conservative stance on investment in innovation. This
shift in institutional environment, including the division of labour and
mode of collaboration, requires adaptation to the project management
approach from both the developer and the user. It also serves as extra
motivation for standardization, since the user sectors expect more
turnkey technology solutions as opposed to lengthy engineering
projects:
[new user sectors] have been more efficient in how they operate and
in how they cost their services … we need to bring that thinking into
the CCS industry as well.
(Supplier 3)
There are also significant differences between the formal institutions
of the new user sectors. In this respect, the two new sectors with the most
mature capture projects (cement and waste-to-energy) are good
examples.
Waste-to-energy facilities in Norway are often owned and run by
municipalities (or companies owned by municipalities). They struggle
with low-profitability due to the international nature of the waste
market. In particular, the Norwegian facilities compete with the Swedish
J. Finstad and A. Dahl Andersen Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122696

market. Swedish facilities can generally offer lower gate fees for the Table 4
waste because they earn higher revenues compared with Norwegian Publicly announced projects involving the five technology suppliers inter­
plants (Becidan et al., 2015). Waste-to-energy is not part of the EU viewed. Not all projects are in Norway.
Emissions Trading System (ETS ETS) (Users 3, 4, Supplier 4). User sector Type of project Scale of capture (tons
Norway’s two cement plants are owned by a multinational company. per year)
There is very limited international trade and a large part of the cement Bio-incineration Commercial (Planned 90,000
consumption in Norway is from publicly owned companies/organiza­ (district heating) operating start in 2024)
tions, such as road and governmental building authorities. Cement is Waste-to-energy Commercial (Planned 10,000
operating start in 2023)
part of the EU ETS.
Cement Commercial (Planned 400,000
operating start in 2024)
4.2.2.2. Policies and resource mobilization. While expectations of market Waste-to-energy Commercial (Planned 100,000
development are high for both users and suppliers, anchoring requires operating start in 2023)
Blue hydrogen Commercial (Planned N/A
policy changes that will allow users of carbon capture to have a finan­
operating start in 2022)
cially viable business model. This will come with different challenges for Waste-to-energy Feasibility study 100,000
different sectors. Waste-to-energy Feasibility study ~ 500,000
Using the same examples as above, in the cement sector, the large Refinery Feasibility study ~ 600,000
share of public customers implies green procurement schemes could Ferrosilicon Feasibility study N/A
Gas power FEED N/A
help cover the increased cost of carbon capture (Suppliers 1, 2, Users 1,
Bioenergy Pilot/FEED N/A
2). As cement is part of the EU ETS, increased CO2 taxes will also
incentivize capture.
Given the low profitability and owners with limited extra capital, of emitting CO2, the need to decarbonize in order to maintain a social
designing policies for waste-to-energy can be challenging. For this sector ‘licence to operate’, and the absence of alternative solutions to carbon
there is an unresolved issue of who should pay for CO2 capture. While a capture. The coupling to new user sectors can also be seen in the Nor­
CO2 tax generally targets the emission source, a general expectation is wegian CCS R&D funding programme, CLIMIT. Over the past decade
that the cost will have to be moved to the producers of the waste (i.e. new actors from sectors such as ferrosilicon, cement, refining, and
consumers/citizens) and that there needs to be a CO2 tax on waste waste-to energy have become involved in research projects. Several new
production (Suppliers 2–4, Users 3, 4). For the biogenic CO2 in waste users are big companies that control significant resources that can
incineration, there is an expectation that part of the cost of capture could benefit the niche.
be covered either by selling offsets or through negative emissions (Users In addition, a new type of technology user has emerged in the form of
3, 4, NGO 1, Suppliers 2, 4). However, since emissions from Norwegian industrial clusters, in which users from different sectors collectively
waste-to-energy plants tend to be a mix of biogenic and fossil CO2, they explore CCS. Three industrial clusters, covering sectors such as
could fall outside the scope of the incentives and regulations that target aluminium, ferrosilicon, manganese, cement, waste-to-energy, and pulp
pure biogenic sources (as has been discussed by the EU) (User 4). and paper, have received funding from CLIMIT to establish or investi­
In sum, new policies and regulations are still needed for successful gate the potential for establishing CCS hubs.
anchoring and there is diversity in the policy needs of different sectors. In sum, the entry of several new actors is leading to an increase in
diversity in the actor composition among both users and suppliers.

4.3. Actor and network anchoring
4.3.1. Enrolment of new and diverse actors
Several new suppliers are currently entering the Norwegian carbon
capture niche. At least six Norwegian carbon capture supplier com­
panies have been founded since 2017, compared with about 3–4 active
suppliers in the preceding years. The new entrants include established
companies that are engaging more actively (e.g. by creating spin-off
companies focused solely on carbon capture) and start-ups. Some po­
tential users of carbon capture are becoming technology suppliers
themselves. For instance, Supplier 4 spun-out of, and is partially owned
by, a power/waste-to-energy company.
Supplier entry is motivated by current growing demand. All suppliers
have experienced increased demand and interest from actors in new user
sectors:
Just within a couple of years […] from 2019 to 2020 […] commer­
cial leads […] increased by more than 300 % because there were so
many clients coming in, asking ‘How can we use carbon capture to
reduce our emissions?’
(Supplier 1)
As shown in Section 4.2.1, actors expect that the market will grow
rapidly in the future. The growing interest is now starting to show in
publicly announced pilot, demonstration, and commercial projects. An
overview of publicly announced activities among the interviewed sup­
pliers is presented in Table 4.
As is evident from the above discussion, the number of actors from
new user sectors connecting to the Norwegian carbon capture niche is
growing rapidly. This growth is based on an expected increase in the cost
4.3.2. Intensification and diversification of actor collaborations
The characteristics of carbon capture combined with the urgency of
diffusion are affecting how actors collaborate and approach collabora­
tion, which is leading to stronger links between actors (Suppliers 2, 3, 5,
Users 1–5). In addition, as described in Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.3, a more
diverse set of actors is contributing to carbon capture R&D. This applies
to collaboration within individual sectors, across different user sectors,
and between users and suppliers (Users 1–5), such as in the three clusters
mentioned in the preceding Section 4.3.1. These collaborations focus on
sharing knowledge and resources (financial, human, and infrastructure)
for knowledge development. Matching the right technology solution to
the characteristics of different users and sectors is a direct motivation for
some of these cluster collaborations:
We want to look to a much greater extent at the prerequisites of the
sources and contribute to ensuring one can choose between several
technologies that must mature.
(User 5)
The sense of urgency has also led to stronger collaboration between
users and suppliers. For instance, big companies on the user side are
contributing resources to Supplier 5’s R&D activities to help accelerate
the R&D process (Supplier 5):
They want to join to contribute on R&D activities as well. […] They
are helping us with resources and focus. We are kind of accelerating
our development plants because the market requires bigger plants,
and the market also understands that we need to do development to
get there.
(Supplier 5)

8
J. Finstad and A. Dahl Andersen Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122696

4.3.3. Diversity of suppliers’ user sector strategies production from both natural gas and biomethane, but the capture and
We have found that technology suppliers follow different but partly hydrogen production from raw biogas requires adaptation and this
overlapping strategies for which user sectors they are targeting. For design is at an earlier phase of development.
instance, Suppliers 1 and 2 are targeting both large and small emission
sources, while Suppliers 3 and 4 are focusing on small-scale emissions 5. Discussion
(Table 5). Also, some suppliers target multiple sectors, while others
specialize in one sector (e.g. Supplier 5 focuses on hydrogen production, In this section we summarize and discuss the results of our analysis
see Section 4.3.4). regarding how anchoring in multiple sectors unfolds and what the main
The broadening search for user sectors can also be seen in the CLIMIT barriers are (Section 5.1). We further discuss the implications of our
database, where an increasing number of research project descriptions findings for theory (Section 5.2) and policy (Section 5.3).
explicitly mention a broader set of user sectors (Fig. 2).
5.1. Niche splintering and anchoring of carbon capture
4.3.4. Diversity of suppliers’ technology strategies
Of the five interviewed suppliers, four supply post-combustion Based on our framework, we expected that niche splintering could
capturing technologies (Table 6), as these are easiest to install in exist­ hinder niche momentum because splintering would necessitate more
ing industrial facilities. The four post-combustion technologies are anchoring activities and disperse resources more thinly. This could slow
solvent-based capture technologies, but there are significant differences down the anchoring process and diffusion (in the short run) but the ef­
between them. The other supplier focuses on integrated pre-combustion fects of splintering could be softened by excess resource mobilization. In
capture. The different carbon capture designs differ in terms of opera­ this section we summarize the insights from our analysis in terms of (1)
tional principles and necessary knowledge bases. whether or not splintering is happening (i.e. the directionality of the
Supplier 1 uses post-combustion with proprietary amines but also niche) and (2) the resource availability and mobilization in the carbon
explores new and more radical capture designs. They expect post- capture niche, and thereafter we use the insights to assess and discuss
combustion amines will dominate the market for at least the next whether or not our expectations were realized.
10–15 years and are focusing on making that technology more stan­
dardized as a way to cut costs. 5.1.1. Niche directionality – diversity or alignment
Supplier 4 also provide post-combustion amine capture but with a We found that carbon capture is clearly in the process of anchoring in
different proprietary amine. In the long run, they view themselves as multiple user sectors. There is alignment in terms of optimistic visions of
technology agnostic, and could supply different designs from different the future technology market, which has led to several new actors
developers. entering the carbon capture niche and serves as motivation for actors to
Supplier 3’s technology is comparable with traditional post- continue the anchoring process.
combustion with amine capture technologies, whereby solvent is used While expectations for market growth align, there is diversity in
to extract the CO2 from the flue gas. The key difference from traditional several other dimensions that affect niche anchoring (Table 7). New user
designs is that their technology uses centrifugal forces to distribute the sectors have distinct institutional environments and diverse service
solvent rather than relying on gravity. This allows for a smaller scale characteristics, which leads to lengthy technological anchoring pro­
technology than more conventional designs. The technology is also cesses. The variety in service characteristics also serves as a rationale for
solvent agnostic and could be tuned for different solvents. A core focus the emergence of new technology designs and there are diverging vi­
of the company has been on reducing the size and cost of the plant sions about what this increasingly varied technology landscape will look
through process intensification. like in the future. Suppliers try to anchor their technology in a diverse set
Supplier 2’s technology has a similar design to post-combustion of sectors leading to competition between the different designs (i.e.,
amine technologies but uses hot potassium carbonate (HPC) as a sol­ parent-offspring competition). Meanwhile, users are searching for the
vent instead of amines. The use of HPC leads to differences in compo­ ‘right’ solution for their sector. This diversity complicates anchoring and
nents from traditional amine designs. To work efficiently the HPC indicates niche splintering whereby different actors form networks
process requires a certain amount of pressure. Therefore, the company around different technology and user-supplier configurations.
has focused on how to recuperate the energy required to pressurize the Taken together, this means that while there is overall growth in the
flue gas. This means, HPC cannot simply replace the use of amines. carbon capture niche (more actors, shared high market expectations),
Supplier 5’s technology is an integrated pre-combustion design exposure to multiple, diverse new user sectors absorbs a lot of resources
meant for new facilities. The technology is specifically designed for (in the short term). As niche actors explore different paths forward, this
clean hydrogen production. The same design can be used for hydrogen forces multiple anchoring processes to take place at the same time. The
characteristics of carbon capture (complex and lumpy) make this an
even slower process.
Table 5
Diversity of anchoring strategies.
5.1.2. Resource availability
Informant Scope Sector focus Size of plants In addition to bringing in new actors, aligned optimistic visions of
code
the future contribute to increased resource mobilization (Table 8). Users
Supplier 1 Broad Cement, waste-to-energy, bio- Small and large from different sectors come together (often in collaborations with sup­
incineration, gas power, emissions pliers) in cluster collaborations to pool their resources. This includes
ferrosilicon, pulp and paper, glass sources
production, refineries, chemical
knowledge resources and together figuring out whether and how carbon
industry capture can work for the various actors. Coming together allows for
Supplier 2 Broad Cement, waste-to-energy, bio- Small and large sharing costs involved in infrastructure complementary to carbon cap­
incineration, refineries, chemical emissions ture and for the broader carbon capture and storage value chain (e.g.
industry sources
infrastructure for transporting the CO2).
Supplier 3 Broad Waste-to-energy, bio-incineration, Small emission
processing industry sources Projects that are ongoing/in pipeline are mostly driven by niche
Supplier 4 Narrow Waste-to-energy, bio-incineration Small emission actors’ expectations of major resource mobilization in terms of higher
sources CO2 pricing and green premiums on products. There are also expecta­
Supplier 5 Narrow Hydrogen from gas Small and large tions of reduced costs of capture technology. However, exposure to
facilities
multiple sectors with diverse institutional configurations makes

9
J. Finstad and A. Dahl Andersen Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122696

Fig. 2. User sectors mentioned in carbon capture research project descriptions in the CLIMIT database. Sorted by year of initial funding. Projects with no explicit
mention of user sectors are not included. ‘Other’ refers to sectors with only one mention each.

Table 6 Table 7
Overview of analysed supplier’s technologies. Identified factors that influence niche technology directionality.
Informant code Type of technology CO2 separation method Diversity Diversity or Description of diversity/ Niche
dimension alignment alignment dynamics’
Supplier 1 Post-combustion Proprietary amine
impact
Supplier 2 Post combustion Hot potassium carbonate
Supplier 3 Post-combustion Solvent agnostic There are differing visions
Technology visions
Supplier 4 Post-combustion Amine (short term) Diversity of the future technology Splintering
and expectations
Supplier 5 Integrated pre-combustion Solid sorbent landscape.
There is alignment of niche
actors’ expectations of
Market visions and
designing policies and unlocking such mechanisms that much harder. expectations
Alignment rapid market growth and a Momentum
Niche splintering can lead to multiple technology and user-supplier ‘need’ for carbon capture in
the user sectors.
configurations. This complicates cost reductions through learning by Suppliers have different
using, limits possibilities for knowledge sharing, and reduces opportu­ technology designs.
nities for pooling of resources between different niche-sector configu­ Supplier Suppliers target many of
rations. Instead of sharing the knowledge pool, the different technology and Diversity the same user sectors, Splintering
user strategies meaning there is
configurations must compete for limited available knowledge resources.
competition between the
different technologies.
5.1.3. Combined effect on niche anchoring and diffusion There is diversity in the
Institutional
In sum, while resource availability in the carbon capture niche is diversity
Diversity norms and rules of the Splintering
growing, simultaneous exposure to multiple heterogenous sectors is different user sectors
Different user sectors
leading to a significant share of attention and resources being tied up in Diversity in policy require different polices to
parallel anchoring processes (Table 9). Combined with the particular­ Diversity Splintering
needs make carbon capture
ities of carbon capture (complex and lumpy), multi-sector exposure viable.
makes anchoring a rather slow process. If not for niche splintering, these Different sectors have
Differences in
different technology needs.
resources could arguably have contributed to further improvement of technology
Diversity Actors’ needs to reduce Splintering
the more established niche solution and have accelerated diffusion needs of user
uncertainty leads to longer
sectors
instead. qualification processes
Both the splintering and the anchoring process are driven and
motivated by actors’ expectations of major resource mobilization

10
J. Finstad and A. Dahl Andersen Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122696

Table 8 Table 9
Identified factors that influence mobilization of resources for the niche Combined effect on niche anchoring and diffusion.
technology. Dimension Impact on anchoring Impact on near-
Dimension Description Impact on resource term diffusion
availability / mobilization
Technology visions and Slows technological anchoring as Slows diffusion
Technology visions There are differing visions Available resources are expectations users search for the ‘right’ solution
and expectations about the future technology distributed thinly across Market visions and Indication of successful Accelerates
landscape. different solutions. expectations institutional anchoring diffusion
Market visions and There is alignment of niche Resources are committed Supplier technology and Complicates anchoring as actors Slows diffusion
expectations actors’ expectations of rapid by many technology user strategies search for the ‘right’ solutions and
market growth and a ‘need’ suppliers and users. network configurations
for carbon capture in the user Institutional diversity Complicates institutional Slows diffusion
sectors. anchoring as actors must adapt to
Supplier technology Suppliers have different Available resources are different practices
and user strategies technology designs. distributed thinly across Diversity in policy Complicates institutional Slows diffusion
Suppliers target many of the different solutions and needs anchoring
same user sectors, meaning problems. Differences in Makes technological anchoring Slows diffusion
there is competition between technology needs of costly and slow.
the different technologies sectors
Institutional There is diversity in the Absorbs resources Accelerates
Enrolment of actors Indicates anchoring in progress
diversity norms and rules of the diffusion
different user sectors. Networks, clusters Accelerates
Indicates anchoring in progress
Diversity in policy Different user sectors require Without the right polices in (collaboration) diffusion
needs different polices to make place, actors hesitate to Makes technological anchoring
Characteristics of CC Slows diffusion
carbon capture viable. commit enough resources. costly and slow.
Differences in Different sectors have Absorbs resources Smaller and cheaper solutions
Focus on modularity Accelerates
technology needs different technology needs. make anchoring cheaper and
and standardization diffusion
of sectors Actors’ needs to reduce faster.
uncertainty lead to longer Competition over scarce Slows anchoring as users search for
Slows diffusion
qualification processes capabilities or develop knowledge resources
Enrolment of several new
Enrolment of actors actors, both users and Brings additional resources
suppliers
Networks, clusters Allows for knowledge
diffusion of (multi-purpose) technologies that are applied in multiple
Resources are pooled. sectors.
(collaboration) sharing
The complex and costly Overall, we found the approach useful for grasping and analysing the
Characteristics of nature of carbon capture
Absorbs resources complexity of anchoring in multiple new sectors simultaneously. Our
carbon capture complicates qualification for
integration of different theories to conceptualize our phenomenon of
new sectors.
Reduces resource needs, interest is in itself a contribution to niche anchoring (Elzen et al., 2012;
Focus on modularity Faster and cheaper Sutherland et al., 2015) and speciation literatures (Frenken and Nuvo­
lowers CAPEX, strengthens
and production, smaller of-the-
standardization shelf solutions
learning-by-producing lari, 2004; Levinthal, 1998; Moehrle and Caferoglu, 2019) that advances
effects the general understanding of diffusion of multi-purpose technologies.
Competition over A lack of knowledge and Resources are distributed
By studying anchoring and splintering as a process, we revealed
scarce capabilities financial resources. thinly across many sectors.
some novel insights. We will highlight three issues: (1) uncertainty and
actor expectations as drivers for niche splintering, (2) the role of tech­
through policy mechanisms. Actors pin their expectations on the belief nology characteristics, and (3) idiosyncratic context.
that it ‘must happen’ if the world is to avoid uncontrollable climate
change. Arguably, this belief that it must, and therefore will, happen is a 5.2.1. Uncertainty and actor expectations, drivers for niche splintering
driving force for niche splintering. Users strive to find the right solution While splintering of sociotechnical systems has been discussed
because they ‘have to’ decarbonize, while suppliers pursue a range of elsewhere (van Welie et al., 2018), we provide some first insights into
what they expect to be rapidly growing markets for their product. Niche the process of splintering. Differences in sector problems translate into
splintering implies that a lot of niche resources will continue to be rather idiosyncratic service characteristics and availability of resources;
drained in multiple anchoring processes, thus slowing niche momentum. these are the starting points for niche splintering.
Our case study shows that in one of the leading carbon capture Our analysis revealed that during anchoring processes it is not
countries in the world, there are more resources going into the niche but, necessarily clear what technological solutions fit best with which sec­
due to niche splintering, a lot of these are expended during the toral problems, and that actors have different understandings of this
anchoring process, as resources are used to reduce uncertainty, explore a issue. We argued that actors and their sense making and strategies are at
growing number of technical solutions, and understand sector-specific the core of the niche splintering processes (Garud et al., 2016); our
problems. Overall, our findings highlight the immense challenge of analysis supports this argument.
deployment of carbon capture technology along the lines of mitigation The above-mentioned insights demonstrate more forcefully than in
pathways that keep global warming within a range of 1.5–2 ◦ C warming. previous literature (Cattani, 2006; Garnsey et al., 2008) that uncer­
tainty, actor perceptions, sense-making, and expectations can be more
5.2. Insights for theory important for whether or not technological speciation happens than
actual resource availability and cross-sectoral differences. How actors
Our analysis and results have implications for how we think about face this uncertainty is one of the driving factors of niche splintering, as
niche anchoring and diffusion in the context of urgent net-zero transi­ actors form different networks around separate solutions that ‘work for
tions and more generally in an era of grand societal challenges. us’.
We suggested a multidimensional approach for understanding in­ The fact that our focal niche technology is anchoring in multiple
teractions with new user sectors during the diffusion process. By inte­ sectors simultaneously augments complexity and uncertainty. Similar
grating the notions of niche anchoring and speciation we created a mechanisms would probably be involved in sequential sector anchoring,
framework of niche splintering. We used this framework for exploring but identifying, understanding, and matching solutions and problems

11
J. Finstad and A. Dahl Andersen
would be less complicated. Our study thus suggests that understanding
actor strategies and sense-making is important for understanding how
parallel transitions in different sectors influence each other, e.g.,
whether they compete for resources or develop symbiotic interactions
that can increase the speed of the overall net-zero transition (Andersen
and Geels, 2023; Ohlendorf et al., 2023).
5.2.2. Technology characteristics
Our analysis revealed that technology characteristics were very
influential in the anchoring process. While scholars have studied the
relationship between innovation and technology characteristics (Hob­
day et al., 2000; Malhotra and Schmidt, 2020), the literature on niche
anchoring and speciation has not yet adequately taken this aspect into
account. Our analysis showed how actors engaged with rapid anchoring
and diffusion of a large-scale, complex, and customized technology on
the ground. For example, actors developed smaller, mobile test units and
new forms of collaboration.
This is important to keep in mind when considering anchoring
challenges for other multi-purpose technologies relevant for net-zero
transitions, such as energy-dense batteries (for electric cars or storage
systems) or hydrogen fuel cells. These technologies generally have lower
scale and capital intensity, as well as limited customization. Therefore,
uncertainty could be reduced faster for those technologies by matching
solutions and sector problems and finding a clear path forward. For
these reasons, niche splintering in small-scale and modularized tech­
nologies with low customization needs may be overcome easier than for
carbon capture and it would not slow down diffusion markedly
(Andersen et al., 2023; Sovacool, 2016; Wilson et al., 2020). This war­
rants further research on how niche splintering affects anchoring and
diffusion of technologies with dissimilar characteristics.
5.2.3. An idiosyncratic context: belief and urgency
Our findings show that the particular context of urgent net-zero
transitions influences anchoring process three interesting ways.
First, climate change mitigation and political net-zero commitments
are interpreted by niche actors as a form of ‘guarantee’ that viable
market for CO2 will come despite several unresolved issues and much
remaining uncertainty. This belief is seemingly based on a foundational
expectation that policymakers will act because failure implies that the
world will move beyond what is considered a safe operating space for
humanity (Persson et al., 2022). This is combined with the belief that
there are no alternatives to carbon capture in many sectors. As such, the
expectation of policy action to avoid ‘catastrophe’ (to tackle a grand
challenge) is a both a key mechanism in the anchoring process and a
driving force for niche splintering in our case.
Second, due to a combination of technology characteristics (large-
scale, complex, and customized) and urgency for change, several actors
seek new forms of collaboration and pool resources to accelerate
anchoring and diffusion. Users come together in multi-sector industrial
clusters where actors share knowledge about carbon capture and share
cost of infrastructure (transport and storage) in attempts to reduce un­
certainty and unlock faster knowledge development (Sovacool et al.,
2022).
Third, our analysis revealed tensions between finding the technically
optimal solution for a given sector and diffusing technologies quickly
enough to keep up with CO2 mitigation scenarios. This finding has im­
plications for policy, as discussed in the next Section 5.3.
5.3. Implications for policy
Governing net-zero transitions is inherently complex, challenging,
and not well understood (Andersen et al., 2023; Markard and Rose­
nbloom, 2022). Our study of carbon capture as a multi-purpose tech­
nology that can decarbonize multiple sectors provides two useful
insights related to net-zero strategies.
First, our analysis shows that achieving directionality—shared
12
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122696
expectations, visions, and rules—across producers and users of a niche
technology, is of major importance. While this challenge is not new
(Wanzenböck et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2020), it is more complex for
multi-purpose technologies due to their multi-sector nature (e.g., larger
number and diversity of actors, rules, and technical problems) (Ander­
sen and Geels, 2023; Andersen et al., 2020; Ohlendorf et al., 2023). It
thus seems important that the design of directionality policies (Schot
and Steinmueller, 2018; Weber and Rohracher, 2012) take this multi-
sectoral nature of some technologies into account.
Second, the urgency for net-zero transitions further adds complexity.
For example, our analysis suggests that any policy mix that seeks to
achieve rapid deployment of carbon capture must deal with tensions
between efficiency of capture (degree of fit between solutions and
problems) and the speed of diffusion, which could be accelerated by
concentrating resources on one standardized design across all user sec­
tors. However, standardized and technically mature solutions may
contribute to faster anchoring at the cost of lower CO2 capture rates and
potentially locking-in early movers to less efficient solutions. This pos­
sibility presents a question of how speed of diffusion/decarbonization at
the sector level is valued vis-à-vis capture efficiency at the plant level.
Underlying this issue is a trade-off between speed of change and
learning. On the one hand, good matches between problems and solu­
tions are needed, but on the other hand there is limited time, and
learning and experimentation with complex technology required to
achieve the matching rarely happens fast. The urgency and need for
speed thus augments the diversity dilemma, cf. Section 2.1 (Schot and
Geels, 2008). Even so, the emergence of collective learning in industrial
clusters that seek to accelerate learning by sharing knowledge is a re­
action to this augmented dilemma. How actors work in industrial clus­
ters to accelerate transitions in the face of urgent transitions is an
important topic for further research. Policies that leverage such cross-
sectoral activities further could accelerate learning for multi-purpose
technology.
Overall, our study finds that policies that seek to support rapid
diffusion of multi-purpose technologies should be very attentive to their
multi-sectoral nature in relation to directionality and the sharing of,
instead of competition over, resources such as knowledge and finance.
6. Conclusion
Most scenarios and strategies for net-zero require carbon capture to
be developed and diffused rapidly to multiple sectors. However, the
phenomenon of a multi-purpose technology anchoring and diffusing in
multiple sectors simultaneously has received limited attention.
In this paper we have mobilized insights from theory on niche
anchoring and speciation of multi-purpose technologies. We have put
forward the concept of niche splintering to analyse the effect of simul­
taneous anchoring in multiple, heterogenous sectors on carbon capture
in Norway.
We find that the diverging service characteristics of new user sectors,
combined with resource mobilization and strong expectations about
future growth of the niche, has stimulated the entry of new technology
suppliers and the emergence of new carbon capture technologies leading
to niche splintering – a situation characterized by high diversity of user
problems and of competing technology options (within the same tech­
nology class). Although enhanced resource mobilization has taken place
in parallel, it seems insufficient to advance all solutions rapidly. More­
over, for a complex and capital-intensive technology, such as carbon
capture, the learning and experimentation needed for matching prob­
lems and solutions is very resource-demanding and quite slow. As a
consequence, the carbon capture niche may remain splintered for some
time. This situation works against rapid anchoring and diffusion of
carbon capture, as outlined in many net-zero scenarios and strategies.
Our study has generated new insights into the diffusion of multi-
purpose technologies in general, and in the context of urgent net-zero
transitions in particular, thus emphasizing the role of agency,
J. Finstad and A. Dahl Andersen
technology characteristics, and of urgency. The diffusion challenges of
multi-purpose technologies are important for understanding the feasi­
bility of net-zero scenarios and for designing the policies to support
them.
Our study had some limitations. First, we conducted a single-country
case study of a rather unique country when it comes to carbon capture.
While we expect that our findings will be relevant for multi-sector
anchoring also in other contexts, we also expect contextual differences
to be influential. As such, more studies are needed to explore the effects
of simultaneous multi-sector diffusion in other contexts. In our study we
ignored the fact that carbon capture is inherently part of a broader
value-chain involving the transportation and storage (or utilization) of
CO2 that may involve additional diffusion challenges for carbon capture.
Therefore, we aim to elaborate on this issue in future studies.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jørgen Finstad: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Allan
Dahl Andersen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Data availability
The authors do not have permission to share data.
Acknowledgments
Our work was funded by the Research Council of Norway via grants
295021 (INTRANSIT – Innovation Policy for Industrial Transformation,
Sustainability and Digitalization) and 326410 (CaptureX - Socio-
technical drivers, opportunities and challenges for large-scale CCUS).
We thank Koen Frenken, the reviewers, special issue editors, and project
colleagues for their feedback.
References
Adner, R., Levinthal, D.A., 2002. The emergence of emerging technologies. Calif. Manag.
Rev. 45 (1), 50–66. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166153.
Alexander, J., Chase, J., Newman, N., Porter, A., & Roessner, J. D. (2012, 29 July-2 Aug.
2012). Emergence as a conceptual framework for understanding scientific and
technological progress. Paper presented at the 2012 Proceedings of PICMET ’12:
Technology Management for Emerging Technologies.
Andersen, A.D., Geels, F.W., 2023. Multi-system dynamics and the speed of net-zero
transitions: Identifying causal processes related to technologies, actors, and
institutions. Energy Research & Social Science.
Andersen, A.D., Gulbrandsen, M., 2020. The innovation and industry dynamics of
technology phase-out in sustainability transitions: insights from diversifying
petroleum technology suppliers in Norway. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 64 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.erss.2020.101447.
Andersen, A.D., Markard, J., 2020. Multi-technology interaction in socio-technical
transitions: how recent dynamics in HVDC technology can inform transition theories.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 151 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2019.119802.
Andersen, A.D., Steen, M., Mäkitie, T., Hanson, J., Thune, T.M., Soppe, B., 2020. The role
of inter-sectoral dynamics in sustainability transitions: a comment on the transitions
research agenda. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 34, 348–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.eist.2019.11.009.
Andersen, A.D., Geels, F.W., Coenen, L., Hanson, J., Korsnes, M., Linnerud, K., Wiebe, K.,
2023. Faster, broader, and deeper! Suggested directions for research on net-zero
transitions. Oxford Open Energy 2. https://doi.org/10.1093/ooenergy/oiad007.
Andriani, P., Cattani, G., 2016. Exaptation as source of creativity, innovation, and
diversity: introduction to the Special Section. Ind. Corp. Chang. 25 (1), 115–131.
https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtv053.
Arthur, W.B., 2009. The Nature of Technology: What it is and How it Evolves. Free Press.
Bakker, S., Leguijt, P., van Lente, H., 2015. Niche accumulation and standardization – the
case of electric vehicle recharging plugs. J. Clean. Prod. 94, 155–164. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.069.
Battke, B., Schmidt, T.S., 2015. Cost-efficient demand-pull policies for multi-purpose
technologies - the case of stationary electricity storage. Appl. Energy 155, 334–348.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.06.010.
Becidan, M., Wang, L., Fossum, M., Midtbust, H.-O., Stuen, J., Bakken, J.I., Evensen, E.,
2015. Norwegian waste-to-energy (WtE) in 2030: challenges and opportunities.
Chem. Eng. Trans. 43 https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1543401.
13
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122696
Bergek, A., Hekkert, M.P., Jacobsson, S., 2008a. Functions in Innovation Systems: a
framework for analysing energy system dynamics and identifying goals for system
building activities by entrepreneurs and policy makers. In: Foxon, T.J., Köhler, J.,
Oughton, C. (Eds.), Innovation for a Low Carbon Economy: Economic. Institutional
and Management Approaches, Edward Elgar Pub.
Bergek, A., Jacobsson, S., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S., Rickne, A., 2008b. Analyzing the
functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: a scheme of analysis. Res.
Policy 37.
Bresnahan, T.F., Trajtenberg, M., 1995. General-purpose technologies - engines of
growth. J. Econ. 65 (1), 83–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01598-T.
Cattani, G., 2006. Technological pre-adaptation, speciation, and emergence of new
technologies: how corning invented and developed fiber optics. Ind. Corp. Chang. 15
(2), 285–318. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtj016.
David, P.A., Wright, G., 2003. General Purpose Technologies and Surges in Productivity:
Historical Reflections on the Future of the ICT Revolution. In: David, P.A.,
Thomas, M. (Eds.), The Economic Future in Historical Perspective (pp. 135-166).
Oxford University Press Inc, New York.
Edquist, C., Johnson, B., 1997. Institutions and organizations in systems of innovation.
In: Edquist, C. (Ed.), Systems of Innovation. Pinter, London.
Elzen, B., van Mierlo, B., Leeuwis, C., 2012. Anchoring of innovations: assessing Dutch
efforts to harvest energy from glasshouses. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 5, 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2012.10.006.
Flyvbjerg, B., 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual. Inq. 12 (2),
219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363.
Frenken, K., Nuvolari, A., 2004. The early development of the steam engine: an
evolutionary interpretation using complexity theory. Ind. Corp. Chang. 13 (2),
419–450. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dth017.
Frenken, K., Saviotti, P.P., Trommetter, M., 1999. Variety and niche creation in aircraft,
helicopters, motorcycles and microcomputers. Res. Policy 28, 469–488. Retrieved
from. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00008-6. Retrieved from.
Garnsey, E., Lorenzoni, G., Ferriani, S., 2008. Speciation through entrepreneurial spin-
off: the Acorn-ARM story. Res. Policy 37 (2), 210–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
respol.2007.11.006.
Garud, R., Tuertscher, P., Ven, A.H.V.d., 2013. Perspectives on innovation processes.
Acad. Manag. Ann. 7 (1), 775–819. https://doi.org/10.5465/
19416520.2013.791066.
Garud, R., Gehman, J., Kumaraswamy, A., Tuertscher, P., 2016. From the process of
innovation to innovation as process. In The SAGE Handbook of Process Organization
Studies. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957954.
Geels, F.W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a
multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy 31, 1257–1274.
Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems:
insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Res.
Policy, 33(6–7), 897–920. Retrieved from http://internal.eawag-empa.ch/library/
cirus/1866_Geels_2004.pdf.
Geels, F.W., McMeekin, A., Pfluger, B., 2020. Socio-technical scenarios as a
methodological tool to explore social and political feasibility in low-carbon
transitions: bridging computer models and the multi-level perspective in UK
electricity generation (2010–2050). Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.techfore.2018.04.001.
Griliches, Z., 1957. Hybrid corn - an exploration in the economics of technological-
change. Econometrica 25 (4), 501–522. https://doi.org/10.2307/1905380.
Grubler, A., Wilson, C., Nemet, G., 2016. Apples, oranges, and consistent comparisons of
the temporal dynamics of energy transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 22, 18–25.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.08.015.
Hall, B. H. (2009). Innovation and diffusion. In J. Fagerberg & D. C. Mowery (Eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Innovation.
Hobday, M., Rush, H., Joe, T., 2000. Innovation in complex products and systems. Res.
Policy 793-804. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(00)00105-0.
Höhne, N., Gidden, M.J., den Elzen, M., Hans, F., Fyson, C., Geiges, A., Rogelj, J., 2021.
Wave of net zero emission targets opens window to meeting the Paris Agreement.
Nat. Clim. Chang. 11 (10), 820–822. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01142-2.
Huppmann, D., Kriegler, E., Krey, V., Riahi, K., Rogelj, J., Rose, S. K., . . . Bosetti, V.
(2018). IAMC 1.5 C scenario explorer and data hosted by IIASA. Integrated Assessment
Modeling Consortium & International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. https://data.
ene.iiasa.ac.at/iamc-1.5c-explorer, release, 1. doi:10.22022/SR15/08-2018.15429.
IEA, 2020. CCUS in clean energy transitions. Retrieved from. https://www.iea.org/repor
ts/ccus-in-clean-energy-transitions.
IEA. (2021). Net Zero by 2050 - a road map for the global energy sector. Retrieved from
https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/0716bb9a-6138-4918-8023-cb24caa4
7794/NetZeroby2050-ARoadmapfortheGlobalEnergySector.pdf.
Kanger, L., Geels, F.W., Sovacool, B., Schot, J., 2019. Technological diffusion as a process
of societal embedding: lessons from historical automobile transitions for future
electric mobility. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 71, 47–66. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.trd.2018.11.012.
Kanger, L., Schot, J., Sovacool, B.K., van der Vleuten, E., Ghosh, B., Keller, M.,
Steinmueller, W.E., 2021. Research frontiers for multi-system dynamics and deep
transitions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 41, 52–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eist.2021.10.025.
Kemp, R., Schot, J., Hoogma, R., 1998. Regime shifts to sustainability through processes
of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management. Tech. Anal. Strat.
Manag. 10 (2), 175–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329808524310.
Leung, D. Y., Caramanna, G., Maroto-Valer, M. M. J. R., & Reviews, S. E. (2014). An
overview of current status of carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies. 39,
426–443.
J. Finstad and A. Dahl Andersen
Levinthal, D.A., 1998. The slow pace of rapid technological change: gradualism and
punctuation in technological change. Ind. Corp. Chang. 7 (2), 217–247. https://doi.
org/10.1093/icc/7.2.217.
Lipponen, J., McCulloch, S., Keeling, S., Stanley, T., Berghout, N., Berly, T., 2017. The
politics of large-scale CCS deployment. Energy Procedia 114, 7581–7595. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1890.
Malhotra, A., Schmidt, T.S., 2020. Accelerating low-carbon innovation. Joule 4 (11),
2259–2267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.09.004.
Malhotra, A., Zhang, H., Beuse, M., Schmidt, T., 2021. How do new use environments
influence a technology’s knowledge trajectory? A patent citation network analysis of
lithium-ion battery technology. Res. Policy 50 (9). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
respol.2021.104318.
Markard, J., Rosenbloom, D., 2022. Phases of the net-zero energy transition and
strategies to achieve it. Routledge, In Routledge Handbook of Energy Transitions.
Meelen, T., Truffer, B., Schwanen, T., 2019. Virtual user communities contributing to
upscaling innovations in transitions: the case of electric vehicles. Environ. Innov.
Soc. Trans. 31, 96–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.002.
Mikulčić, H., Ridjan Skov, I., Dominković, D.F., Wan Alwi, S.R., Manan, Z.A., Tan, R.,
Wang, X., 2019. Flexible carbon capture and utilization technologies in future
energy systems and the utilization pathways of captured CO2. Renew. Sust. Energ.
Rev. 114 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109338.
Moehrle, M.G., Caferoglu, H., 2019. Technological speciation as a source for emerging
technologies. Using semantic patent analysis for the case of camera technology.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 146, 776–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2018.07.049.
Murmann, J.P., Frenken, K., 2006. Toward a systematic framework for research on
dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change. Res. Policy 35
(7), 925–952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.011.
Ohlendorf, N., Löhr, M., Markard, J., 2023. Actors in multi-sector transitions - discourse
analysis on hydrogen in Germany. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 47, 100692 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2023.100692.
Persson, L., Carney Almroth, B.M., Collins, C.D., Cornell, S., de Wit, C.A., Diamond, M.L.,
Hauschild, M.Z., 2022. Outside the safe operating space of the planetary boundary
for novel entities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 56 (3), 1510–1521. https://doi.org/
10.1021/acs.est.1c04158.
Raven, R., 2007. Niche accumulation and hybridisation strategies in transition processes
towards a sustainable energy system: an assessment of differences and pitfalls.
Energy Policy 35 (4), 2390–2400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.09.003.
Rosenberg, N., 1972. Factors affecting the diffusion of technology. Explor. Econ. Hist. 10
(1), 3–33.
Rosenbloom, D., 2020. Engaging with multi-system interactions in sustainability
transitions: a comment on the transitions research agenda. Environ. Innov. Soc.
Trans. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.10.003.
Saviotti, P.P., Metcalfe, J.S., 1984. A theoretical approach to the construction of
technological output indicators. Res. Policy 13 (3), 141–151. Retrieved from.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(84)90022-2. Retrieved from.
Schmidt, T.S., Battke, B., Grosspietsch, D., Hoffmann, V.H., 2016. Do deployment
policies pick technologies by (not) picking applications?—a simulation of investment
decisions in technologies with multiple applications. Res. Policy 45 (10),
1965–1983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.07.001.
Schot, J., Geels, F.W., 2007. Niches in evolutionary theories of technical change. J. Evol.
Econ. 17 (5), 605–622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-007-0057-5.
Schot, J., Geels, F.W., 2008. Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation
journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag. 20
(5), 537–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320802292651.
Schot, J., Steinmueller, W.E., 2018. Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of
innovation and transformative change. Res. Policy 47 (9), 1554–1567. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011.
14
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122696
Seifu, M., van Paassen, A., Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., 2020. Anchoring innovation
methodologies to ‘go-to-scale’; a framework to guide agricultural research for
development. Agric. Syst. 182, 102810 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agsy.2020.102810.
Sengers, F., Turnheim, B., Berkhout, F., 2021. Beyond experiments: embedding outcomes
in climate governance. Environ. Plan. C Polit. Space 39 (6), 1148–1171. https://doi.
org/10.1177/2399654420953861.
Smith, A., 2007. Translating sustainabilities between green niches and socio-technical
regimes. Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag. 19 (4), 427–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09537320701403334.
Song, C., Liu, Q., Deng, S., Li, H., Kitamura, Y., 2019. Cryogenic-based CO2 capture
technologies: state-of-the-art developments and current challenges. Renew. Sust.
Energ. Rev. 101, 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.11.018.
Sovacool, B.K., 2016. How long will it take? Conceptualizing the temporal dynamics of
energy transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 13 (Supplement C), 202–215. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.020.
Sovacool, B.K., Geels, F.W., Iskandarova, M., 2022. Industrial clusters for deep
decarbonization. Science 378 (6620), 601–604. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.
add0402.
Sutherland, L.A., Peter, S., Zagata, L., 2015. Conceptualising multi-regime interactions:
the role of the agriculture sector in renewable energy transitions. Res. Policy 44 (8),
1543–1554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.05.013.
van Welie, M.J., Cherunya, P.C., Truffer, B., Murphy, J.T., 2018. Analysing transition
pathways in developing cities: the case of Nairobi’s splintered sanitation regime.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 137, 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2018.07.059.
Wanzenböck, I., Wesseling, J.H., Frenken, K., Hekkert, M.P., Weber, K.M., 2020.
A framework for mission-oriented innovation policy: alternative pathways through
the problem–solution space. Sci. Public Policy 47 (4), 474–489. https://doi.org/
10.1093/scipol/scaa027.
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. Res. Policy 41 (6),
1037–1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.015.
Wigboldus, S., Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., Schut, M., Muilerman, S., Jochemsen, H., 2016.
Systemic perspectives on scaling agricultural innovations. A review. Agron. Sustain.
Dev. 36 (3), 46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0380-z.
Wilson, C., Grubler, A., Bento, N., Healey, S., Stercke, S.D., Zimm, C., 2020. Granular
technologies to accelerate decarbonization. Science 368 (6486), 36–39. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.aaz8060.
Yang, K., Hiteva, R.P., Schot, J., 2020. Expectation dynamics and niche acceleration in
China’s wind and solar power development. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 36,
177–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.07.002.
Yin, R.K., 2009. Case Study Research : Design and Methods, , 4th ed.vol. 5. Sage,
Thousand Oaks, Calif.
Jørgen Finstad is a PhD candidate in innovation studies at the TIK Centre for Technology,
Innovation and Culture at the University of Oslo. His PhD project focuses on identifying
socio-technical drivers for and barriers to the development and diffusion of carbon capture
and storage technology.
Allan Dahl Andersen is an Associate Professor at the TIK Centre for Technology, Inno­
vation and Culture at the University of Oslo. In his work, Allan studies innovation and
industrial change processes associated with broader societal challenges, with particular
attention to sustainability transitions.