European Planning Studies

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceps20

Regional innovation systems in an era of

grand societal challenges: reorientation versus
transformation

Arne Isaksen, Michaela Trippl & Heike Mayer

To cite this article: Arne Isaksen, Michaela Trippl & Heike Mayer (2022) Regional innovation
systems in an era of grand societal challenges: reorientation versus transformation, European
Planning Studies, 30:11, 2125-2138, DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2022.2084226

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2022.2084226

Published online: 13 Jun 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3659

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 10 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceps20
EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES
2022, VOL. 30, NO. 11, 2125–2138
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2022.2084226

Regional innovation systems in an era of grand societal

challenges: reorientation versus transformation
a
Arne Isaksen , Michaela Tripplb and Heike Mayerc
a
Department of Working Life and Innovation, University of Agder, Grimstad, Norway; bDepartment of
Geography and Regional Research, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; cInstitute of Geography, University
of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This editorial seeks to contribute to a critical rethinking of the RIS; Challenge-oriented RIS
regional innovation system (RIS) framework and to examine what (CoRIS); reorientation;
kind of ‘reinvention’ of regional innovation policy is needed in transformation; societal
challenges; regional policy
the era of grand societal challenges. The concept of challenge-
oriented regional innovation systems (CoRISs) is employed to cast
light on how RISs can be reconfigured in response to societal
challenges. Based on the articles in this issue, the editorial
distinguishes between two routes into which CoRISs could be
developed: RIS reorientation strategies versus RIS transformation
strategies. The first strategy assumes that at least some place-
specific problems that are related to grand societal challenges
can be tackled by use of existing assets, actors and institutions in
historically grown RISs. RIS transformation strategies go a step
further. They emphasize disruption and the strategic creation of
new RIS elements. These include the inclusion of new innovative
actors and actor groups, the implementations of institutional
change, and also the disruption of old network linkages and the
establishment of new ones. The editorial also reflects on the
uptake of the two strategies in different spatial contexts as
regional preconditions and challenges vary, which may demand
different strategies and solutions on the regional level.

Introduction
There are increasing demands that innovation policy should not only promote technologi-
cal innovation for economic growth and competitiveness but should also result in
enhanced capacities to tackle grand societal challenges such as climate change, the
ageing society, health, digitalization or growing social and territorial inequalities. Yet it
is still unclear, how regional innovation systems (RIS) – as a concept and as a policy
approach – need to be modified to cope with these challenges. The RIS framework has
been widely used in many regions, countries and at the EU level to inform place-based
innovation policies, mainly focusing on enhancing firms’ and industries’ international

CONTACT Arne Isaksen arne.isaksen@uia.no Department of Working Life and Innovation, Jon Lilletunsvei 9, 4879
Grimstad, Norway
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2126 A. ISAKSEN ET AL.

competitiveness and growth. However, the need to rethink the role of RIS in transforma-
tive change and mission-oriented innovation policy has become more accentuated
over the past years. A prime example is the EU initiative to foster green transitions and
more inclusive development through Smart Specialization Strategies (McCann and
Soete 2020).
Tödtling, Trippl and Desch (2021, in this issue) introduce the notion of challenge-
oriented regional innovation systems (CoRISs) that embrace a broader understanding
of innovation with regards to its purpose, sources, types and actors and considers the
directionality of change to tackle societal challenges. The articles in this special issue
yield insights into how CoRISs could be developed. More precisely, they cast light on
two different routes in which regional innovation systems can be reconfigured in
response to societal challenges: RIS reorientation versus RIS transformation (Trippl
2022). The first strategy is based on the assumption that at least some transformative
changes in regional industries and wider socio-technical systems can build upon existing
assets, actors and institutions of historically grown RIS (Bugge, Andersen, and Steen
2021, in this issue). Existing RIS (that are nested in larger systems) can be mobilized
to develop innovative solutions to regional problems and needs that are related to
grand societal challenges, such as the decarbonization of industries. Mobilizing inherited
RIS structures (such as the industrial base, knowledge assets and institutional set-ups)
and modifying historically grown assets (such as firm competencies) to address place-
specific challenges and change elements of (regional) socio-technical systems lie at the
heart of RIS reorientation strategies.
While reorientation strategies are about increasing the challenge orientation of exist-
ing RIS components and functions, RIS transformation strategies go a step further. They
emphasize disruption and the strategic creation of new RIS elements. At their core are the
inclusion of new innovative actors and actor groups, the disruption of old network lin-
kages and the establishment of new ones, and the implementation of institutional change
to foster more sustainable regional development. Creating (or importing) new assets and
deconstructing old ones play a much more prominent role when compared to reorienta-
tion strategies. The latter – i.e. phasing out old, unsustainable RIS elements and practices
– has thus far received limited attention in RIS studies. Destabilizing ‘the unsustainable’,
undermining vested interests and long-established incentive structures (Kivimaa and
Kern 2016) and ‘picking the losers’ (Braams et al. 2021) could be an arduous task
(Trippl 2022) and may create intense conflicts in the region. More research is required
to better understand how RISs could deal with such tensions.
In this editorial, we elaborate on and exemplify these two strategies (or routes) of RIS
reconfiguration utilizing the insights of the papers that were published in the special
issue. We also reflect upon their uptake in different spatial contexts. In doing so, we
draw connections to the articles that are published in this special issue and highlight
their contributions.

Setting the scene

The regional innovation system (RIS) framework has been widely adopted in many
regions, countries and at the EU level to inform place-based policy approaches aiming
at stimulating innovation-driven economic growth and enhancing the competitive
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 2127

strength of the corporate sector. Considering the climate crisis and other environmental
and social problems, the goals of regional innovation policy need to be reassessed.
Arguably, the last years have witnessed a growing body of literature that has dealt with
the rise of mission-oriented, challenge-driven and transformative innovation policies
(Mazzucato 2018; Mazzucato, Kattel, and Ryan-Collins 2020; Schot and Steinmueller
2018; Diercks, Larsen, and Steward 2019). Rather than purely aiming at economic
growth, the focus of those policies is on tackling grand societal challenges and far-reach-
ing transformation processes of production and consumption systems. These approaches
champion a broader understanding of innovation, are explicit about the directionality of
change and propagate a new and enriched role of policy. However, it is vital to recognize
that this literature lacks sensitivity and attention to context-specific factors that influence
sustainability transitions (Binz et al. 2020) and that little is said about the role of the
regional policy level in such transformation processes. Accordingly, the new policy
approaches have received critique for advocating rather generic ‘place blind’ policies
(Uyarra, Ribeiro, and Cale-Clough 2019).
It was only recently that scholarly contributions have begun to reflect upon the role of
the regional policy level for tackling grand societal challenges (see, for instance, Coenen,
Hansen, and Rekers 2015; Tödtling and Trippl 2018; Coenen and Morgan 2020; McCann
and Soete 2020; Tödtling, Trippl, and Frangenheim 2020, 2021; Wanzenböck and
Frenken 2020; Flanagan, Uyarra, and Wanzenböck 2022). This editorial contributes to
these emerging debates by seeking to re-define the role of RIS and RIS strategies in
the era of transformative and mission-oriented innovation. More precisely, we interro-
gate how the RIS framework could be applied to regional policy strategies for tackling
place-specific problems that are related to grand societal challenges. We contribute
with an analytical framework and empirical examples that underline (i) that regional pre-
conditions to tackle place-specific problems related to grand societal challenges vary and
(ii) that the challenges are of different type and complexity, which may demand different
strategies and solutions on the regional level and also mobilization of relevant assets
across different geographical and political levels. To this end, we draw on the articles sub-
mitted to this special issue to revisit and modify the RIS approach, which helps to assess
two basic strategies (or routes), namely (i) RIS reorientation strategies and (ii) RIS trans-
formation strategies (Trippl 2022).
In the next section, we elaborate on the core features of RIS reorientation and trans-
formation strategies and unravel the types of innovation activity, processes that underpin
both strategies. Section 3 zooms in on the issue of context, a topic that was also addressed
in the articles. The final section concludes and identifies some key issues for future
research.

Regional innovation systems in the era of grand societal challenges:

reorientation or transformation?
The RIS framework is well established and has figured prominently in academic debates
on regional innovation and growth since the 1990s. The framework was developed as an
analytical tool to explore why some regions (and the industries they host) are more inno-
vative than others. It was also used as a policy approach to create favourable conditions
for regional innovation and growth (Asheim, Isaksen, and Trippl 2019). The idea is that
2128 A. ISAKSEN ET AL.

public policy can – together with other stakeholders – create and adapt RIS, and also steer
regional innovation systems into specific directions.

Reorientation
We argue that in some contexts, existing RISs or RISs that have undergone a reorienta-
tion can contribute to tackling major societal challenges without completely transform-
ing themselves – they ‘simply’ reorientate and this has consequences for the types of
innovations and asset modifications that are needed in this strategy. The ability of reor-
iented RISs to cope with societal challenges depends in particular on the mobilisation of
actors, networks and institutional structures of established RISs and the identification
and reuse of existing assets (Trippl 2022). This can help to solve some specific challenges,
such as zero or low emissions (decarbonisation) from passenger and car ferries in
Norway, as shown below. It might entail changes in products, services, production pro-
cesses and value chains that firms often have the expertise to implement on their own or
with the support of existing organizations in (and outside) a RIS. Such innovations are
carried out by firms to achieve specific objectives, such as maintaining or enhancing com-
petitiveness or setting up more environmentally friendly production processes. The latter
is often the result of laws and regulations set at regional, national or international levels.
Articles in this special issue contribute with theoretical reflections and empirical
examples that demonstrate both strengths and weaknesses of the reorientation strategy
when it comes to tackling place-specific problem related to grand societal challenges.
Innovations and industrial development that mostly occur within historically grown
RIS structures and are undertaken by existing actors have a greater chance of leading
to what Afewerki and Karlsen (2021, in this issue) refer to as just sustainable develop-
ment than in cases where, for example, existing carbon-intensive industries, with possibly
a significant number of jobs, are being phased out as part of a large-scale sustainable tran-
sition and transformation of RISs. Phase-out of carbon-intensive industries may hit some
regions and some group of workers hard. ‘Policies that address societal challenges while
creating economic uncertainty typically encounter strong popular resistance and low pol-
itical feasibility’ (Bugge, Andersen, and Steen 2021, 2, in this issue). Rather, a balance
between policy for sustainable transition and for industrial competitiveness may be
important for creating legitimacy for policy instruments aimed at increased sustainabil-
ity. A balance may be achieved if such policy approaches build on existing actors, assets
and support structures in particular regions.
These arguments echo those by Afewerki and Karlsen (2021), based on their analysis
of two cases of Norwegian regions with many jobs in equipment suppliers for the oil and
gas industry, Afewerki and Karlsen argue that two types of policy should be
implemented. First, long-term sustainability goals should be addressed through proactive
policies that slowly foster the development of renewal energy sectors mainly through
technology push instruments. Second, reactive policy should aim for short-term social
and economic goals including to ensure (some) existing jobs in carbon-intensive indus-
tries, which contributes to raise social acceptance for the proactive policy for industrial
restructuring among regions and people affected by the policy.
Yet, one might critically ask if reactive policies to maintain jobs in unsustainable
sectors (even when combined with proactive transition policies) are ambitious enough
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 2129

given the challenges of our time. Radical innovations in production and consumption
and more fundamental RIS changes, ‘which … require novel (re)configuration of
actors, networks, institutions and practices (Hassink, Gong, and Herr 2021, 4, in this
issue) seem to be required to tackle challenges that are not merely of a local or regional
character (see below).
An empirical example of innovations for decarbonisation which was initially based on
the existing RIS is the development, production and use of battery-electric car and pas-
senger ferries in Western Norway (Bugge, Andersen, and Steen 2021). The existing RIS
(that is nested in larger systems) has been mobilised to develop battery-electric ferries.
The first battery-electric ferry started to operate in 2015. This has been followed by a
maturing of the Norwegian battery electric (BE) technological segment, and public pro-
curement led to the ordering of 70 battery-electric ferries from 2015 to 2020 (Bach et al.
2020, 8).
This development builds, in addition to the RIS, on a well-functioning, mainly
national technological innovation system ‘where sub-divisions of international compa-
nies, research institutions, local ship-owners and yards […] often collaborate on techno-
logical development’ (Bach et al. 2020, 8). Several actors experiment to develop and
improve solutions through laboratory testing, pilot studies on operating ships including
dialogue with on-board personnel, and through experimentation with business models.
Lobbying by established (incumbent) RIS actors in Western Norway and non-govern-
mental organisations (NGOs) played an important and proactive role to influence politi-
cal decisions. The decisions led to national public procurement rules that created market
demands for electric ferries. The development of these builds on existing competence as
the ‘competence base for diesel-electric systems is transferable to BE propulsion’ (Bach
et al. 2020, 10). Thus, it is relevant to note that the development of battery-electric
ferries in Western Norway takes place within a reoriented RIS. The Western Norwegian
RIS utilizes pre-existing structures, such as the industrial base of a maritime production
network and knowledge and institutional set-up, and modifies existing local assets, such
as firm competencies, to develop and produce battery-electric ferries. In addition, the BE
ferries take over transport from diesel ferries on existing ferry lines and are set into an
existing system for the ownership and operation of ferries.
The situation is different when it comes to developing hydrogen solutions for ferries
and other coastal maritime transport in Norway. This development cannot build on a
strong existing knowledge base. Few actors are experimenting with the hydrogen tech-
nology and there is a lack of rules and regulations (Bach et al. 2020). This reveals a

Table 1. Two types of RIS strategies for sustainability transitions.

RIS reorientation strategies
Characteristics Build on and reuse competences, actors,
networks and institutions in existing RISs. Fit
into existing production and market system
Support for Reusing & recombining existing assets
sustainable
transition
Policy strategies Build on and adapt existing regional
innovation policy for new sustainable goals
RIS transformation strategies
Include several new types of actors, networks
and institutions. Require changes in
production and market systems
Creating (importing) new assets & destructing
old assets
Create new policy for sustainable transitions
2130 A. ISAKSEN ET AL.

weaker developed technological and regional innovation system and greater need for
transformation of the existing RIS.
To sum up, RIS reorientation strategies can contribute to cope with some types of
societal challenges, such as demonstrated by the example of decarbonisation of ferry
transport. This is achievable when established RIS actors are mobilised and existing
assets are reused or recombined. The solutions generated by embarking on the reorienta-
tion route might fit into existing production and market systems and contribute to tackle
specific societal challenges at the regional level (Table 1).

Transformation
Transformation of RISs is essential for major changes in regions’ industries and wider
socio-technical systems, such as transitions towards a renewable energy regime. This
will require technological innovations of a disruptive or radical type (Smith 2011),
often developed elsewhere and adopted by firms and industries in the region. Radical
innovations contribute to new socio-technical regimes through the development and
diffusion of new generic technologies (like the microprocessor, which was developed
in the 1970s) (Perez 2016). However, technological innovations are not sufficient.
Regime changes entail wider societal changes (op. cit.). They may involve changes in
firms, knowledge organisations, network constellations, policy tools, formal institutions,
values, consumption patterns and infrastructure (Geels 2004; Schot and Steinmueller
2018). This directs attention to the creation of new assets in the region (or the importa-
tion of assets from outside the region) and they often require old asset destruction (Trippl
et al. 2020), that is, exnovation efforts understood as the deliberate destabilization and
phasing out of unsustainable practices (Kivimaa and Kern 2016; Heyen, Hermwille,
and Wehnert 2017). RIS transformation strategies benefit from the participation from
new actor groups, such as non-governmental organisations, users and citizens (Tödtling,
Trippl, and Desch 2021).
While change from fossil to battery-electric ferries, as described above, can take place
mostly within existing innovation systems, it is different when the transport system as a
whole is to be transformed. This may include reducing the need for transport, for
example through digitalisation and a change in modes of working (such as more
home office), changes in the settlement structure, increased use of public transport
and carpooling. Such developments thus require more than technological changes in
the corporate sector. Changes at different levels – including institutional and infrastruc-
tural innovation, mental models, consumption behaviour, values, governance modes etc.
– are needed (Geels 2004; Schot and Steinmueller 2018).
Thus, arguments for the transformation of RIS are found in mission-oriented and
transformative innovation policy that focus on major scientific, technological, and
societal breakthroughs and transformative shifts in systems of production and consump-
tion (Tödtling, Trippl, and Desch 2021). Breakthroughs and transformative shifts are
studied through theoretical constructions of technological innovation systems and the
Multi-Level Perspective (MLP).
Sustainability transitions include long-term, multi-dimensional and fundamental
transformations of large socio-technical systems (e.g. in energy and transport) towards
more environmental sustainable modes of production and consumption (Markard,
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 2131

Raven, and Truffer 2012). Such transitions are deemed necessary to address sustainable
challenges. These approaches mainly neglect the regional level, but offer ideas that are
helpful when discussing RIS transformation policies (Tödtling, Trippl, and Desch 2021).
Sustainable transitions take place when new radical technologies replace older tech-
nologies. The new technology develops within technological innovation systems concep-
tualized as ‘a set of networks of actors and institutions that jointly interact in a specific
technological field and contribute to the generation, diffusion and utilization of variants
of a new technology and/or a new product’ (Markard and Truffer 2008, 611). They chal-
lenge established socio-technical regimes, which include joint rules and norms among
key actors that support existing industries. In well-established innovation systems and
regimes only innovations that accord with key knowledge, technology, ‘rules of the
game’ and so on are supported. That is, the development follows a technological path
belonging to the regime (Smith 2011).
Socio-technical regimes may then act as barriers to radical innovations. Such inno-
vations are often quite incomplete and not really competitive against existing solutions
when launched. This means that totally new technology may need shielding in the devel-
opment and introduction phase (Geels 2019). This consists of niches where radical inno-
vations may develop undisturbed through trial and error by researchers, entrepreneurs,
activists and ‘outsiders’. A RIS may constitute a shielding niche for technological inno-
vations (Martin 2020). The ‘niche innovations’ are constantly improving, may develop a
dominant design and a support structure before they are introduced in a competitive
market. Radical and generic innovations that become widely used may lead to transform-
ations of socio-technical regimes.
The literature on technological innovation systems and the MLP perspective have
inspired ideas for RIS transformation to better address grand societal challenges. Jean-
nerat and Crevoisier (2022, in this issue) interpret transformative regional innovation
policy as a means to transform industries to contribute to local sustainable living con-
ditions, and as a means to promote, manage and operate modes of production, con-
sumption and living that help tackling societal challenges. This points to the nexus
between RIS transformation strategies and alternative regional development agendas
that put place-specific needs and problems into the centre (Morgan and Sabel 2019;
MacKinnon et al. 2022). The article by Tödtling, Trippl, and Desch (2021) provides
several insights into the development of CoRISs by taking the transformation route
and resembles the type of changes mentioned by Jeannerat, and Crevoisier (2022).
The focus is on a broader understanding of innovation activity with regards to its
purpose, participants, and knowledge sources, and on the directionality of change
to address societal challenges. Even if CoRISs operate in specific regions, they are
linked to other scales by flows of knowledge and other assets, and by regulations
and policies.
The governance of the transformation route is crucial. A bottom-up governance strat-
egy for regional innovation policy to tackle grand societal challenges is brought to the
fore in the article by Bours, Wanzenböck and Frenken (2021, in this issue). The
authors point to the advantages of what they refer to as ‘small wins’, an approach that
includes many small changes in practice and routines and values implemented by
various actors, including users and interest groups, who use existing resources. The
activities can lead to innovations of a technological, social and economic nature at the
2132 A. ISAKSEN ET AL.

local or regional level. ‘A small wins strategy (…) can potentially transform the existing
system configuration (and) (…) can contribute to more challenge-oriented regional
innovation systems’ (Bours, Wanzenböck, and Frenken 2021, 2). The changes do not
occur in protected niches because the innovations are so small that they do not threaten
established actors in the prevailing socio-technical regime. However, to have a major
effect on societal changes, small wins must be supported by larger visions of change
and by political instruments. Implementing of coordinated initiatives demands the prior-
itizing of goals and interventions among regional stakeholders. Larrea and Karlsen (2021,
in this issue) propose action research think tanks as one instrument to co-generate new
knowledge and challenge-oriented innovation policy among researchers and policy-
makers, and also with other regional actors. Shared vision building though broad partici-
pation of many actor groups is seen as important. These might include the usual RIS
actors (firms, knowledge organisations, and politicians and policy-makers), but –
equally if not more importantly – also social groups, non-governmental organisations
(NGOs), users and public sector organisations.

The context of RIS reconfiguration

The RIS reorientation and transformation strategies are ideal-types (Trippl 2022). The
strategies can be understood as the two ends of a continuum, along which various com-
binations of reorientation and transformation activities are possible. The actual combi-
nation of the strategies builds amongst others on (i) the context and the history of a
region and on (ii) how the grand societal challenges are identified at the regional level,
for example as being mainly a local problem (e.g. polluting industrial activity) or
whether they are considered as more general ‘system wide’ challenges.
Thus, the route a RIS takes – reorientation, transformation or combinations – will
always depend on the pre-conditions and context as well as actor networks and
coalitions. Such pre-conditions need to be considered at different spatial scales,
including the national scale as Casula (2022, in this issue) highlights. The paper by
Rizzo et al. (2022, in this issue) illustrates how important the pre-existing context
is, in which policy change takes place. Illustrating the case of post-disaster policymak-
ing in the time after the Central Italy earthquake in 2016, the authors show that a
crisis event such as a natural disaster does not per se entice radical change in
terms of sustainable regional development. Rather, existing policy patterns and
paths (and with that also issues of path dependence and lock-in) shape the transform-
ation process.
Regarding preconditions, regions with a limited endowment of relevant assets typi-
cally have comparatively little knowledge and expertise in industry, in knowledge organ-
isations and in regional authorities when it comes to supporting, for example, sustainable
restructuring. Sometimes these regions also have few organisations and local experts or
lay persons that are engaged in tackling regional-specific problems related to societal
challenges. The two Norwegian oil dependent regions studied by Afewerki and
Karlsen (2021) seem to fall into this category. Regions with a large stock of relevant
assets for tackling place-specific problems have more relevant RIS elements and, for
example, they possess routines and traditions in the design of regionally adapted
policy instruments. The Basque Country (Spain) has long experience with the design
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 2133

of regional tailored policy through collaboration between politicians and researchers and
can thus be well equipped also for the design of policy for grand societal challenges
(Larrea and Karlsen 2021, in this issue).
Another dimension that affects the ability of a region to cope with grand societal chal-
lenges is related to the question at what level the place-specific challenges are identified.
This does not mean that the challenges are only related to industrial activity, e.g. to man-
ufacturing industry with large greenhouse gas emissions, but polluting industrial activity
may be a clearly identified challenge that regional actors seek to solve. Emissions from
fossil ferries in Western Norway are such a challenge, which was largely tackled by a
RIS, supported by some national policy instruments and R&D milieus, with relevant
assets for the development of battery-electric ferries (Bugge, Andersen, and Steen
2021). When societal challenges are identified as problems related to several elements
in the RIS and to how key societal sectors, as energy systems, are organized, transform-
ation of the RIS itself may also be necessary. The transition to more renewable energy in
Schleswig-Holstein in Germany may be one example of identification of a problem area
beyond one specific industrial sector (Hassink, Gong, and Herr 2021).
The combination of regional preconditions and place-specific problems related to
grand societal challenges suggests which RIS reconfiguration is most relevant. A well-
defined problem area, for example related to a particular polluting industrial activity,
and favourable regional conditions to help solving the problem points to the RIS reorien-
tation strategy. A more complex problem area that includes larger sections of society, on
the other hand, points towards RIS transformation strategies, especially when key assets
to help solving societal challenges are more or less lacking. Particularly the RIS trans-
formation strategy needs to build on deeper changes in terms of culture, vision, etc.
As Cooke and Nunes (2021, in this issue) outline for the tourism industry, transformative
change in growth-driven industries needs to be based on imagery and circuitry particu-
larly in times of great challenges (COVID-19, continued loss of biodiversity, etc.). As
their example of the city of Tomar, a medium-sized town about 100 km north-east of
Lisbon, shows, local communities take on the challenge to refit urban spaces and find
innovative solutions to existing infrastructures and abandoned buildings.

Conclusions, outlook and future research agenda

Over the past years, the RIS approach has served as a major inspiration for placed-based
policies aiming to boost innovation-driven economic growth and to enhance the inter-
national competitiveness of the firm sector. This editorial seeks to contribute to a critical
rethinking of the RIS framework and to examine what kind of ‘reinvention’ of regional
innovation policy is needed in the era of grand societal challenges. We develop a frame-
work that helps to distinguish between RIS reorientation strategies and RIS transform-
ation strategies (Trippl 2022).
Given the urgency to accelerate (sustainability) transitions, we contend that RIS reor-
ientation endeavours, although having some advantages of bringing down low-hanging
fruits, may not suffice. Considering the urgency to tackle challenges such as the climate
crisis, the loss of biodiversity, and growing social and spatial inequalities, the adoption of
RIS transformation strategies seems to be vital. The articles in this special issue have
brought to the surface several dimensions of such strategies such as the involvement
2134 A. ISAKSEN ET AL.

of new actors, the promotion of policy mixes that support co-innovation, entrepreneur-
ship, sensemaking and visioning, action research, among others.
Since RIS transformation strategies are still in their infancy, much more conceptual
and empirical research is required to understand why some regions succeed in embark-
ing on a transformation route while others fail. Particularly insightful would be analyses
that address the issue of benefits and losses related to RIS transformation. Similarly, it
would be interesting to explore to what extent RIS reorientation and RIS transformation
strategies co-exist, what effects are produced by their co-existence and whether or not
reorientation strategies can be changed into transformation strategies, and by whom.
A core issue relates to the question of how to initiate changes at the paradigm level,
that is, how to ‘intervene’ into the underlying values, goals, and world views of actors
that shape the direction of system reconfiguration. Scholarly work on leverage points
(Meadows 1999; Abson et al. 2017) could provide a useful inroad here. Sustainability
transformations require deep changes. Changes in core beliefs and values are related
to other changes in socio-technical regimes, such as the development of new knowledge
and skills, rules and regulations and infrastructure. Values and beliefs go very deep but
are the underlying foundation of societal development. Merely creating awareness and
knowledge of the need to change does not lead to change itself. Yet, as we have seen
in the articles on RIS transformation, change needs to go beyond solely adapting existing
assets, actor constellations and so on. For a true transition towards sustainability we also
need third-order change, in which mental models are reframed and practices are
relearned. Davelaar (2021) talks about ‘doing things better; doing better things and,
seeing things differently’ (731). What does that mean for regional innovation policy?
We need to change our mental models about what constitutes economic success, compe-
titiveness, innovativeness, growth etc. along the lines that Martin (2021) recently
suggested in terms of not only building back better but building forward better.
As noted above, developing challenge-oriented RIS by taking the transformation route
imply to reassess the ‘points of departure’ for policy initiatives. The conventional focus
on regions’ endowments of knowledge and other assets – which are widely regarded as
basis for determining the innovation and diversification potentials of places – need to
be complemented by a focus on place-specific economic, social and ecological problems
and needs (Tödtling, Trippl, and Desch 2021; MacKinnon et al. 2022). Recent work
suggests that there is not only a geography of innovation (solutions) but also a geography
of problems with the latter being rather different compared to the former (Calignano and
Trippl 2020; Cappellano et al. 2021; Flanagan, Uyarra, and Wanzenböck 2022). This is
not to deny that many grand societal challenges are global in nature. However, it is
crucial to recognise that different regions have different exposures to environmental
and societal problems. The challenges faced by different places differ. Place-specific pro-
blems and needs could constitute a source of innovation, green path development and
diversification. Both asset endowments and problem endowments require consideration
as points of departure for policy strategies.
This has also implications for RIS typologies that are widely used in research and prac-
tice. Long-established typologies pay attention to the production structure of RIS (i.e. the
firm sector, the industrial structures, and the organizational and institutional configur-
ations supporting these). A well-known typology by Isaksen and Trippl (2016) for
example takes the degree of thickness and specialisation of the production structures
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 2135

as a point of departure and distinguishes between thin RIS, thick and specialized RIS, and
thick and diversified RIS. Arguably, such typologies reflect the uneven distribution of
economic opportunities and (conventional) innovation activities across regions
(Isaksen and Trippl 2016) and help to identify the predominant failure modes of
(different types) of RISs (Tödtling and Trippl 2005; Isaksen and Trippl 2016). Focusing
on place-specific challenges or problems requires us to revisit those typologies and poss-
ibly develop new ones. Not only the production structure but also place-specific needs
and challenges need to be factored into the development of such novel typologies.
Another important issue for future research is to come to grips with the regional
capacities – and related agencies – that are needed to implement RIS transformation
strategies. Drawing on Hölscher, Frantzeskaki, and Loorbach (2019), one could dis-
tinguish between four main forms, including (i) stewarding capacity (identification of
place-specific challenges, needs and vulnerabilities and the ‘framing’ of problems); (ii)
unlocking capacity (phasing out unsustainable practices); (iii) transformative capacity
(generation, diffusion and embedding of innovation) and (iv) orchestrating capacity
(coordination and intermediation) (see also Trippl 2022). The question of how such
capacities are built-up in different spatial contexts is a key issue for future research.
In sum, the ten articles provide an excellent overview of the various strategies regions
use to adapt to and tackle societal challenges. Our goals were to highlight cutting-edge
research around the question how regional innovation policies address grand challenges
and to present important findings from scholars in diverse fields. In this sense, the articles
advance our understanding of the role of the regional perspective in addressing chal-
lenges that are interrelated at the global scale.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Arne Isaksen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0456-3092

References
Abson, D. J., J. Fischer, J. Leventon, J. Newig, T. Schomerus, U. Vilsmaier, H. von Wehrden, P.
Abernethy, C. D. Ives, N. C. Jager, and D. L. Lang. 2017. “Leverage Points for Sustainability
Transformation.” Ambio 46: 30–39. doi:10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y.
Afewerki, S., and A. Karlsen. 2021. “Policy Mixes for Just Sustainable Development in Regions
Specialised in Carbon-Intensive Industries; the Case of Two Norwegian Petro-Maritime
Regions.” European Planning Studies, 1–20. doi:10.1080/09654313.2021.1941786.
Asheim, B., A. Isaksen, and M. Trippl. 2019. Advanced Introduction to Regional Innovation
Systems. Cheltenham: Elgar.
Bach, H., A. Bergek, Ø Bjørgum, T. Hansen, A. Kenzhegaliyeva, and M. Steen. 2020.
“Implementing Maritime Battery-Electric and Hydrogen Solutions: A Technological
Innovation System Analysis.” Transportation Research Part D 87 (2020) 102492: 1–22. doi:10.
1016/j.trd.2020.10249.
2136 A. ISAKSEN ET AL.

Binz, C., L. Coenen, J. Murphy, and B. Truffer. 2020. “Geographies of Transition - From Topical
Concerns to Theoretical Engagement: A Comment on the Transtions Agenda.” Environmental
Innovation and Societal Transitions 34: 1–3. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2019.11.002.
Bours, A., I. Wanzenböck, and K. Frenken. 2021. “Small Wins for Grand Challenges. A Bottom-up
Governence Approach to Regional Innovation Policy.” European Planning Studies. 1–20, doi:10.
1080/09654313.2021.1980502.
Braams, R., J. Wesseling, A. Meijer, and M. Hekkert. 2021. “Legitimizing Transformative
Government. Aligning Essential Government Tasks from Transition Literature with
Normative Arguments About Legitimacy from Public Administration Traditions.”
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 39: 191–205. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2021.04.004.
Bugge, M., A. Andersen, and M. Steen. 2021. “The Role of Regional Innovation Systems
in Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy: Exploring the Problem-Solution Space in
Electrification of Maritime Transport.” European Planning Studies, 1–22, doi:10.1080/
09654313.2021.1988907.
Calignano, G., and M. Trippl. 2020. “Innovation-Driven or Challenge-driven Participation in
International Energy Innovation Networks? Empirical Evidence from the H2020
Programme.” Sustainability 12 (11): 4696. doi:10.3390/su12114696.
Cappellano, F., T. Makkonen, N. Dotti, A. Morisson, and A. Rizzo. 2021. “Where Innovation
Meets Directionality: An Index to Measure Regional Readiness to Deal with Societal
Challenges.” European Planning Studies. doi:10.1080/09654313.2021.1976114.
Casula, M. 2022. “Implementing the Transformative Innovation Policy in the European Union:
How does Transformative Change Occur in Member States?” European Planning Studies.
doi:10.1080/09654313.2021.2025345.
Chaminade, C., B-Å Lundvall, and S. Haneef. 2018. Advanced Introduction to National Innovation
Systems. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Coenen, L., T. Hansen, and J. Rekers. 2015. “Innovation Policy for Grand Challenges.” An
Economic Geography Perspective. Geography Compass 9 (9): 483–496. doi:10.1111/gec3.12231.
Coenen, L., and K. Morgan. 2020. “Evolving Geographies of Innovation: Existing Paradigms,
Critiques and Possible Alternatives.” Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift – Norwegian Journal of
Geography 74 (1): 13–24. doi:10.1080/00291951.2019.1692065.
Cooke, P., and S. Nunes. 2021. “Post-Coronavirus Regional Innovation Policies: From Mega to
Giga and Beyond through Sustainable Spatial Planning of Global Tourism.” European
Planning Studies. doi:10.1080/09654313.2021.1936463.
Davelaar, D. 2021. “Transformation for Sustainability: A Deep Leverage Points Approach.”
Sustainability Science 16: 727–747. doi:10.1007/s11625-020-00872-0.
Diercks, G., H. Larsen, and F. Steward. 2019. “Transformative Innovation Policy: Addressing
Variety in an Emerging Policy Paradigm.” Research Policy 48 (4): 880–894. doi:10.1016/j.
respol.2018.10.028.
Flanagan, K., E. Uyarra, and I. Wanzenböck. 2022. “Towards a Problem-Oriented Regional
Industrial Policy: Possibilities for Public Intervention in Framing, Valuation and Market
Formation.” Regional Studies. doi:10.1080/00343404.2021.2016680
Geels, F. 2004. “From Sectoral Systems of Innovation to Socio-Technical Systems: Insights About
Dynamics and Change from Sociology and Institutional Theory.” Research Policy 33 (6–7): 897–
920. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015.
Geels, F. 2019. “Socio-technical Transitions to Sustainability: A Review of Criticisms and
Eleboration of the Multi-Level Perspective.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
39: 187–201. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.009.
Hassink, R., H. Gong, K. F, and A. Herr. 2021. “Exploring the Scope of Regions in Challenge-
Oriented Innovation Policy: The Case of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany.” European Planning
Studies, 1–19. doi:10.1080/09654313.2021.2017857.
Heyen, D., L. Hermwille, and T. Wehnert. 2017. “Out of the Comfort Zone! Governing the
Exnovation of Unsustainable Technologies and Practices.” GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for
Science and Society 26 (4): 326–331. doi:10.14512/gaia.26.4.9.
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 2137

Hölscher, K., N. Frantzeskaki, and D. Loorbach. 2019. “Steering Transformations Under Climate
Change: Capacities for Transformative Climate Governance and the Case of Rotterdam, the
Netherland.” Regional Environmental Change 19: 791–805. doi:10.1007/s10113-018-1329-3.
Isaksen, A., and M. Trippl. 2016. “Path Development in Different Regional Innovation Systems: A
Conceptual Analysis.” In Innovation Drivers and Regional Innovation Strategy, edited by D.
Parrilli, R. Fitjar, and A. Rodriguez-Pose, 66–84. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
Jeannerat, H., and O. Crevoisier. 2021. “From Competitiveness to Territorial Value: Transformative
Territorial Innovaion Policies and Achoring Milieus.” European Planning Studies. doi:10.1080/
09654313.2022.2042208.
Kivimaa, P., and F. Kern. 2016. “Creative Destruction or Mere Niche Support? Innovation Policy
Mixes for Sustainability Transitions.” Research Policy 45: 205–217.
Larrea, M., and J. Karlsen. 2021. “Think Tanks for a New Generation of Regional Innovation
Policies.” European Planning Studies. doi:10.1080/09654313.2021.1985085.
MacKinnon, D., L. Kempton, P. O’Brien, E. Ormerod, A. Pike, and J. Tomaney. 2022. “Reframing
Urban and Regional ‘Development’ for ‘Left Behind’ Places.” Cambridge Journal of Regions,
Economy and Society 15: 39–56.
Markard, J., R. Raven, and B. Truffer. 2012. “Sustainability Transition: An Emerging Field of
Research and its Prospects.” Research Policy 41 (6): 955–967.
Markard, J., and B. Truffer. 2008. “Technological Innovation Systems and the Multi-level
Perspective: Towards an Integrated Framework.” Research Policy 37: 596–615.
Martin, H. 2020. “The Scope of Regional Innovation Policy to Realize Transformative Change – A
Case Study of the Chemicals Industry in Western Sweden.” European Planning Studies 28 (12):
2409–2427.
Martin, R. 2021. “Rebuilding the Economy from the Covid Crisis: Time to Rethink Regional
Studies?” Regional Studies, Regional Science 8: 143–161. doi:10.1080/21681376.2021.1919191.
Mazzucato, M. 2018. “Mission-oriented Innovation Policies: Challenges and Opportunities.”
Industrial and Corporate Change 27 (5): 803–815. doi:10.1093/icc/dty034.
Mazzucato, M., R. Kattel, and J. Ryan-Collins. 2020. “Challenge-driven Innovation Policy:
Towards a New Policy Toolkit.” Journal of Industry, Competetion and Trade 20: 421–437.
doi:10.1007/s10842-019-00329-w.
McCann, P., and L. Soete. 2020. Place-based Innovation for Sustainability. Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union.
Meadows, D. H. 1999. Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. Hartland, VT: Sustainability
Institute.
Morgan, K., and C. Sabel. 2019. “The Experimentalist Polity.” In NESTA Radical Visions of Future
Government, 75–81. London: NESTA.
Perez, C. 2016. “Capitalism, Technology and a Green Global Golden Age: The Role of History in
Helping to Shape the Future.” In Rethinking Capitalism, Economics and Policy for Sustainable
and Inclusive Growth, edited by M. Jacobs and M. Mazzucato, 191–215. Chichester: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Rizzo, A., F. Cappellano, I. Pierantoni, and M. Sargolini. 2022. “Do Natural Disasters Accelerate
Sustainability Transitions? Insights from the Central Italy Earthquake.” European Planning
Studies. doi:10.1080/09654313.2021.2022104.
Schot, J., and W. Steinmueller. 2018. “Three Frames for Innovation Policy: R&D, Systems of
Innovation and Transformative Change.” Research Policy 47: 1154–1567. doi:10.1016/j.respol.
2018.08.011.
Smith, K. (2011). Den Vanskelige Transformasjonen. In J. Hanson, S. Kasa, & O. Wicken (eds.),
Energirikdommens paradokser (ss. 23–44). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Tödtling, F., and M. Trippl. 2018. “Regional Innovation Policies for New Path Development –
Beyond Neo-Liberal and Traditional Systemic Views.” European Planning Studies 26 (9):
1779–1795. doi:10.1080/09654313.2018.1457140.
Tödtling, F., M. Trippl, and V. Desch. 2021. “New Directions for RIS Studies and Policies in the
Face of Grand Societal Challenges.” European Planning Studies, 1–18. doi:10.1080/09654313.
2138 A. ISAKSEN ET AL.

Tödtling, F., M. Trippl, and A. Frangenheim. 2020. “Policy Options for Green Regional
Development: Adopting a Production and Application Perspective.” Science and Public Policy
47 (6): 865–875. doi:10.1093/scipol/scaa051.
Trippl, M. 2022. Challenge-oriented Regional Innovation Systems and Strategies for Sustainability
Transitions. Seville: JRC.
Trippl, M., S. Baumgartinger-Seiringer, A. Frangenheim, A. Isaksen, and J. Rypestøl. 2020.
“Unravelling Green Regional Industrial Path Development: Regional Preconditions, Asset
Modification and Agency.” Geoforum 111: 189–197. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.02.016.
Uyarra, E., B. Ribeiro, and L. Cale-Clough. 2019. “Exploring the Normative Turn in Regional
Innovation Policy: Responsibility and the Quest for Public Value.” European Planning
Studies 27 (12): 2359–2375. doi:10.1080/09654313.2019.1609425.
Wanzenböck, I., and K. Frenken. 2020. “The Subsidiarity Principle in Innovation Policy for
Societal Challenges.” Global Transitions 2: 51–59. doi:10.1016/j.glt.2020.02.002.