| dc.description.abstract | This thesis aims at determining the main barriers for using Public Procurement for Innovation
(PPI) as an approach to induce sustainable innovation in a national context. In order to do
this, this thesis firstly examines the link between sustainability goals and innovation. It is
concluded that, in order to change production and consumption patterns, innovation policy
should aim at implementing approaches and instruments that induce sustainable
development – thus effectively integrating the two goals of enhancing the innovativeness of a
country and working towards a more sustainable society. Demand-driven innovation, and
specifically Public Procurement for Innovation (PPI) seems to hold significant potential to
reach this goal. However, as innovation policy traditionally focused on supply-driven
innovation, this remains an underexplored field. Furthermore, the scope and status quo of
different PPI schemes is largely unknown, which makes it difficult to determine the barriers
to use PPI to induce sustainable innovation.
Therefore, this research examines three countries’ PPI schemes in the context of their own
innovation policy. The Netherlands, Sweden and the UK are all considered to be frontrunners
in using demand-driven innovation and PPI. In order to provide context for the comparison
and to determine the most important actors who influence the PPI policy, the innovation
system approach is used. Through an examination of demand-oriented innovation policy
theory, the PPI schemes are firstly categorised in terms of their PPI form and the rationales
behind them, after which a capacity framework for successful innovation procurement is
presented. This capacity framework is linked to several system failures that the PPI policy
attempts to address – so as to establish a link between strong and weak points of the policy,
and a solution to the system failures. The capacities that are identified in the framework are:
coordination capacity, link with private demand, coping with complexity and procurement
discourse, activating and enabling the procurement chain, and creating and maintaining a
supporting innovation procurement culture.
For all three countries, the development of innovation policy and the national innovation
system is described. Secondly, through an examination of policy documents, scientific
literature and in-depth interviews with a number of key actors, the PPI schemes of the three
countries are reconstructed using a policy reconstruction method. Thirdly, some empirical
evidence is provided in the shape of formal evaluations of practice and the revision of
flagship cases. Finally, the strengths and weaknesses of each country’s PPI schemes are
determined using the capacity framework, after which conclusions are drawn regarding the
PPI schemes’ ability to solve the system failures. In the comparative analysis, the main
differences and similarities between the three countries are set forth. Then, the PPI
approaches are compared in terms of their forms and rationales. Lastly, the countries’
strengths and weaknesses are compared, using the capacity framework again.
It can be concluded that PPI has large potential to solve the system failures and as such
facilitate innovation, especially in the environmental field or as a complementary asset to
sustainable procurement. Ideally, a pre-commercial procurement scheme should aim at the
development of R&D (especially through targeting SMEs), while a central procurement
scheme should aim at integrating the innovation rationale throughout the government.
Furthermore, sustainable procurement should be supplemented or integrated with
innovation procurement, as both can enhance each other.
The barriers for using PPI to induce sustainable innovation are found within all the capacities,
although the capacity to create and maintain a supporting innovation procurement culture is
least developed in all three countries: many existing rules as well as a lack of financial stimuli
hamper the process. Furthermore, the capacity to activate and enable the procurement chain
is also not very developed; although tender processes are increasingly based on
functionalities rather than designs and a structure in which procurers have knowledge of the
(future) needs of the public service is being developed, the incentive structure for procurers
remains based on the lowest-cost rationale, and procurers are not sufficiently trained on an
operative level. The capacity to cope with complexity and procurement discourse is
moderately addressed, although the ambition level is not very high in all three countries. The
coordination capacity is medium; most countries provide their departments with information
and coordinate the policy from within the innovation department, but the commitment of
other departments is mostly not sufficiently guaranteed. Lastly, the link with private demand
is insufficient in all three countries, with the exception of sectoral PPI approaches in Sweden. | |
