| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Next |

Green Technology Foresight about environmentally friendly products and materials

2 Green technology foresight of generic technologies

• 2.1 Introduction to the methodological and theoretical approach in the project
• 2.2 Analytical approaches employed in the project
• 2.3 Social shaping of technology
  • 2.3.1 Laboratory programmes
• 2.4 Techno-economic networks
• 2.5 Technological trajectory changes
  • 2.5.1 Trajectory change and the product cycle
  • 2.5.2 Different notions of trajectories
  • 2.5.3 Exploitation-exploration- attention and search rules
  • 2.5.4 Applying the technology trajectory approach in technology foresight
• 2.6 Identifying visions and constructing paths of development
• 2.7 Assessment of the environmental aspects within the three technology areas as social and scientific process
  • 2.7.1 Elements of stakeholder involvement and dialogue in environmental assessment
  • 2.7.2 Identification of fields of application and core properties of technologies
• 2.8 Governance and regulation
  • 2.8.1 Typology of government regulation
  • 2.8.2 Different aspects of governance
• 2.9 Summary of foresight approach

This chapter presents the methodological and theoretical framework for the project. The first part of the chapter introduces the methodological and theoretical approaches, followed by more detailed presentations and discussions in the following paragraphs.

2.1 Introduction to the methodological and theoretical approach in the project

Green visions have been developed by different stakeholders for all three areas of generic technologies that are in focus in this foresight project.. ICT is often presented as an immaterial technology, because it handles information and is supposed to substitute other material processes. Biotechnology is often seen as potentially environmental friendly because it is based on organic materials and biological processes and nanotechnology as technology, which for example might enable reductions in resource consumption or environmental impact due to the tiny dimensions of devices. But most of these assignments of environmental performance as properties to the generic technologies as such are not satisfactory for an empirical and analytical approach to the impact and potentials of new technologies, as indicated as the aim of this project.

The social shaping approach to technological change (Bijker, 1995) (Sørensen &Williams, 2002) and historical studies of technological development (for example Hughes, 1987) have demonstrated the mutual influence of science and society on technological development. A linear understanding of technological change, where research is seen as the most important basis for technological development and thereby also for the environmental impact of technologies, does not in a satisfactory way explain the dynamics of technological change and the interaction between research, development and application of technologies. Technology should be seen as a “bricolage” (Latour, 1999), a mixture of different elements, and technological change as a continuous process, where technologies and their environmental aspects are co-produced by a series of actions taken in research, development, implementation and application.

Through the so-called IPAT-equation, ΣI = P ^. A ^. T, it is possible to illustrate some elements in the dynamics of the overall burden on ecosystems and natural resources and some of the challenges facing future societal and technological change. In the IPAT- equation, first presented by Ehrlich & Ehrlich in 1991 (here from Gladwin, 1993) the following elements are included: I = the total environmental impact of human origin, P = the population factor, i.e. the number of people, A = the economic factor, or more precisely the ‘affluence’ or resource consumption per capita , T = the technological factor, i.e. the environmental impact per unit of consumption.

The simple correlation captured by the equation is that, everything else equal:

• the more people on earth, the higher the environmental impact
• the higher the consumption per person, the higher the environmental impact
• the higher the impact per unit of consumption, the higher the environmental impact

With an increase in the world’s population of 50-100% in the future and increased economic welfare by many people in the industrialized countries and the newly industrialized countries, the challenges for future economic, social and technological changes are clear (see for example Spangenberg, 1995). There is a need for more resource efficient consumption patterns, more resource efficient technologies and an increased focus on reduction of environmental impact and resource consumption in strategies for research, innovation and different consumption areas.

The social shaping approach to technological change and the focus on the mutual influence of science and society on technological change implies, in relation to the IPAT-equation, a focus on the dynamic interaction between consumption or affluence (A) and technology (T) as these often are interrelated. The weakness of the equation is that is easily can lead to the assumption that it is possible to isolate and calculate each factor individually and compare different technologies, but this is only the case in very specific situation of simple substitution.

The social shaping approach and the combined focus on consumption and technology imply that environmental aspects and especially the magnitude of their impact cannot always be assigned as properties to materials or processes per se, but are shaped during activities of research, innovation and application in interaction between technology and society. Seemingly rather identical technologies can be applied and handled in very different ways and contexts resulting in different environmental loads. Nobody would, for example probably disagree in future developments and uses of sensors, which enable measurements of concentrations of chemicals in nature and helps in reducing hazardous uses and outlets. However, environmental NGO’s and researchers within cleaner technology would probably not agree if the sensors only were used for measurements in nature after the emissions from different facilities have taken place. Neither if the sensors were said to enable less focus on prevention at the source of emissions in the facilities due to the better possibilities for measurements in nature and related ideas of optimal use of natures capabilities. Hybrid cars have less environmental impact than cars with combustion engines, but the important thing is not only the principle of hybrid cars, but also which cars are developed and sold and which amount of transportation is needed and sustainable in society. The use of organic material for production of bioethanol might sound as an environmental friendly process by substituting hydrocarbons, but the actual environmental impact depends on the type of organic material (is it organic waste or plants grown especially for bioethanol) and the alternatives to use of organic material for example for energy production through incineration of the organic matter.

These examples illustrate how environmental aspects of science and technology are shaped not only during research and innovation but through the implementation and contexts of application in the interaction between technology and society. They also demonstrate that the generic technologies often have to be combined with already existing and even new complementary technologies to reach the level of practical application (Wengenroth 1993, Freeman & Perez 1988). The generic technologies do not provide environmental improvements of their own, but in conjunction with their context of application and other complementary technologies (Andersen & Jørgensen 1997).

A technology cannot be characterized as either good or bad in relation to the environment. Wind turbines are widely recognized as an important element in a strategy for reduction of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, but there are at the same time environmental problems related to the use of glass fiber for the wind turbine wings due to problems with the waste from scrapped wings. An environmental assessment shall include all the environmental risks and the environmental potentials and weight them against each other. This weighting may sometimes not be done in a quantitative way due to costs and uncertainties, but should still be carried out as an informed dialogue between different stakeholders. A demand for quantification might in some cases imply that a number of environmental aspects would not be included in the environmental assessment, whereby the environmental assessment might loose its credibility compared to the mentioned type of informed dialogue.

Another aspect of the assessment of environmental impacts of a technology will include whether the technology will substitute previous technologies (with other environmental profiles) and whether it adds to the stock of products consumed. For example whether a fuel efficient car will substitute a more fuel consuming car or just will be added to the fleet of cars in the household or the company has an important impact on the environmental performance of the new technology. Reaching the full potential of a new technology may be dependent on the way it substitutes existing technologies and practices. This is a question of the societal dynamics in the field of application: whether e.g. the transportation needs increase due to a longer distance from home to work. Another example: will the possibility for virtual meetings via videoconferencing or web cam dialogue substitute physical meetings and thereby reduce the amount of transportation? Or will the overall internationalization and globalization of research and businesses increase the amount of travelling so much that the impact of videoconferencing and web cam dialogue will be marginal compared to this increase?

The role of technological foresight is to highlight these interdependencies and to identify those processes in the co-production of technology and society that are crucial for the environmental performance of the technologies in question. There is as mentioned no simple answer to the impact of the three generic technologies studied, but a need to detail methodologies that can identify those processes and important decisions that produce the environmental and other characteristics of the technologies in question (Teknologirådet 1999).

This leads to the need to understand the role of policy in the development of new technologies. The policies relevant in this analytical context are not limited to research and development policies nor environmental policies, but to a broader field of innovation support, investments and regulatory efforts exercised by government. Innovations and applications of generic technologies are not at all limited to be the results of actions by government, they are the result of the interactions between a larger number of commercial and other stakeholders. Therefore a more relevant perspective on the process of development and application is to view technological development as the result of the societal governance of technological change. In this perspective governance is understood by how power is exercised, how different actor groups are given a voice and included in – and some times also excluded from – the development process, and how decisions are made on issues of public concern. This perspective on policy making has increasingly come into focus in the field of technological change and also sustainable development.

Another important aspect of the foresight process is the identification of visions and their role in the shaping of technologies. Genetic engineering has demonstrated how scientific research is informed by tacit visions and imaginaries of the social role of technology (Grove-White et al 2004, p. 3). Although utopian these visions form the basis on which research priorities are negotiated and planned. However, these visions are seldom subject to public discussion and debate, before the research priorities are made. Such visions need to be more articulated by their scientific authors and subjected to wider social deliberation, review and negotiation (Grove-White et al 2004, p. 3). Controversies around such technologies should be seen as necessary and productive from a societal perspective. The reasons for this are at least two-fold (see e.g. Norges forskningsråd 2005, p. 39-40):

• from a democratic point of view: the citizens have to live with the consequences of this research and the products and since the public funds for research and development are limited the priority given to certain types of research will limit the funds available for alternative strategies for achieving the same types of values, and
• from a pragmatic point of view: citizens and NGOs can contribute with other perspectives than the researchers and other experts due to other experiences and other values.

The focus on governance should not only be on the need for communicating risks from researchers and government to the public. A more comprehensive concept of governance is needed, learning from the earlier experience with for example nuclear power and genetic engineering. Structures and processes should be established so they enable the involvement of citizens, consumers, users, employees etc. and their organizations in the assessment of the legitimacy of the problems and the solutions addressed by the technologies and their proponents. The processes should include dialogue about risks related to the problems and the solutions in focus, but also the social and economic set-up around the research and innovation, including who is in control of the technologies and who is benefiting from the technologies.

This focus in the technology foresight implies that technologies are not seen as independent from societal development, but as products of the society and as a picture of an understanding of societal needs, possible future users etc. The experience from genetically modified food show that big expenses for research and innovation might not become transformed into products on the market, if the products do not have the necessary societal legitimacy. Therefore the utilization of generic technologies in a democratic society are highly dependent on the participation and informed consent of the broader group of stakeholders involved in implementing and using the new technologies.

2.2 Analytical approaches employed in the project

This ‘green’ technology foresight has been based on five different types of approaches in order to collect and analyze information about ongoing research, development processes and applications including also plans and visions for future research, development and applications:

Analysis of present, emerging applications of technologies within the three technology areas. The impact of company and other stakeholder practices, structural conditions in existing and emerging value chains, and patterns in the environmental potentials and risks. This has also included surveys of the prerequisites for further dissemination and implementation.

Analysis of mechanisms of prioritization in research and innovation, the role of existing knowledge regimes in research and innovation, and visions shaping and framing the innovation processes, including the role of environmental concerns in research and innovation.

Surveys of dialogue processes among carriers of the three technological areas and actors from environmentally important Danish product areas and how they envisage possibilities of applying technologies for environmental improvements within the three areas.

Development of scenarios for probable, future innovation paths and possible alternative innovation paths. Following the findings from these scenarios recommendations for integrated environmental and innovation policies.

Contrasting the environmental potentials and risks related to the three technology areas with the societal discourse on environmental problems goals and targets and discussions of whether there are better ways solving important environmental problems.

The analytical approaches presented above have been based on theories of:

• Research and development processes seen as socio-technical processes shaped by actors, where persons, artefacts, theories, visions etc. (consciously or taken-for-granted) are assigned roles in research, innovation, and use of technology. Theories about actor-networks, laboratory programmes and techno-economic networks are used.
• Innovation theory focusing on processes of stabilisation and transition in innovation systems, including theories related to path dependency, path creation, and sustainable transition.
• Environmental assessment organised as social and scientific processes by using methods like life cycle assessments, chemical assessments, and methods of dialogue-based environmental assessment, where the focus of the environmental assessment is shaped in the interaction among actors.
• Governance of science and technology as policy network processes involving many different stakeholders and combining different aspects of innovation and regulation of new technologies.

The following paragraphs will describe the different theories that have been applied in the project, explain how the interviews with researchers and companies have been conducted, and how the construction of possible future innovation paths has been done based on information from literature, interviews with researchers and companies etc.

2.3 Social shaping of technology

The social-shaping of technology approach (SST) approach seeks to identify spaces and situations, where sociotechnical change can be analysed, addressed and politicised (Clausen & Yoshinaka 2004). Thus, SST is a broad term, covering a large domain of studies and analysis concerning with the mutual influence of technology and society on technology development. In short, actors and institutions undergo to varying degrees mobilisation, displacement, and reconfiguration (including the establishment of new actors and institutions), as an integral part of the course of technological development.

A key feature of SST is the lack of à priori distinction between the technological (content) and the social (context), respectively. To problematise one facet is to necessarily involve the other (Callon 1986). In this sense SST grapples with technical and social dimensions as an inextricably intertwined unit of analysis. Whether in the development of technology or in its practical, everyday use, the sociotechnical co-construction of technology and social and environmental aspects becomes manifest. This demonstrates the contrast to the traditional view where these are seen as separate fields of study with their own unique properties and consequently are treated separately.

This approach goes against the understanding of technology, which rests upon the attribution of rather well-delineated, unchanging properties of technology itself. In SST issues concerning technology are always of negotiated orders, in terms of how issues are raised, as well as in terms of how they come to be resolved. In the case of emerging technologies, it is therefore most fruitful to approach relations between technology and society with a focus on actor choices, strategies and sociotechnical learning and adjustment at the forefront of the research process: What may be posed as a relevant problem regarding the technology, for whom the problem may be relevant, and by whom it may be posed as such, are matters of which form the negotiations unfold in the process of technological development. This approach, though, does not imply that material and social impacts are just a matter of negotiations and power relations, they are seen as manifest and as an integral part of the overall process of development, but also as dependent of how these manifestations are expressed and represented by the involved actors.

Whether in the aspects of design, planning, implementation, or eventual use of technology, SST’s analytical stance seeks to draw the understanding of technology into the realm of social influence. The degree of influence on technological change, which may be exercised by individual actors, depends on their particular relation to and engagement with respect to the technologies in focus (Bijker 1995). There are choices in the process of technological development and domestication that may be open to discussion and influence.

The key point has been to do away with deterministic notions (social and economic determinisms also) about technological development and technological change in society and the following simple assignment of specific, characteristic properties and (environmental) impacts to a technology. The view being, that neither technology, nor social forces alone, sets the course of societal change and choices concerning technology’s influence in this regard, but that these are the result of the process of application and use.

Actor-visions, strategies and resources thus play into these dynamics, and particular actors’ status may change as a consequence of such interactions. The social dimensions of the technology too are shaped, to support and to sustain particular needs, e.g. through the establishment of new actors and institutions. Instead of taking the driving forces or the concerns for granted, the approach opens up for a wider basis of action as to what may be deemed salient, as well as to what the scope of relevant actors, their positions, and their interaction may entail. In this regard, the SST approach is sensitive to political processes through which actor-positions are identified, negotiated, and redefined, in conjunction with the way technology becomes manifest.

2.3.1 Laboratory programmes

The concept of laboratory programmes is used in the analysis of how researchers organise the focus of their research and is based on the assumption that research processes are not arbitrary, non-biased search processes. Through the concept of laboratory programmes it is possible to identify what is influencing the choices and drawing the attention of the researchers. This concept argues that the “world” is researched the way the researchers understand the world, which could be called the researchers’ “map” of the world. This means that research in this foresight project is analysed as researchers’ simple search for solutions to well-defined problems. Rather the problems are seen as shaped parallel to the solutions developed during the research, when certain achievements are reached in the research process.

This implies that sometimes solutions are found first, and afterwards the researchers try to find societal problems, which they think could be solved by these solutions. This determines what is taken into account as legitimate elements to be included in the process as problems, parameters etc. within a researchers understanding and what is outside an understanding is shaped at the same time. The discourses around genetically modified (GM) food and plants show examples of such a reverse search process and a reframing of the activities. GM researchers and companies have pointed to pesticide resistant plants as an efficient agricultural strategy while after critique from the environmental movements the use of GMO was translated into an environmental strategy due to its claimed potential for reduced pesticide consumption. However, other researchers and the environmental NGO’s pointed to the risk of getting locked in to a pesticide-dependent track for ever and the risk of transfer of genetic material coding for pesticide resistance to other related plants.

A laboratory programme will become more stable when instruments and theories are attached to the program and alignment processes takes place, where physical objects, actors etc. are given roles that mutually supports the research activities and provides them with a legitimate perspective.

2.4 Techno-economic networks

During the identification and analysis of emerging applications and the priority mechanisms in research and development, the techno-economic networks, which the interviewees (researchers, companies etc.) either are part of, or which they (directly or indirectly) anticipate will be developed in the future as part of possible future applications, are identified. As part of the analysis of the techno-economic networks, focus is on the dynamics between the past experience of the interviewee, the ongoing activities and their thoughts about the future development and applications. It is also important to analyse relations to existing innovation paths and how these seem to have an impact on the research and innovation or how the innovation paths and the companies and institutions shaping and “carrying” them might be challenged or might be enrolled in certain visions for the future.

The focus on techno-economic networks supports the analysis in the following two ways:

(1) In the analysis of the emerging applications of a technology it is necessary to understand the background for the breakthroughs, the dead ends etc. in the research and development activities. It is not enough to know whether it now is possible to manufacture for example a certain type of bio-chip, also whether this is based on a certain type of equipment, material, co-operation with others, demand from clients etc. is important knowledge. This will tell about path dependency and path creation in research and development (and thereby also the potential influence of certain equipment, clients etc. in the future). It is also important to understand the technological systems around the applications like necessary supply of energy and materials, standards, competencies etc., which are emerging or need to emerge, so that relevant life cycles and environmental aspects can be identified and prerequisites for further dissemination can be analysed.

(2) In the analysis of research and development it is important to understand the background and the prerequisites for the expectations the actors have: What is the role they are anticipating that for example nanoparticles will have (for example a certain behaviour in terms of reactivity, stability etc.), who are expected to be the future users, in which technological systems does this imply that the nanoparticles etc. will be integrated. What are the necessary scientific and technological breakthroughs which are considered as necessary in order to obtain the results and obtain a ‘working’ version of whatever component it might be? Hereby it is possible to develop a picture of the future research needs as seen by the actors. These pictures might later on become the basis for the development of recommendations for future research, regulation etc. The shape of possible future applications will also enable the sketching of elements in some future life cycles as basis for life cycle based environmental assessments of the environmental potentials and risks.

2.5 Technological trajectory changes

While technological developments in many areas may seem fuzzy and multifaceted, developments in specific areas and applications of technologies often shows more specific and structured paths. Research in new technology has, among other things, supported the observation, that new technologies are far more formable during the process connected with implementation and further development than previously assumed. A sceptical attitude thus exists among researchers and enterprises toward assessments of the future of technology that are based on mechanical predictions. The fact that technology is still undergoing change makes the study of processes of change just as important as the functional understanding of technology. In addition, experts can also bring about particular views about what research and development can contribute in the years to come. Ideas and expectations that research will have an impact on practice – if only the right understanding of the perspectives can be established – is a natural part of the driving power behind a great deal of research.

It is also typical that much professional reservation exists about the significance of the role that visions play in research results. As a result, researchers are reticent about discussing such things, unless it should just happen to be connected with promoting a research area in the competition for funds.  It is also a problem, because visions about future development are very much involved in setting the research agenda and supporting the choice of areas to work on. This supports the recognition of certain paths of development that seem to be sustained and gain momentum in the process of development. In the field of innovation and evolutionary economics these paths or patterns have been phrased technological trajectories. In the following some key aspects of this concept will be discussed.

In evolutionary economic theory innovation is seen as inherently evolutionary and cumulative. The core theme is the adaptation of firms to continuously changing market conditions. Emphasis is put on the firm as a production unit and on technological innovation as a major driver of change (Dosi et. al, 1988). Building on biological metaphors, economic activity is seen as fundamentally evolutionary; competition then, is the interaction between partly purposeful, partly random elements creating variety and forces selecting the behaviours that are to survive (stay in business) (Nelson & Winther, 1982).

Evolutionary change is the sum of decentralised processes of discovery (Dosi, 1991). Evolutionary change is seen as the opposite of revolutionary change that is an emphasis on respectively gradual change emerging from multiple separate interconnected learning and selection processes versus rapid governed change (Nelson & Winter, 1982).

Learning, as all action, is supposed to be routine-based and close in following existing attention and search rules. Learning is based on past experiences preserved in the knowledge base and embodied in routines. Path-dependent learning implies that a firm’s knowledge base is theory-laden and upholding inner consistency.

Early proponents of such a paradigmatic approach in economics are Dosi (1982) with his concept of “technological paradigm” as well as Freeman and Perez (1988) with their techno-economic paradigm discussion and the introduction of “natural trajectories” by Nelson and Winter (1982). The basic argument is, inspired by Kuhn (1970), that technology development, parallel to scientific work, follow certain heuristics. Dosi (1982 p. 152) defines a technological paradigm as “a model and a pattern of solution of selected technological problems, based on selected principles derived from natural sciences and based on selected materials technologies”, (p.152). A technological trajectory is the pattern of conventional problem solving activity within a given technological paradigm; i.e. it is the normal problem solving activity determined by a paradigm.

The technological trajectory emerges because the technological paradigm has a strong exclusion effect. It embodies strong prescriptions on the directions of technological change to pursue (positive heuristics) and those to neglect (negative heuristics) (Dosi, 1982). The efforts and imaginations of researchers and practitioners are focused in precise directions while they are “blind” with respect to other technological possibilities. Also technological paradigms define an idea of technological “progress” related to the economic and technological trade-offs of a given technology (ibid.). The trajectory then, is the movement of multi-dimensional trade-offs among the technological variables, which the paradigm defines as relevant, resulting in a certain technological path. A trajectory is more powerful the bigger the set of technologies it excludes (Dosi, 1982).

Focus is on the evolution of trajectories through selection mechanisms. Dosi (1982) argues that there are generally weak ex ante selection criteria over trajectories; for an innovator it is highly difficult to assess which trajectory is going to win. The economic forces, together with social and institutional factors, will operate as selective devices as new trajectories emerge at the expensive of the old. Gradually the determinateness of selection increases as more and more trajectories are ruled out. This argument lies in line with the discussion on product innovation cycles (Abernathy and Utterback, 1978). There are generally high shifting costs in changing trajectory, depending on the relative power of the old and the alternative trajectory. The institutional set-up supports the existing trajectory because of economies of scope and learning.

Technological communities are important for shaping the search processes (Dosi and Malerba, 1996). These are seen as the group of practitioners, usually engineers, researchers and scientists working with similar technologies, e.g. within the same sector and the supporting scientific institutions. Community members are considered to share similar heuristics through joint experiences of practice but also through a shared education system (Nelson and Winter, 1982).

The trajectory discussion places firm learning within a wider systemic and institutional change It is a recognition of underlying a priori knowledge structures which extends far beyond the single firm. Non-market institutions, notably the education system and the wider societal norms play significant roles in forming the dominating technological trajectories. The emerging innovation system perspective builds on these cognitive considerations (Freeman, 1987; Freeman, 1995; Lundvall, 1992 (ed.); Nelson, 1993; Edquist, (ed.) 1997). The wider institutional context is seen as shaping firms’ innovation process in decisive ways. The institutions (sets of routines, norms and laws) work first of all as reducers of uncertainty and therefore also of the amount of information needed. The implications at the firm level are that the institutional set-up partly determines a firm’s search space.

There is a tendency to provide a strong technology push explanation of trajectory change within industrial dynamics. The interest remains predominantly with which firm/sector is winning the technological race, which takes place at the expense of investigating the processes of innovation more carefully.

2.5.1 Trajectory change and the product cycle

The conditions, noticeably uncertainty, of trajectory change differ in the various stages of the product cycle. Other authors have emphasised how the interfirm interaction is eased by the development of standardised interfaces. E.g. Langlois (1992) refers to standardised connections between stages and fixed task boundaries.

In the pre-paradigmatic stage, the design is fluid involving multiple costly prototyping, until there is evidence that an industry standard, the dominant design, emerges. In this stage there are weak appropriability conditions and imitation is strong. Competition is basically on design, that is, on deciding the standard. Manufacturing processes are loosely and adaptively organised and it is important that the innovator is intimately coupled to the market so that user needs can fully impact designs (Teece, 1986, Lundvall, 1985). It is in this highly uncertain phase, when it is uncertain whether the innovation will become a dominant design or not and the risk of exaggeration is obvious, that it is difficult to persuade the firms with complementary activities to make investments specialised to the innovation. In this fluid phase the uncertainty as to future innovation paths may be great (ibid.).

When systemic innovations are so radical that they involve the pioneering of industry standards the coordination difficulties are great and there may be a battle of industry standards (Teece, 1986; Chesbrough and Teece, 1996).

There may be complex protocols and differing interests among the parties related to competing designs, each trying to become the dominating (selected) standard. In this phase interorganisational coordination and information flows will be intense (Teece, 1986). Market leadership is required to advance standards and it is often big players who break the logjam among rival technologies. Chesbrough and Teece (1996) mention the example of IBM’s PC innovation where the reputation effect of the trade name alone was enough to pull the complementary assets together without contracts.

If we turn to the paradigmatic stage, as industry standards increasingly become accepted, the competition on design weakens and so does the imitation efforts accordingly. Economies of scale and learning in the form of process innovations are important. Competition is on price but also this becomes increasingly less important as prices harmonise. Rather than the core technology which is easy to imitate, the access to and control with the complementary assets becomes the critical competitive factor (Teece, 1986). Teece (1986) argues that it is likely that the imitators, with less developing costs and less restricted by asset specificities, rather than the innovators will come to possess the dominant design. The lower the relative costs of prototyping the greater the possibility for the innovator of shaping the dominant design. The great risks of the innovator as well as the holders of complementary assets are thus accentuated, and thereby implicitly, the costs of persuasion/the high dynamic governance costs.

Reddy et al (1989) emphasizes the codification process in a wider standardisation process in the product life cycle. In the very early stages of a technology, the standardisation activities are focused on the creation of a common language. Next, the performance expectations and procedures for inspection, testing and certification are addressed. At the stage of emergence of a dominant design the activities are oriented towards dimensional and variety reductions. The standardisation process never finishes, but continuous with revisions and evaluations through a product’s life cycle (Reddy et al., 1989).

It is central to clarify that the battle between competing trajectories is not only one of technical standards but may also be described as a battle of conflicting heuristics. Innovators may have to develop different capabilities, theories and understandings to pursue a new innovation path. A classic example of such conflicting trajectories is the electric car versus the traditional car, where the former builds on some very different design and construction principles and a divergent supporting technical infrastructure, much to the disadvantage of the electric car (Truffer and Dürrenberger, 1993). The uncertainty is thus not only one of investments but of cognition. Creating confidence in a standard based on a trajectory that is hardly understood is naturally associated with great difficulty. Such radical changes are slow and have to await a codification process and gradual acceptance of principles through multiple interactive learning processes between supporters and opponents, and possibly succeeded by changes in education systems and other supporting infrastructure.

2.5.2 Different notions of trajectories

There is some indistinctness concerning the concept of trajectory, as it is used in different ways and at different analytical levels; it is unclear, and has not been discussed within the research on technical change, where trajectories are embodied and how they are delimited.

Within the evolutionary economic tradition, technological trajectories are usually seen as aggregate market phenomena, usually only realised ex post. Most refer to trajectories of specific technologies and therefore related to sector development, while others discuss trajectories as regional phenomena (e.g. Quévit (ed.), 199; Kodama, 1996). This indistinctiveness of the trajectory concept is also found in the works of the main proponent Dosi (Dosi, 1982; Dosi and Malerba, 1996), and may be derived from the fact that he defines trajectories quite flexible, existing at different levels of generality, and involving potentially a cognitive and/or a more technical cumulativeness (Dosi, 1982).

Also the early analysis of Dosi differ somewhat from the later interpretations of trajectory change; thus Dosi and Malerba (1996) recently spoke of trajectory change as a co-evolutionary process guided by the surrounding institutions:

Micro-level entities path-dependently learn (and get stuck), but sector-specific knowledge bases and country specific institutions restrict the ‘seeding’ of the evolutionary process and also channel the possible evolutionary trajectories. Given the initial conditions and the institutional context, these innovations spread and set in motion a specific trajectory of competence-building and organizational evolution (Dosi and Malerba, 1996 p.15).

The early (Dosi, 1982) emphasis on trajectory change as discontinuous and the focus on technology development at the market level (as typically perceived by analysing patent data ex post) is replaced by an emphasis on trajectory change as emerging and with a starting point in the firm, consistent with the later Dosi’s stronger emphasis on firm strategizing and firm learning as opposed to a focus on the market level.

2.5.3 Exploitation-exploration- attention and search rules

Inspired predominantly by the behavioural school industrial dynamic theory emphasises the exploitation - exploration dilemma. The trajectory change discussion feeds into this theme. Innovative activities which are the “normal progress or innovative effort” are in accordance with the existing trajectory and are seen in opposition to an “extraordinary innovative effort” which are departing with the existing trajectory (Dosi, 1982). The former is usually associated with incremental innovations and thus continuity in the technological innovation, the latter with radical innovations and discontinuity in the technological innovation. Exploitation then is firm learning within a specific technological paradigm, and exploration as learning challenging given paradigms to some degree.

Exploitation and exploration calls for different organisational set ups (Lundvall, 1985). On the one hand, the role of information channels and codes for information exchange means that some degree of organisational rigidity is a fruitful element in the learning process. Learning within the existing information channels and codes allows for effective exploitation. On the other hand, there is a need for flexibility in the learning relations in order to open up for the organisational and normative breaches of the radical innovations. Radical innovations, or exploration, often involve exchanges of the participants given the embedded nature of much knowledge and the need for new inputs from a variety of sources. Radical learning is thus associated with a broad platform of interaction, i.e. a great number of participants and therefore flexible information channels. However, upholding information channels with many participants is costly. And establishing new channels and codes is associated with high set-off costs. According to this argument, there is a fundamental contradiction between efficiency and radicality in learning, as they are bound up with respectively stable and flexible learning relations. This accentuates the difficulties of radical innovations.

Recognition of the firm heuristics makes it easy to understand the tendency to carry out exploitation in the firm rather than exploration. Obviously, greater investments are needed for creating new cognitive resources and new attention rules than exploiting those already available in the firm (Boisot, 1995). However, the possibility of exploration or radical innovations, other than those made by new actors, is in need of explanation. Generally, we still have little insight into how a firm’s knowledge base and heuristics are developed and transformed over time. As a consequence the shaping of firms search and attention rules influencing the early phases of the innovation process, the crucial phase of problem identification and problem definition, are given little attention. As a result of this industrial dynamics only addresses incremental change within existing paths while radical change and path creation remains unexplained.

Penrose (1959) is an exception here. Her strong emphasis on firm resources allows her to relate the shaping of a firm’s knowledge base to the development of firms’ search rules and entrepreneurial expectations. It is the experience and knowledge of a firm’s personnel, which determine the response of the firm to changes in the external world and also determine what it “sees”, notably the perception of “demand conditions”. Integrating the resource based perspective seems essential for an understanding of trajectory change processes (Andersen, 1999).

2.5.4 Applying the technology trajectory approach in technology foresight

Important questions in technology foresight in the analysis of path dependency, path creation and attention and search rules in research and innovation are:

• How fluid/settled are the trajectories (stages in the product cycle, strength of path dependence)
• What defines the trajectories? Are they more cognitive or more technical? What are the expectations (attention rules), the important theories and skills (search rules) and investments?
• How many are there and how are they competing? Are there e.g. a few dominating ones or many at the same level?
• Can the main carriers (proponents) as well as opponents of the various trajectories be identified?
• Can the distribution of the trajectories be delimited with respect to a)professional, b) cultural and c) geographic proximity (in Denmark as well as internationally). Are there distinctive technological communities defined by different trajectories?
• In which way do they shape the search processes?
• What forces strengthen and preserve the emerging trajectories and what forces hinder them?
• All in all, what do the identified technological trajectories tell us about the pace and direction of technological change of the three generic technologies?

2.6 Identifying visions and constructing paths of development

Some of the actors involved in research and technology development are what  can be called enactors of one (or more) of the technology areas. This means they build, among themselves, a repertoire of promises and expectations and strategies how to position the research or the technology in focus. They might feel forced to promise a lot in order to secure future funding, because if they don’t do that they might not be able to mobilise (more) resources for research and innovation activities. Other actors might more be outsiders or comparative selectors, whom don’t necessarily buy into these promises, but are more watching whether a certain field seems to be relevant for their own interests, compared to other possibilities. It might also be possible to experience ‘mutual positioning’, where some actors try to exclude others by for example referring to them as too much into ‘hype’ in relation to for example nanotechnology (Rip, 2004).

This represents a challenge to the foresight project and to the employed methodology as the identification of existing visions and paths of development is not easily distinguished from the involved actors interests in pursuing their own visions and emphasising certain aspects in their activities e.g. in relation to the environmental concerns. The interviews carried out in the project and the focus created is itself a social process between the interviewee and the interviewing person (Kvale, 1996) and in relation to the object of study. Since environmental aspects are addressed in the interviews, there is the risk that

• the interviewees focus more on environmental aspects than in the normal research practice in order to gain social and political support;
• the interviewees under-estimate the future role of the technology in order not to create too much external interest in its societal impact;
• the interviewees want to avoid problems and is therefore open and transparent.

A way of avoiding the two first situations might be to combine, where possible, data from several interviews or combine information from interviews with written information in order to qualify the assessment of how environmental aspects are seen and whether these are integrated into the research and innovation processes, although written materials of course also are socially constructed and might be aiming at fitting into a certain agenda-building.

But also at the level of development the possible outcome and time frames for research and development will be based very much on the ideas and assumptions of the involved experts. They are so to say themselves involved in constructing the futures that legitimate and accommodate the research results and the ideas for technological developments still to come.

The interviews of different actors have been compared in order to identify mechanisms in research and innovation processes and draw up possible (maybe conflicting, maybe converging) scenarios. The identification of such possible futures within a scientific or technology area can be based on identification of emerging irreversibilities (Rip 2004) as explained in the following. The thoughts of researchers (and other actors) about the possible futures are based on combined thoughts about technological and social aspects of the future in the sense of thoughts about the scientific and technological progress and about the society, which is going to use or implement this progress. The dynamics of these expectations and the agenda building they are part of can be recognised through (Rip 2004):

• Shared research agendas among actors;
• Collective learning processes, maybe as forced or antagonistic learning;
• Emerging mutual dependencies in network linkages.

Changes might be seen at three different levels, where relations between changes at the three levels are indications of emerging irreversibilities (Rip 2004):

• Macro level: overall societal visions (‘rhetorics’);
• Meso level: research programmes and investments;
• Micro level: heuristics in actual research practice.

The scenarios enable anticipation of the possible impacts of the scenarios and discussions of whether these impacts are desirable.

An example of a scenario and its possible impact is the development of nanosensors, which are said to become so small and so cheap that they can enable much more measurements of chemicals in the environment, in wastewater etc. Besides the environmental impact from the sensors themselves and the potentials for better environmental management from better data, there could be an indirect environmental impact of the nanosensors, if the development of these sensors makes authorities, industry and the general public belief that “we anytime and anywhere can detect environmental impact”. Such an understanding could imply an understanding saying that “we don’t need to prevent environmental problems, and we don’t need to be cautious” and thereby be a threat to more preventive environmental strategies. In the discussion of such a scenario it is important to discuss whether lack of environmental data hitherto actually has been limiting the environmental management has rather been a question about the level of environmental regulation industry has been willing to accept.  If the latter is the case the development of nanosensors might not imply more concern for the environment.

The interviews of different actors should be compared in order to identify mechanisms in research and innovation processes and draw up possible (maybe conflicting, maybe converging) scenarios.

Rip describes important steps in the discussions of such possible futures as (Rip, 2004):

• Socio-technical mapping, including the expectations of the actors.
• Foresight researchers’ elaboration of socio-technical scenarios, based on the expectations and containing elements of co-evolution of technology and society.

This leads to an identification of points where paths of development embranches and where decisions about the route to take will have big impact on the further development of technology and society. “Cross roads” has been used as a similar concept in some Danish foresight projects. An example of such an embranchment is the future impact of a focus on (national) security in the US society on the development of nanoscience and nanotechnology R&D activities in US.

2.7 Assessment of the environmental aspects within the three technology areas as social and scientific process

As part of the foresight project a methodology for the assessment of environmental aspects within technology areas has been developed. This development has been an iterative process, where the methodology has been developed along the experience obtained during the project. The assessment of the future environmental aspects is based on the following elements:

• Life cycle thinking, which means assessments “from cradle to grave”. Some assessments are focusing on present emerging applications and others are based on the information from researchers etc. about possible future applications, which enable the sketching of product chains for assessment of environmental aspects. There is, as earlier mentioned, big difference in the amount of knowledge about the environmental aspects of the technology areas with ICT and biotechnology as the two areas with knowledge about past and present applications and their environmental aspects, In the interviews it has been tried to make researchers and companies describe possible future life cycles, including the raw materials which might be applied.
• Systems approach, which implies that not only single techniques or chemicals are taken into consideration, but also the other system elements (products and the related infrastructures etc.), which the techniques, chemicals etc. are part of or dependent of, are, if possible, included in the assessment.
• A broad, dialogue-based understanding of “environment”, which not only comprises of quantifiable environmental aspects like wastes and emissions, but for example also area as a resource. The understanding of relevant environmental aspects has been shaped through studies of literature, dialogue at project workshops etc. Focus is not only on quantifiable and standardised environmental aspects, but also on more qualitative aspects like the impact on the understanding of environment and nature. Part of the approach has been inspired by the approach of “participatory life cycle assessment” as described by Bras-Klapwijk, (1998), where the focus of the life cycle assessment is discussed among the concerned and involved actors in order to increase the legitimacy of the assessment among the actors afterwards.
• Precaution as principle, where uncertainty and lacking knowledge is giving favour to the environmental concern. The approach to precaution has among others been inspired by the approach in the European Environmental Agency’s analysis of a number of case studies of so-called “late lessons from early warnings” (Harremoes et al, 2002). This inspiration has implied that the assessments as far as possible have included early warnings, accounted for real world conditions and used different types of knowledge, including knowledge from environmental researchers, NGO’s, governmental authorities and businesses.
• Prevention as preferred environmental strategy, which means focus on prevention of potential environmental impacts during the research and innovation stages and focus on the source and the cause of the se environmental impacts, as opposite to an end-of-pipe strategy only focusing on treatment of wastes and emissions.

Some of the methodological elements in the approach to environmental assessment are described further in the following paragraphs.

2.7.1 Elements of stakeholder involvement and dialogue in environmental assessment

The methodology contains scientific and dialogue-based elements, because it is not clear in advance, which environmental aspects different stakeholders might find relevant in relation to a possible future. Some actors might, for example in relation to enzymes focus on the ability of some enzymes to reduce the consumption of energy and chemicals in an industrial process and will not see the use of genetically modified (GM) microorganisms as a problem, while other actors might see the use of GM-microorganisms as a problem and opt for strategies without such technology.  The assessment of the environmental potentials and risks related to the three technology areas is based on a combination of five perspectives:

• The perspectives from other projects and reports identified through the desk research.
• The perspectives of the enactors and proponents of a certain scientific field, product etc., including the environmental aspects they might see.
• The perspectives potential future users of certain processes, products etc. might see.
• The environmental aspects the project group has identified based on the perspectives of the enactors, proponents and potential users and their descriptions of possible future techno-economic networks and the environmental aspects they see.
• The environmental aspects, which other stakeholders, like governmental authorities, NGOs etc. might identify based on the perspectives in A.-D.

2.7.2 Identification of fields of application and core properties of technologies

An assessment of the environmental aspects of the future development within the technology areas is complicated due to the many unknown elements within the future development in research and innovation and the different societal areas of application and consumption. This challenge in the environmental assessment has been dealt with in the following way: By focusing on the societal problems and discourses, which have been addressed in the past and recent development, and on the understanding of societal problems and discourses and application areas, which researchers and companies have addressed, when interviewed about the focus of research and development, it has been possible to sketch possible future areas of application.

The focus on possible fields of application has been combined with attempts to assess core properties of the technologies. Methodologies for environmental assessment of chemicals normally include three basic elements, which could be seen as some important general elements in environmental assessments of generic technologies:

• The properties;
• The amount;
• The exposure of “the environment” to the materials etc.

A crucial question is whether one can talk about generic environmental properties of a technology (comparable to the properties of chemicals or materials), which would allow for very early assessments of the risks related to a technology and thereby maybe contribute to pro-active assessments of all possible applications of the technology. The discussion of GM-crops is an example of assessment of core properties of a technology. Some NGOs say that GM-crops are inherently unsafe, because it is not possible to assess all aspects of the technology in the laboratory and not possible after release to the market to withdraw the technology from “the environment”, if unwanted effects are emerging, because the genetic material might have spread to other plants.

IÙW has in a report for the European Parliament used a similar approach, which they call “characterisation of technologies” as a way of getting some first indications about potential problems of one of the nanotechnologies (nanoparticles) before “adverse effects on targets are identified” (Haum et al., 2004). They point to smallness and mobility of the particles, changing chemical reactivity and selectivity, and changing and intensified catalytic effects as properties or aspects, which point to other types of environmental impact deviating from other matter.

It is, however, important to state clearly how such characterisations are applied in an assessment. At a discussion in the nanotechnology working group under the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering in UK December 2003 it was noted in a discussion about effects of nanoparticles that “there are a lot of naturally occurring (e.g. clays) and synthetically produced nanoparticles (e.g. diesel exhaust) which are already present in the environment” (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, 2003). The aim of the comparison was not clear, but since the negative impact of diesel exhaust and welding fumes on respiration etc. is well-known the comparison cannot be used as an argument in favour of nanoparticles (by saying for example “we have known nanoparticles for many years”). On the contrary, such past health impacts show the need for serious precaution in the future. The use of general characteristics and comparisons is an important aspect for discussion within this kind of assessments of technologies and their impact. Such assessments might be used for regulating a certain technology, but never for acquitting a technology for unwanted impacts.

In a report for the OECD Berkhout and Hertin, (2001) developed a methodology for the assessment of environmental aspects of ICT, which have inspired the environmental assessments within the three technology areas. The approach distinguishes between positive and negative effects of changes within a technology area and between three different levels, where the assessments can be performed, called first, second and third order effects. First order effects are effects connected directly to production, use and disposal of the material or the product itself, like ICT hardware. Second order effects are impacts from the interaction with other parts of the economy through the impact from the fields of application, like for example more intelligent design and management of processes, products, services, product chains etc. The number of products, including the effect on the stocks of products due to limited substitution, is also important at first and second level. E.g. if not all “old” products are substituted with more energy efficient ones, but in stead the stock of products is increased with new, efficient products, whereby the total energy consumption might increase. Slow uptake of more efficient process management, whereby potentials are not obtained, is also an example.

Another example of a complicated interaction is the dependence of the growth in the virtual economy, like e-commerce, on the development of faster, more flexible transport infrastructures with greater capacity, whereby the energy consumption for transportation might be increasing. Finally, Berkhout and Hertin focus on third order effects, like changes in growth rates among sectors. Futhermore they see rebound effects as third order effects, when efficiency gains stimulate new demand, which balances or overcompensates the savings or when technological changes in one area interact with chnges in other areas and these changes reinforce or co-shape each other so that the consumption is increasing or expanded (like the interaction between the increasing possibilities for distance work via portable computers ands electronic networks and the increasing globalisation of businesses and the increasing air travelling . It is difficult to assess the role of such rebound effects, but by highlighting potential negative (or positive) rebound effects, themes for future governmental regulation can be identified. Table 2.1 illustrates the methodology for the assessment of environmental aspects of ICT by Berkhout and Hertin as it has been elaborated for the green technology foresight.

Table 2.1 Methodological framework for the assessment of environmental aspects of ICT (adopted from Berkhout & Hertin 2001).

At the first and second order levels it might be easy to assess the potentials of a certain technology, if an 1:1 substitution with another technology can be foreseen and the changes in first order effects (the induced effects from the technologies, which are compared) easily can be compared and with the changes in second order effects from changes in avoided consumption and emissions through a life cycle assessment. An example is assessments in chapter 4 based on life-cycle assessments of the applications of enzymes for the optimisation of industrial processes by comparing the practice, where enzymes are used, with the past practice. At the third order level, however, the effects of such a change might become more unclear, because the change might not just be a substitution of some energy and some chemicals with some enzymes, if the use of enzymes implies that products manufactured in the optimised process become cheaper and the consumption of them therefore increases. This would imply that a comparison of the impact from the life cycle of the enzymes with the saved resources in a life cycle perspective for the avoided use of some energy and chemicals will not give the full picture of the possible effects at the third level. It is of course difficult to say how a certain technology might become integrated into a certain branch or consumption area, but a comparison with societal dynamics, for example identified in interviews with research and businesses can point to some challenges for the future regulation of a certain technology and its application.

2.8 Governance and regulation

The policy recommendations of this foresight project for integrated environmental and innovation policies have been developed based on the previous described understanding of technological change, assessment of environmental aspects and need for at the same time diverse and integrated policies reflecting the shift towards a governance perspective of the stakeholder interactions and the need for dynamic policy measures and objectives to cope with innovation.

2.8.1 Typology of government regulation

Table 2.2 shows an overview of three genetic types of regulatory instruments that from the outset have been considered in the project. The development of policy recommendations has in itself included a policy network approach, since three workshops during the project have contributed to the development of the recommendations in close cooperation with most of the stakeholders involved in developing, using and regulating the technologies studied.

Table 2.2: Overview of different approaches to governmental regulation (after Schot et al 2001).

This schematic presentation of policies is based on a classification and differentiation of policies due to their basic elements and measures. As shown in several studies (se e.g. Boehm & Bruijn 2005) the efficiency and impact of policies is not dependent on the working of single measure independently but on a combination of measures, objectives and their implementation. In the analysis of the environmental impact of the generic technologies these findings may turn out to be an important lesson when identifying relevant policies to support the environmental achievements from the implementation and use of the generic technologies.

2.8.2 Different aspects of governance

Environmental governance can be influenced by policies that build platforms and methods for different actor groups giving them a voice and developing frameworks for how decisions are made on issues of public concern. Governance is thereby also linked to the creation of legitimacy of priorities of problems and solutions in focus in technological change, the level of risk and uncertainty to be accepted etc. An important aspect of governance concerns how boundaries are drawn and issues are being defined as inside or outside and what is legitimate to discuss as risks and potentials. This includes on whose premises these boundaries are drawn and what sort of framing between the social and the technical that is set up. An important aspect is the inclusion and exclusion of actors, and how the drawing of such boundaries is dealt with (Clausen and Yoshinaka 2004, pp. 224-226). Dingwerth describes dimensions of democratic legitimacy in his analysis of democratic governance (Dingwerth 2004, p.23). The three sources or dimensions are a) participation or inclusiveness, b) democratic control and c) discursive quality.

Legitimacy through participation focuses on two aspects: the scope and the quality of participation. The scope refers to who participates. The quality of participation refers to how those who are included in the decision-making process actually participate. Various degrees can be imagined from passive like receiving information to more active like participating in public debate, voting, selecting a representative or representing a constituency. Equality of opportunities to participate is seen as linked to the quality.

The idea of democratic control could be seen as passive forms of participation, where control refers to concepts like accountability, transparency and responsiveness (Dingwerth 2004, p. 25). An important aspect is who is actually able to exert control over decision-makers. The degree of transparency concerns the extent to which the affected are able to learn about the decision-making, including its existence and subject matter. Such elements are highly relevant in relation to priorities and agenda-setting in research and innovation. A principle within this aspect of governance is the right-to-know principle, which is supported by the Aarhus Convention. The European Environmental Bureau, EEB, finds that there is need for further implementation in the EU of the Aarhus Convention (European Environmental Bureau 2005).

Finally, the discursive quality is linked to an understanding of discourses as the social space where collective interpretations are constructed and discourses are seen as a long-term consensus-forming process rather than (just) a decision procedure (Dingwerth 2004, p. 27). Elam and Bertilsson (2002) argue in their development of the scientific base for analysis of science, technology and governance that the modern democracy includes the acceptance and legitimation of conflict and accepts that consensus is of a conflictual and contestable nature.

2.9 Summary of foresight approach

As a summary, the ambition with the Green Technology Foresight project can be characterised as:

• Show that environmental impact cannot always be connected to materials or processes per se, but are shaped during activities of research, innovation and application of technologies. Therefore research, innovation and application areas like products, branches etc. are all important policy fields in the regulation of technological change and environmental impact.
• Show that the scope of the environmental assessments of research, technology etc. needs to be defined in an open, democratic process.
• Show that different technological paths might call upon different technologies, competencies, infrastructures etc., so that identification of forks and cross roads for important choices in the future development is important.
• Show that technologies are not single chemicals and materials, but whole systems and that these systems and their interaction with other systems need to be included in the identification and assessment of environmental aspects.
• Show that different solutions to environmental problems might be compared and that the comparison might go beyond the simple comparison of chemicals and resources, and include for example the cultural impact, like the impact on our understanding of nature.
• Identify the ”hype” in relation to potentials for remediation and prevention of environmental problems and identifying what might be or become more real potentials.
• Identify the prerequisites for innovation paths that support the implementation of environmental potentials.

It is a challenge to establish an open, democratic societal discussion about technologies and the impact and about alternative strategies, because researchers and universities today often are depending on external funding, which might encourage them to promise big positive impact of the technologies. At the same time universities more and more engage in setting up companies and taking patents themselves, which might make them less interested in public discussions of the technologies, the impact, the prerequisites for realisation of potentials etc. Maybe the above mentioned ambitions with the Green Technology Foresight project are optimistic, but the project will be an opportunity to get early and open discussions of societal interests making sure that alternative strategies for achieving the environmental promises from the ‘high tech’ areas also become part of the societal debate.

| Front page | | Contents | | Previous | | Next | | Top |

Version 1.0 September 2006, © Danish Environmental Protection Agency