Supplying environmental technology for cleaner production: a benchmarking study of the Dutch knowledge-infrastructure and knowledge institutions

Transcription

1 See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: Supplying environmental technology for cleaner production: a benchmarking study of the Dutch knowledge-infrastructure and knowledge institutions Article June 1997 CITATIONS 0 READS 25 2 authors: Frans Coenen University of Twente 145 PUBLICATIONS 417 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Peter S Hofman University of Nottingham, Ningbo Campus 74 PUBLICATIONS 552 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Environment-oriented Innovation in Industry View project Family Firms, Entrepreneurship and Innovation View project All content following this page was uploaded by Peter S Hofman on 24 February The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2 Center for Clean Technology and Environmental Policy Supplying Environmental Technology for Cleaner Production: A benchmarking study of the Dutch knowledge-infrastructure and knowledge institutions. Paper presented to the European Roundtable on Cleaner Production, Oslo, 1-3 November 1997 By Frans Coenen & Peter Hofman, Center for Clean Technology and Environmental Policy (CSTM), University of Twente, The Netherlands

3 Summary This paper is based on the results of a benchmarking study on the knowledgeinfrastructure for environmental technology. The research was carried out by CSTM and Environmental Resources Management 2 (ERM) and was funded by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. The research is carried out to develop an instrument which can support the tuning between supply and demand of environmental technology. The goal of the benchmarking try out study is to determine the position of different countries with regard to the knowledge-infrastructure in three areas of environmental technology. A next step is to determine which institutes are leading in the different countries with regard to generating new technologies in the defined areas. In this paper the focus is furthermore on the scope for this type of benchmarking studies as an environmental policy tool. 1. Introduction Benchmarking is in essence looking critically in your own organisational kitchen by comparing the own performances with other organisations, giving preference to excellent performing organisations, and asking the question how the own organisation performs comparing with others and why. Although benchmarking in fact descends from business strategies, it is in practice not restricted to profit-organisations. Furthermore, the word benchmarking is also used to compare the performance of regional or national economies. In this paper we will discuss a very specific form of benchmarking. The performance that gets benchmarked is what we call a countries knowledge position. The main question in this paper is: What can be the value of benchmarking as an instrument for government to support the fine tuning between supply and demand of environmental technology? We will clarify in this paper why benchmarking is not only of interest as a business management tool but also as a instrument of governmental (environmental) policy. Our key argument lies in the necessity of comparing the available knowledge in his own country with other countries for a government to be able to support and improve the necessary knowledge infrastructure for environmental technology for cleaner production. We see it as a important task for government to fine tune the supply and demand of cleaner technology by supporting and improving this knowledge infrastructure. 2 ERM Nederland BV & CSTM, Benchmarkonderzoek milieutechnologie: een pre-review naar de internationale kennisinfrastructuur, Onderzoek in opdracht van het Ministerie van EZ, ERM, Utrecht,

4 We will illustrate the possibilities of a benchmarking study of a knowledgeinfrastructure with a case study based on benchmarking the Dutch knowledge position in some specific environmental technology sectors, against the Italian and German knowledge position. Environmental Resources Management and the Centre for Clean Technology and Environmental Policy of the University of Twente conducted this research, assigned by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, with the aim to: gain insight in the knowledge position of the international knowledge-infrastructure in the field of environmental technology; gain insight in the strong and weak points of the Dutch knowledge-infrastructure; make an inventory of the possibilities to make effective use of research potential of the international knowledge-infrastructure by (primarily) the Dutch businesses and (secondly) universities and knowledge institutions; value the benchmark method and results in terms of usefulness for Dutch and EU policy-instruments. The paper is structured as follows. In the next paragraph we will focus on the concept of benchmarking and compare it with competitive analysis and market research. We do this because benchmarking as a method often gets wrongly heaped together with competition analysis or is sometimes even mistaken for market research. In the following section we will focus on the role benchmarking can play in the relationship between environmental policy and cleaner production. Paragraph four focuses on the method used in this specific benchmarking study of the Dutch knowledge position. A next section describes the phases of planning and analysis in the benchmarking study. Paragraph six gives the main results of the benchmarking study, whereas in section seven we evaluate this specific benchmarking exercise. Some concluding remarks are made in paragraph eight. 2. Benchmarking, competitive analysis and market research Many of the comparing researches on performances of organisations will nowadays be called benchmarking. Beside that there also is research conducted on competitive positions of economies according to analogy of that of organisations in the private sector that are called benchmarking. Market research (for example the question where a company can get certain information) in the first place relates to general market research, that, in contrary to competition analysis and benchmarking, not gets initiated from one organisation or country but has relevancy for all organisations and all countries. The essential difference between benchmarking and market exploration is that benchmarking aims at a comparison and market exploration aims at collecting information. Market exploration doesn t look at own functioning but at information needs. Although there can be similarities in the nature of information that gets collected, in benchmarking one doesn t analyse the question for products or services, but makes a comparing analysis of the offer, using their own performances as a starting point. Competitive analysis not necessary has comparison as a component. The interest could be restricted to getting insight in who your competitors on the market are and what they are doing. In benchmarking, on the contrary, the own performances are critically compared with those of others. 3

5 A second difference between benchmarking and competition analysis is improvement as a goal. Benchmarking almost always aims at the question whether the own performances, functions and methods can be improves compared to competitors. This also points at third difference. With benchmarking one directly thinks of the how-question. A competition analysis can be limited to the question which are the performances of the competitors. With benchmarking the following question will be how competitors reached this performances and which are the processes behind it. A benchmarking study does not have to limit itself to competitors in this learning process. It also can include organisation which practice a sort-like function and in which case only this functions gets compared. One is looking for a comparison with excellence, an organisation or a part of an organisation elsewhere that has better performances than the own organisation and from which one hopes to learn something about the how-question. 3. Benchmarking, cleaner production and environmental policy The relation between competitiveness and cleaner production There are not only environmental arguments for cleaner production but also economic arguments for cleaner production and sustainable development. The potential increase in competitiveness of national economies as a result of sustainable development relates to increases in resource efficiency, reduced costs, success on markets for clean technologies and green products, etc. Influential studies have shown that ambitious environmental goals and standards can create a national competitive advantage if they are introduced with flexibility, clear time frames and broad communication with the target group (Porter and van der Linde, 1995; Wallace, 1995). Furthermore, the country that moves first in applying tougher environmental standards is likely to dominate the market for environmental technology (Porter, 1991). This is the so-called first mover advantage. The European Union White paper Growth, Competitiveness, Employment states that a policy of pollution prevention, in particular through a generalised development of clean products and processes, will not only prevent rapidly increasing clean-up costs but also stimulate a faster diffusion of R&D results. The first-mover advantage that will result will contribute to a strengthened overall competitiveness of European industry. The White papers also relates to the significance of the eco-industry as a quickly expanding industrial market, thereby meaning not only the supply of goods and services to firms for pollution control or abatement but also the expenditures made for the environment in the general context of improved production methods or products, as well as the markets for environmentally sound products (green products). Further the White paper states that in the present context of global competition, the technologies employed in, and the organisational requirements for, the successful introduction of clean technologies are often similar to those associated with the new manufacturing paradigm. The concept of lean (e.g. less energy, fewer raw materials) constitutes a significant improvement regarding the environmental friendliness of production processes and fosters the competitiveness of the industries concerned. 4

6 Benchmarking as a tool for environmental policy The concept of competitiveness introduces the aspect of comparison in the discussion on cleaner production. Comparison between individual businesses is the basis for principle of environmental permitting like ALARA (as low as reasonable achievable). The setting of environmental standards and norms on the basis of ALARA can be influenced by technological developments in other countries. A benchmarking study can provide information on the status of the national Alara as compared to Alara in other countries. An example can be found in an agreement between the Dutch government and industry to reduce CO2 emissions. According to the Dutch national government paper on Environment and economy Dutch industry is ambitious and wants to belong to the best in the world in the field of energy-efficiency. National government very much welcomes this from the perspective of environmental protection and the perspective of international competition through cost-savings. The general idea is that benchmarking could be an extra impulse for energy saving by weighing the energy performances abroad and comparing them with Dutch industry. The energy-intensive industry will work on a protocol for benchmarking together with national government. The benchmark means that an independent institute will analyse how much energy Dutch companies produces a piece product. This performance will be compared with other countries. If the Dutch companies are not in front of energy efficiency supplementary measures have to be taken to reach the world top within a reasonable time limit. As a reward for fulfilling it s promises made in the voluntary agreements with government companies will not be confronted with any additional measures aimed at energy savings and CO2- reduction. The energy-intensive companies will be asked to join the benchmark agreement. Another example of the role benchmarking can play in cleaner production and environmental policy is at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Programme on Transnational Corporations. A Benchmark Survey was conducted collecting data in companies with operations in more than one country and with annual sales in excess of $US1 billion on the current state of corporate environmental management. By consolidating existing standards and practices of the most progressive companies a level of environmental excellence is identified. On this basis of this level of excellence steps to undertake can be suggested for other companies to achieve the same excellence. By disseminating ideas of improved environmental management and innovative sustainable development the UNCTAD hoped that other would be inspired to get engaged or get more engaged in environmental protection. 5

7 We will not go in depth into the arguments how government can stimulate the use of cleaner production methods. It is clear that stimulating cleaner production methods has both economic and environmental benefits. But for government there are more specific arguments to get involved in the market of supply and demand of cleaner production knowledge and methods. In the first place the funding of basic research institutes is seen as a key task for governments. Secondly, facilitating the introduction of break-trough technology is sometimes seen as a function of government. And thirdly government has a function in fine tuning of supply and demand of cleaner production methods and knowledge. Benchmarking can ideally provide a tool for governments to be able to determine the state of the art with regard to technology and knowledge, and to signal whether government activities have been effective with regard to the funding of basic research, stimulating break-through technology and fine tuning supply and demand. The basic assumption and underlying argument for this benchmarking study is that a well-developed knowledge-infrastructure will provide the necessary seeds for a prosperous and competitive industry. Knowledge is viewed as one of the most important conditions for innovation in businesses. This knowledge generally origins in knowledge institutions, is stimulated and partly funded by governments and is used (and sometimes further developed) by businesses. We have analysed the performance of the knowledge-infrastructure at two levels, the level of institutions producing knowledge and the country-level, see figure 1. Therefore in this benchmarking study the performances of (selected) individual knowledge institutions are being compared; and the performances of the knowledge institutions in a country (knowledgeinfrastructure) as a whole are being compared. In the next section we will focus on the specific benchmarking process used in this research. Figure 1 Levels of Analysis for this Benchmarking study government country knowledge institutions companies performance at institutional level country-performance of knowledge-infrastucture 6

8 4. The benchmark of the knowledge position The subject of this benchmarking study is the knowledge-infrastructure. The performance that gets benchmarked is what we call the knowledge position and consequently this benchmarking study has some distinct characteristics if compared to more traditional forms of benchmarking. In the first place benchmarking compares in most cases organisational skills, functions and processes. Potential performance improvements are after all part of the method whit which the performances were realised. Comparison of the differences in performances just the first step to reach this. In this research is the performance compared generated knowledge at knowledge institutions. The will be comparison drawn between the generated knowledge (output) and the input used for this. The process between input and output can not stay a black box in benchmark research. Also for knowledge institutions has to be compared how performances, generated knowledge, are accomplished. In the second place it is difficult to benchmark the performance generated knowledge. Determining the height of the performances depends strongly on which criteria are used. The scientific performances are valued different than there usefulness for industry. This is intrinsic to the different function generating knowledge by knowledge institutions has. In the third place there is a problem to in the choice of benchmarkpartners. Who is the one the benchmarking study will aim at? In this research the choice was made for benchmarkpartners (the chosen countries) that looked interesting to compare in the try-out. The criteria for selection were not based on excellence in performance or specific function. There are no uniform models for benchmarking that can be used everywhere. But the different step-plans have many elements in common. Essentially the used methodology followed a common benchmark research method. Compared with other benchmarking studies, for instance using the well-known ten step-plan made by pioneer Rank Xerox, the benchmark environmental technology follows in essence similar steps. But the action step doesn't get much attention caused by the try-out character of our case. Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5: Step 6: Step 7: Planning Defining the subject of benchmarking Identification of benchmarkpartners Analysis Form a picture of international knowledge-infrastructure (define methods partly in tender writing stage) Analysis of the relative position of the Dutch knowledge-infrastructure compared with countries abroad Action Establish the value of the gathered information Formulate an advice for effective use of the gathered information Formulate an advice for the method used in the follow up research The next section will describe these steps for the underlying benchmarking study. 7

9 5. Planning and analysis in the benchmarking study Step 1: Selection of environmental technology themes and industrial sectors The research limited itself to water purification and process integrated technologies (PIT) related to the field water. One of the considerations was that the Netherlands is seen as a water country, and therefore this is a field in which the position of the Dutch knowledge institutions seems to be excellent. In the Netherlands there are relatively spoken much users in this field. Many small companies are suppliers of wastewater purification systems and of technology for a process integrated approach. Furthermore the research was limited, concerning process integrated technologies, to the textile and paper industry. For the paper industry process integrated rules to de-ink re-used paper are an interesting aspect from the view of the environment. The textile industry knows the problem of CN-compounds en the water pollution caused by these. This led to the choice of three fields of environmental technology: 1.Water purification (for industrial wastewater) 2. Process integrated technologies related to use of water in the paper industry 3. Process integrated technologies related to use of water in textile industry In paper and textile industry for example concerned process integrated technologies that result in a reduction of emissions to water or aim at reduction of the use of the amount of water (for example for re-use in the own company). Step 2: Selection of countries To compare with the Netherlands, Germany and Italy are chosen. The German knowledge-infrastructure was expected to be accessible and the exchange of knowledge between the Netherlands and Germany is expected to be high. The reason for choosing Italy was different. For the try out it was considered useful to work with a country where it will be less simple to gather information. The expectation was that in Italy the knowledge-infrastructure is relatively less developed and is organised in an other way. Further on Italian appliance has a strong position in the field of physical separation techniques. Also Italy is an southern EU-member, which can be interesting when looking at the European co-operative programs. Step 3: Defining the knowledge-infrastructure For a description of the knowledge-infrastructure a distinction between different knowledge institutions has been made: Universities take care of scientific education and, like fundamental research institutes, conduct fundamental and strategic research Research institutions on a national level, like TNO and DLO in the Netherlands, conduct strategic and applied research for industries and other societal sectors 8

10 Knowledge development does not only take place in universities, but also with intermediates (designers, advice institutions, suppliers/builders of technology) and in industry. Knowledge development is generating new knowledge and the use of knowledge generated elsewhere. Related to this research can either be of a more fundamental nature with a primary focused at increasing knowledge without direct use for society. Applied research aims at developing knowledge which can be applied in industry and/or society. More practical research and development finally is goal-oriented and aims at saleable products, or production processes that can be implemented directly. The research analysed in the first place the position of knowledge institutions as universities and research institutions and focuses foremost on the fundamental and applied research. The knowledge position of intermediates and companies, and more practical research and development was not tested. Step 4: Developing indicators for the knowledge-infrastructure The research was done on the basis of a secondary analysis of existing research material and interviews with the excellent knowledge institutions. To find the necessary information for the indicators, many different sources were explored. The basic information was gathered directly through interviews and written questionnaires and indirectly through analysis of data banks. Qualitative information was gathered through interviews. To be able to define the knowledge position several indicators were used, see also table 1. A selection was made on the basis of criteria like availability, accessibility, liability and comparability. Quantitative indicators such as input in terms of numbers of researchers and promotions, and sources of income are used to indicate the capacity available in different countries and institutes. Quantitative indicators such as number of publications and patents are used to indicate the quality of the knowledge generated in different countries and institutes. Quantitative indicators such as participation and collaboration in national and international research programs are used to indicate the reputation of the knowledge-infrastructure in different countries. Also a set of qualitative indicators is used. Indicators for capacity, quality and reputation are filled in by interviews with experts from the different countries. The following indicators were chosen: Amount of full time employees of the research group for water purification/process integrated technologies, this gives the breeding ground for the quality of knowledge infrastructure; Amount of annual income sources of the institution divided in government, industry and EU sources. This can indicate the orientation of the institution, either more toward the market or more scientifically oriented; Number of annual dissertations in the knowledge institution. Indicates the size as well as the quality of the institute; Number of annual publications on basis of a selection of professional journals, indicates the quality of the knowledge institute; 9

11 Total and annual number of patents and sub-licences. Patents can be seen as an important output indicator either at the country- or institute-level; Participation in international and national research programs, indicates the importance of the institute at either the national or international level; Joint ventures on national level. Co-operation is seen as an important factor for the generation and application of knowledge, the extent and nature of cooperation indicate the quality and orientation of the research; Joint ventures on international level, indicate a certain level of reputation in the are of collaboration. Table 1 Indicators at different levels of analysis Knowledge-infrastructure the country-level Knowledge-infrastructure the level of institutions on on Qualitative Picture of: capacity quality reputation Picture of: excellent institutions co-operation between industry and institutions Quantitative Indicators such as: number of patents import-export data Indicators such as: amount of fte s publications participation in research programs number of patents 6. Results of the Benchmarking Study The results of the benchmark study can be divided in two parts. Firstly, much is learned about the possibilities of carrying out a benchmark study for the knowledgeinfrastructure regarding environmental and/or clean technology. The first results indicate that significant methodological problems arise because of the difficulties to assess environmental and/or clean technologies as a defined technology area. In the next section we will elaborate on this. Secondly, results indicate that in the area of industrial waste water treatment holds a strong position in terms of capacity and quality relatively to Germany and especially Italy. A large research network of universities, institutes and equipment producers exists. With regard to clean technology for the textiles industry and pulp and paper industry the picture is different. Here the knowledgeinfrastructure in the Netherlands seems to be confined to a small number of institutes, which are specifically focused on the chosen branches of industry. Compared to Germany the position of the Dutch knowledge-infrastructure seems to be relatively weak. For the three different fields of environmental technology some more detailed conclusions can be made about the knowledge-infrastructure. These conclusions are based on the basic information from the try-out. With regard to industrial waste water purification: Concerning the quality of the Dutch knowledge institutions the Dutch score is comparatively good. The knowledge-infrastructure concerning industrial waste water purification in Germany and the Netherlands is very extensive. The Netherlands has a 10

12 big capacity as well compared to Germany as to Italy. Because of the diffuse character of the research on industrial waste water purification it is not possible to give a definite conclusion concerning the position the position of the Netherlands on the level of knowledge institutions. In the field of biological water purification the Netherlands has a comparatively big capacity in size. With regard to process integrated technology in the textile sector: The German knowledge-infrastructure for process integrated technologies (water related) in the textile industry is as well in capacity terms as quality terms stronger than the Dutch knowledge-infrastructure. In quality terms the Dutch knowledgeinfrastructure has a stronger position than the Italian. The importance of Dutch knowledge institutions for the textile sector is more in the field of user oriented research (for smaller companies). In case of the more fundamental technology research one has to turn to the German infrastructure, where the big industry sector finances textile specific education programs and research institutions. With regard to process integrated technology in the paper sector The Dutch knowledge-infrastructure for process integrated technologies in the pulp and paper industry is small compared to Germany. In Italy it is virtually non-existent. Germany knowledge institutes seem to be stronger in terms of quality compared to Dutch institutes. Providers of machinery and systems for the pulp and paper industry and large companies have significant capacity for Research and Development and hold an important position in the Dutch knowledge-infrastructure concerning technology development. 7. Evaluation of the Benchmark Method The selection of knowledge institutions and the benchmark of these institutions using indicators is a workable method to define the position of this part of the infrastructure. The biggest barrier to get to a workable selection of knowledge institutions and to generate comparable data is the defining of the sections of environmental technology. Fundamental research has in general a broad range of applications and PIT research has often as goal to optimise processes or the improvement of product quality and isn t seen as environmental technology research. The selected indicators offer in principle (quantitative) a hold for the benchmark, provided that enough and reliable data are available. Secondary information sources don t give enough data. The information from the interviews (questionnaires) with knowledge institutions and data banks is in theory usable for a benchmarking study. In the try-out the information however was to fragmented and contained some bias, because of the difficulties in the definition of research groups and the field of environmental technology. The qualitative information from the interviews with intermediates and businesses give a picture of the knowledge-infrastructure and the position of knowledge institutions. This information of course is more subjective than the information from the knowledge institutions themselves, but it is coming from the users. 11

13 ERM and CSTM expect on the basis of the try-out that after accentuating the followed procedure, the methodology will lead to a strong improvement of the completeness, depth and reliability of the information. Recommended is to try to find a well-balanced combination between collecting data at knowledge institutes and data banks on the one side and on the other side an opinion research with intermediates and companies. The interviews for the opinion research should get more attention than in the try out. After accentuating, the improved benchmarking method can give, in a fast and low-cost way, insight in the knowledge position of the Netherlands on one of the specific fields of environmental technology. To let Dutch businesses, intermediates and knowledge institutions make effective use of the research potential of the international knowledge-infrastructure, the collecting of information has to get tuned to the specific information needs. ERM and CSTM give the following recommendations for designing a benchmarking study: accentuating the aim and target group of the benchmarking study and the functions (scientific and application oriented) of the knowledge-infrastructure which will be compared; attention for the question in which way the performances of the knowledgeinfrastructure are achieved; limitation to manipulable variables in the information and stimulating policy by the government, like amount of fte s and research institutions; co-operation with partners abroad as well as with knowledge institutions in the private sector; compare the level of excellence and through this aim the benchmarking study at knowledge institutions and businesses in a country that is market leader in a specific environmental technology field. 8. Concluding remarks The main question in this paper was: What can be the value of benchmarking as an instrument for government to support the fine tuning between supply and demand of environmental technology? We base our conclusion on the case of the benchmarking study in to the Dutch knowledge position. The study shows that benchmarking the knowledge-infrastructure for environmental technology has to be developed more fully but can give insight in factors which determine the capacity and quality of knowledge generated and the extent in which the knowledge generated is adjusted to the market. This information can be the basis for government policy and intermediate organisations to better support and improve knowledge creation essential for cleaner production. The benchmarking study has also another value in itself. If offers information through which Dutch businesses, intermediates and knowledge institutions can make more effective use of the research potential of the international knowledge-infrastructure. A governmental task could just be collecting this information. But for this function the collecting of information needs to be better tuned to fulfil the specific information needs. 12

14 The value of benchmarking as an instrument for government to support the fine tuning between supply and demand of environmental technology can be twofold. As a basis for stimulating and supportive policy by the government and intermediate organisations and as a information instrument stimulating more effective use of the research potential of the international knowledge-infrastructure. References Arentsen M.J., en Hofman P.S., Technologie, schone motor van de economie?, Een onderzoek naar de werking van het Programma Milieutechnologie in de periode , Enschede, Bennet, M. & James, P., How Can Management Accounting Serve Sustainability?, New Findings and Insights from a Benchmarking Study, Paper presented to the Fifth Greening of Industry Conference, Global Restructuring: A Place for Ecology?, Heidelberg, November ERM & CSTM, Benchmarkonderzoek milieutechnologie: een pre-review naar de internationale kennisinfrastructuur, Onderzoek in opdracht van het Ministerie van EZ, Kemp, R. et al. 1994: Policy Instruments to Stimulate Cleaner Technologies, in: Opschoor, H./Turner, K. (eds.), Economic Incentives and Environmental Policies, Dordrecht., Kemp, R.P.M., Environmental Policy and Technical Change, Ph.D Thesis, Maastricht, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Benchmarking the Netherlands, Test of Dutch Competiveness, The Hague, Misra, K.B. (Hrsg.) 1996: Clean Production - Environmental and Economic Perspectives. Berlin u.a. OECD 1996: Integrating Environment and Economy. Progress in the 1990s, Paris. Porter, M.E. and van der Linde, C. 1995: Green and Competitive. Ending the Stalemate, in: Harvard Business Review September-October 1995, Porter, M.E. and van der Linde, C. 1995: Toward a New Conception of the Environment- Competitiveness Relationship, in: Journal of Economic Perspectives, Fall 1995, Stieger, R. & Lehni, M., How to Measure Eco-efficiency - Key Indicators for Benchmarking, Paper presented to the Fifth Greening of Industry Conference, Global Restructuring: A Place for Ecology?, Heidelberg, November United Nations Conference on Trade and development (UNCTAD), Programme on Transnational Corporations, Environmental management in Transnational Corporations, Report on the Benchmark Corporate Environmental Survey, UNCTAD, Environment series No. 4, United nations, New York, Wallace, D. 1995: Environmental Policy and Industrial Innovation. Strategies in Europe, the USA and Japan. London. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) 1987: Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 13 View publication stats