The challenge of greening technologies—Environmental policy integration in Finnish technology policies

Research Policy 35 (2006) 729–744

The challenge of greening technologies—Environmental policyintegration in Finnish technology policies

Paula Kivimaa ∗, Per MickwitzFinnish Environment Institute (SYKE), P.O. Box 140, FIN-00251 Helsinki, Finland

Received 27 May 2005; received in revised form 20 March 2006; accepted 21 March 2006Available online 11 May 2006

Abstract

The integration of environmental principles into other policies is perceived as essential in order to combat environmental problemsas efficiently as possible. Environmental policy integration in Finnish technology policies is assessed empirically by focusing ontechnological R&D support at all levels, from policy strategies to project funding decisions. The actors making and implementingtechnology policies have grasped the idea of environmental protection and environmental issues have been identified especially at thestrategy level and in some technology programmes. However, the integration is not overarching and no assessment of environmentalimpacts is required in funding applications.© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Technology policy; Environmental policy integration; Evaluation; Environmental technology; R&D funding

1

riaateetiphr

f

p

0

. Introduction

The increased focus on innovation policy instead ofesearch and technology policy implies that the scope hasncreasingly widened to include societal concerns, suchs environmental issues. Harmful environmental effectsre often caused by activities, such as transport, agricul-ure and energy production, which are extensively influ-nced by public policies. It has therefore been argued thatnvironmental damage could be reduced if environmen-al aims were taken into account when designing andmplementing these public policies (e.g. Weale, 2002,. 203). Technological innovations and their diffusionave caused most environmental problems but have alsoesolved many. Technological development is also an

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 9 4030 0994;ax: +358 9 4030 0382.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Kivimaa),[email protected] (P. Mickwitz).

example of an activity largely affected by public policy.If environmental aims could be integrated into innova-tion and technology policies, the negative effects of newtechnologies could be anticipated and reduced whilesimultaneously enhancing environmentally sustainableeconomic development.

The use of science and technology policies to achieveenvironmental goals constitutes a new focus for tech-nology policy (Freeman and Soete, 1997, p. 414). Thishas been highlighted, for example, in the Environ-mental Technologies Action Plan (ETAP) of the Euro-pean Union based on the Lisbon Strategy (EC, 2004).Environment-oriented technology policy did not exist inmany European countries until the 1990s (Sedlacek andSchrama, 2003, p. 231). During the 1990s the focus onenvironmental issues increased in technology policy, butthere has been little discussion on how and in what formthey have appeared and affected actual decision-making.

Environmental policy integration is the term usedfor including environmental aims into other policies.

048-7333/$ – see front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.006

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.006

730 P. Kivimaa, P. Mickwitz / Research Policy 35 (2006) 729–744

Originating from the United Nations Environment Pro-gramme in 1972 and strengthened in the BrundtlandReport “Our Common Future” in 1987, environmen-tal policy integration or the need to consider environ-mental issues in all decision-making has developed aspart of the wider discussion on sustainable develop-ment. The necessity to integrate environmental poli-cies into other policy fields has also been acknowl-edged in the European Union. Starting with the ThirdEnvironmental Action Programme (1983) and strength-ened in the Fourth (1987) and Fifth Action Programmes(1993) the need to integrate environmental considera-tions into the formulation and implementation of allsectoral policies has become a guiding policy prin-ciple in the EU (Liberatore, 1997, p. 108). The roleof environmental policy integration in EU legislationwas strengthened in 1997, when the Treaty of Ams-terdam stated in article 6: “Environmental protectionrequirements must be integrated into the definition andimplementation of the Community policies . . .”. Despitethe recognition of environmental policy integration inpolicy-making, the decisions have mainly been disap-pointing (Jacob and Volkery, 2003). The Cardiff pro-cess initiated in 1998, aiming to integrate environmentalobjectives, first, to transport, energy and agriculturalpolicies and, later, to other sectoral policies, has provenburdensome (e.g. Schrama and Sedlacek, 2003) andthe actual application of environmental policy integra-tion in sectoral policy-making does not look promising(Lenschow, 2002, p. 220).

explore more tentatively the outcomes of a small sampleof technology programmes in terms of generated inno-vations and their environmental impacts. Since Finlandhas at the same time been assessed as one of the mosttechnologically advanced countries (UNDP, 2001) andhas received top ratings in sustainability (EnvironmentalSustainability Index, 2005), it is an interesting case tostudy.

The concept of environmental policy integration andthe relationship between environmental and technol-ogy policies are first discussed in Section 2. Section 3describes the framework and criteria used for evaluatingenvironmental policy integration. An empirical assess-ment of environmental policy integration in Finnish tech-nology policy with respect to R&D funding is reportedin Sections 4–7. Section 4 looks at environmental issuesin technology policy strategies. Section 5 examines envi-ronmental issues at the policy instrument level in specifictechnology programmes designed to fund and coordinateR&D projects. In Section 6 the policy outputs of thetechnology programmes, the project funding decisions,are assessed. Section 7 explores a subset of those pol-icy outcomes of technology programmes that fall underenvironmental innovations. Finally, a discussion of theresults and the conclusions are presented in Sections 8and 9.

2. The relationship between environmental andtechnology policies

Empirical evaluations of policy integration are neededto find out what kind of policy coordination problemsare present and to examine the existing examples of pol-icy coherence in order to learn from them and developthe practices of policy integration. Evaluations are alsoneeded to examine the genuineness of the efforts tointegrate policies. While policy integration can be aneffective way to overcome policy coordination prob-lems, it is also an old way to divert attention and toobliquely resist the political goals supported throughintegration.

This paper examines to what extent environmentalpolicy integration has been adopted in Finnish technol-ogy policy and whether the principle is reflected in differ-ent levels of policy-making, focusing on R&D funding.Although the integration of innovation concerns intoenvironmental policies can be seen as equally importantand is something we have examined in some detail pre-viously (see Mickwitz and Kivimaa, in press), we focushere on the evaluation of environmental policy integra-tion into technology policy strategies, programmes andR&D funding. However, we also stretch beyond this and

Policy integration, that is integrating specific policyobjectives such as environmental protection or genderequality into other policy sectors, is one way to addressthe problems of goal conflict and inefficiency of policies.Underdal (1980, p. 162) defines a perfectly integratedpolicy as:

“one where all significant consequences of policydecisions are recognised as decision premises, wherepolicy options are evaluated on the basis of theireffects on some aggregate measure of utility, andwhere the different policy elements are consistentwith each other. In other words, a policy is integratedto the extent that it recognises its consequences asdecision premises, aggregates them into an overallevaluation, and penetrates all policy levels and allgovernment agencies involved in its execution”.

Environmental policy integration means the imple-mentation of environmental objectives into policy-making horizontally across policy sectors and verticallyextending to different levels of policy-making. Accord-ing to Lafferty (2004, p. 203), the basic notion of envi-

P. Kivimaa, P. Mickwitz / Research Policy 35 (2006) 729–744 731

ronmental policy integration as a goal of governance isto bring policy-making closer to such an ideal situation,where non-environmental sectors are similarly responsi-ble for meeting the environmental norms and targets asthe environmental administration. Lafferty and Hovden(2003) define the ideal type of environmental policyintegration in the national governance for sustainabledevelopment as:

• The incorporation of environmental objectives into allstages of policy-making in non-environmental policysectors, with a specific recognition of this goal as aguiding principle for the planning and execution ofpolicy.

• Accompanied by an attempt to aggregate presumedenvironmental consequences into an overall evalua-tion of policy, and a commitment to minimise contra-dictions between environmental and sectoral policiesby giving principled priority to the former over thelatter.

The term environmental policy integration has beenused to refer to policy process (e.g. Lafferty and Hovden,2003), learning (e.g. Nilsson and Persson, 2003), organ-isational form (e.g. Sørensen, 2003) and policy output oroutcome (e.g. Lenschow, 2002). The perspective chosendetermines whether policy integration is perceived as aprocess leading to changes in policy-making and pol-icy outputs or a substantial result of changes in politicaldecision-making, behaviour or learning. In fact it is all oftii

ipecpoaitbg(f

eaob

demonstrating the current state have been carried out(Hertin and Berkhout, 2003; Jacob and Volkery, 2003;Lafferty and Hovden, 2003).

While the links between the environment and technol-ogy have been widely discussed (e.g. Freeman, 1996;OECD, 2000; Weber and Hemmelskamp, 2005), thecombined role of environmental and technology poli-cies for innovation has been less studied (e.g. Fukasaku,2000, 2005; Kemp, 2000; Rennings, 2000). Previouslywe have found that environmental policies and technol-ogy policies frequently interact, affecting the develop-ment and emergence of environmentally sounder techno-logical innovations (Kivimaa and Mickwitz, 2004). Thisinteraction can provide synergies in the form of theseinnovations but the two policy fields may also createcases of goal conflict, deriving from the distinctly differ-ent policy aims. Environmental policy inherently aims atreducing the anthropogenic environmental impacts andat conserving natural resources. The fundamental aim ofnational technology policy, in turn, is to seek competitiveadvantages for the country in question and to increaseproductivity growth (Edquist, 1995; Lemola, 2002).

Recent academic discussion calls for a shift fromtraditional technology policy towards innovation pol-icy that is embedded in a broader socio-economic con-text (Lundvall et al., 2002; Roberts, 1998; Smits andKuhlmann, 2004). The wider perspective may createmore opportunities for merging environmental issues ininnovation and technology policy. Yet it has been arguedthat innovation policy has long underplayed the issue of

hat. Environmental policy integration requires changesn the actions of the policy makers as well as the policynterventions that follow.

The policy principle needs to be tied into actual organ-sational or process change in order for environmentalolicy integration to generate substantial results—andvaluation is needed to ascertain the degree to which thisonnection exists. A separation of principles from actualractices may occur, if there is inconsistency betweenrganisational goals and institutional requirements andlow willingness or ability to act, or there are multiple

ncompatible goals imposed on the organisation by insti-utional constituents (Oliver, 1991). The separation maye caused by organisational avoidance strategies to “dis-uise nonconformity behind a facade of acquiescence”Oliver, 1991) or simply by a lack of know-how to per-orm the necessary activities.

Evaluations of policy integration can shed light on thextent to which a principle has been followed by actionnd in which areas further effort is needed. Some meth-ds for assessing environmental policy integration haveeen developed but only a few empirical assessments

environmental sustainability (Heaton, 2000, p. 7) andinnovation policy for sustainability is far from beingdeveloped (Schienstock, 2005, p. 105). For instance,technologies developed and supported by public fund-ing may have negative environmental impacts, especiallyif profitability is the sole goal of the funding. Tech-nologies could incorporate environmental improvementsmore cost-efficiently, if potential environmental effectswere assessed and addressed in the early stages of theinnovation process.

Environmental policies may provide incentives thataffect which new technologies are developed and howthey diffuse by requiring or motivating improvementsin the environmental performance of organizations(Hemmelskamp, 1997; Jaffe et al., 2005; Nordberg-Bohm, 1999; Porter and van der Linde, 1995). Environ-mental policy may also act as a barrier to innovation,if the instruments in use impede technological change.Some argue, for instance, that structural biases againstnew technologies have been found in environmental law(Heaton and Banks, 1997). If environmental policy is notdesigned to incorporate flexibility that allows testing of


newer technologies when they become available, unusedtechnological potential may result.

R&D funding allocated through technology policymay be wasted if a newly developed technology isbanned by environmental policy. Conflicts between thepolicy areas may also arise when allocating limitedresources and a choice must be made between sup-porting, for example, technology providing increasedemployment opportunities or more eco-efficient tech-nology (Hyvattinen, 2004). Fostering innovation impliesthe selection of particular areas for development, wherethe development of some technologies may be a suc-cess from the environmental perspective while failing interms of cost criteria (Roberts, 1998). Any technologysupported can become “environmental” when so applied(Fukasaku, 2000; Heaton, 2000).

Jaffe et al. (2005) argue that a portfolio of differentpolicies offers a more complete response to environ-mental problems, including both regulations targetedspecifically at environmental issues and policies to gen-erate technological change. The effect of policies onenvironmentally focused technological change dependson increasing the supply and demand for innovations,i.e. simultaneously investing resources in R&D activi-ties and creating a stable market for the adoption anddiffusion of new more eco-efficient technologies (e.g.Christiansen, 2002; Nordberg-Bohm, 1999). The inten-tions to stimulate environmental innovations throughR&D support are not guaranteed and therefore, for theemergence of such technologies, environmental policy

integrated into technology policies, projects funded andtechnologies developed should become environmentallysounder and this should be reflected in the state of theenvironment.

The criteria used in the evaluation were developedfrom the definitions of policy integration discussed in theprevious section. The first evaluation criteria ‘the inclu-sion of environmental aspects’ is used to determine towhat degree environmental aspects are covered in policydocuments, either in general or by highlighting specificenvironmental challenges.

Underdal (1980) states that in integrated policy “dif-ferent policy instruments are consistent with each other”.Lafferty and Hovden (2003), in turn, emphasise thatenvironmental policy integration should be matched with“a commitment to minimise contradictions”. The secondevaluation criterion, ‘the consistency of the environmen-tal aspect in relation to other aspects’, is used to assessthe role policy documents give to the issue of consistencywhen they address environmental issues. The criterion isnot used to evaluate consistency in the documents, butto assess whether the policies themselves take the issueinto account. Some degree of ‘inclusion’ is thus a pre-requisite for the ‘consistency’ criterion.

It has been argued that, from a normative viewpoint,environmental issues should take priority in situationswhere contradictions between different policy objectivesemerge (see the second part of the Lafferty and Hovdendefinition). This means acknowledging that vital envi-ronmental concerns should be seen as principal in overall

integration should be evaluated.

3. Framework and criteria for evaluatingenvironmental policy integration

In policy analysis and evaluation, the ‘policy cycle’is often used as a tool to conceptualise key aspects ofpolicy formation and implementation (e.g. Pollitt andBouckhaert, 2000). We have earlier developed a con-ceptual model of the policy cycle that can be used asa basis of evaluating policy integration (Mickwitz andKivimaa, in press). The model illustrates that policy inte-gration could, in principle, take place at many levelsof the policy cycle. Assuming that there is a percep-tion that policies should be integrated, this should bereflected at the level of policy strategies as well as atthe level of the instruments by which these are imple-mented. Since the basic idea of policy integration isnot only to change bureaucracies, but also to actuallychange the real world it is very important, althoughchallenging, to extend the examination to include pol-icy outputs and outcomes. If environmental concerns are

policy-making where there is risk of irreversible damage,in the same way as economic concerns are currently pri-oritised (Lafferty, 2004, p. 203). Without engaging in thedebate of the pros and cons of such a prioritisation, weuse the third criterion, ‘weighting of the environmentalaspect with respect to other aspects’, to assess the impor-tance given to environmental issues in policy documents.This criterion also requires some ‘inclusion’.

The fourth criterion ‘reporting’ is based on the impor-tance of feedback for policy consistency and effective-ness. Regarding policy documents, the fourth criterionaddresses the degree to which strategies include speci-fications ex ante about how their environmental aspectsare to be followed up and reported and the degree towhich assessments of technology programmes/projectsinclude environmental aspects ex post. The ex ante partof the criterion is not possible without some ‘inclusion’.

Finnish technology policies can be categorised inseveral ways. In Fig. 1 two broad categories, ‘pol-icy strategies’ and ‘policy instruments’, are illustrated.Although policy strategies may have direct effects pro-ducing some outcomes, they are mainly implemented


Fig. 1. Levels of Finnish technology policy where environmental policy integration could take place (adapted from Mickwitz and Kivimaa (inpress)).

by modifying existing policy instruments or by creatingnew ones. In the particular case of Finnish technol-ogy policy, the subset of policy instruments evaluatedis technology R&D programmes. Thus, a new strategicreview of the national science and technology policy ora new technology strategy may indicate more resourcesor new priorities for technology programmes. Alterna-tively, policy pressures coming from outside the system(general public, environmental organisations, industrialactors, other government institutions) may sometimesdirectly affect the formation and focus of the technologyprogrammes.

Technology programmes fund and coordinate sev-eral different R&D projects, executed by companiesand research organisations, that may contribute to thedevelopment of technological inventions and innova-tions. The subsequent use and adoption of the technolo-gies is needed to bring about environmental benefits,but the adoption of technologies is frequently promotedby factors other than the technology programmes. Inthe case of environmentally sounder technologies, bothenvironmental policies and cost and competitivenessfactors have typically played a role (Hyvattinen andHilden, 2004; Kivimaa and Mickwitz, 2004). Arrowsin Fig. 1 therefore indicate influence, but not uncondi-tional causality since many other factors may influencethe development.

Environmental policy integration at the strategy level(Level 1, Fig. 1) is evaluated in Section 4 by examiningthe contents of the strategy documents produced and pol-icy inputs, such as people and financial resources allot-ted to environmental issues. Six reviews of the Scienceand Technology Policy Council of Finland (1987, 1990,1993, 1996, 2000, 2003) and the technology strategyof the National Technology Agency, Tekes, are evalu-ated. The strategy documents are evaluated using thecriteria above. Environmental policy integration at thepolicy instrument level (Level 2, Fig. 1) is evaluatedin Sections 5 and 6. Section 5 focuses on the objec-tives of different technology programmes and on theallocation of financial resources to different types ofprogrammes. In Section 6 the policy outputs of the tech-nology programmes, i.e. project funding decisions, areevaluated.

The empirical material used to evaluate environmen-tal policy integration comprises 7 strategy level doc-uments and 19 technology programme-related docu-ments including final reports, programme yearbooks,evaluations and other documentation. In addition, threethematic interviews were made among the actors inFinnish technology policy to provide background infor-mation on how the system works. Tekes’s web-siteinformation on project applications and funding crite-ria and email survey responses of participants in two


technology programmes were used in evaluating policyoutputs.

4. Policy strategies—integration ofenvironmental aims in the Finnish strategies fortechnology policy

Technology policy in Finland emerged in the early1980s and, through the establishment of the Science andTechnology Policy Council (1987), ‘the innovation sys-tem’ outlook was adopted. The Council, an advisorybody chaired by the Prime Minister, coordinates Finnishtechnology policy and issues strategic reviews everythird year. Since the 1990s, the reviews have empha-sised environmental technologies, sectoral research bydifferent administrative sectors and cooperation betweenthe sectors, for example environmental and technologypolicies (Science and Technology Policy Council, 1990,1993, 1996, 2000).

The 1990 review states that sufficient resourcesshould be reserved for technology development in sec-toral ministries, including the Ministry of the Environ-ment, and that these activities will also be supportedthrough national technology programmes and fundingfor businesses’ related product development ventures. Italso states that “environment related aspects must also betaken into account in other sectors’ research”. (Scienceand Technology Policy Council, 1990, pp. 24–25). In1993, the review brings out the importance of coopera-tion between administrative sectors and requires assess-

The Science and Technology Policy Council can beviewed as an instrument of policy integration. The com-position of the Council means that scientific processesand technological development are viewed from theperspectives of different economic actors and the long-standing existence of this institution can be seen as cru-cial in integrating and overcoming ‘territorial thinking’among ministries (Schienstock and Hamalainen, 2001,p. 44).1 The environmental administration, or environ-mental expertise, has not always been represented in theCouncil, but during the two latest 3-year terms the mem-bership has included the Minister of the Environment andthe Director General of the Finnish Environment Insti-tute (SYKE).2 Despite the representation, the emphasison environmental issues diminished in the latest review.

The National Technology Agency, Tekes, is the mainpublic financing and expert organisation for technolog-ical R&D in Finland. One of the eight thematic areasin Tekes’s technology strategy is ‘sustainable develop-ment’, including environmental technologies and lifecycle solutions (Tekes, 2004a). When the sustainabledevelopment theme is compared with other themes infinancial terms in 2003, the former received only 10% ofthe total funding, which is below the mean and medianfor all themes.3

The strategy also states that all themes complementeach other and overlap, so sustainable development isincorporated into the strategy as a whole. Accordingto Tekes (2004a), this means that the direct effects onsocial, environmental and welfare aspects are included

ments of those research areas that extend to severaladministrative sectors, including ‘environment, energyand natural resources’ as one of the four identified areas(Science and Technology Policy Council, 1993, pp. 54,90). The reviews of 1996 and 2000 address policy inte-gration more explicitly by viewing the development ofcooperation between environmental policy and tech-nology and innovation policy an important challenge(Science and Technology Policy Council, 1996, p. 51,2000, p. 6). Moreover, in 2000, sustainable developmentis described as an inherent part of developing the nationalinnovation system and, by ‘determined participation’ inthe development, the public sector is viewed to help toreduce unanticipated consequences, such as unexpectedenvironmental effects (Science and Technology PolicyCouncil, 2000, p. 7). In the latest review the main devel-opment challenges have moved on to internationalisa-tion with few comments on environmental policies. The2003 review merely states that Finland has succeededin combining knowledge production and its economicexploitation with sustainable development aims (Scienceand Technology Policy Council, 2003, p. 8).

in the criteria for selecting and funding research projects.The degree to which this criterion is actually appliedis assessed in Section 6. Environmental issues are alsoindirectly included in other themes, such as welfareand materials technology. For instance, in the the-matic area of materials technology, sustainable devel-opment is described to set new requirements to materi-als development, including durability, recyclability andthe use of renewable natural resources (Tekes, 2004a).Table 1 summarises the environmental policy integrationat the strategy level based on the criteria presented inSection 3.

1 The Science and Technology Policy Council consists of 7 minis-ters and 10 other members representing science and technology policy,industry, research centres, universities and the employers’ and employ-ees’ organisations.

2 In the present 3-year term, from March 2005 onwards the Head ofthe Department for Environmental Health at the National Public HealthInstitute has replaced the Director General of SYKE in the Council.

3 In 2003 the funding for sustainable development solutions was D61 million out of a total D 591 million for all themes (Tekes, 2004a).


Table 1Environmental policy integration in Finnish technology policy strategies

Criteria Result

Inclusion Environmental aspects have been included in the strategies of the Science and Technology Policy Council(1990, pp. 19, 24–25, 48, 1993, pp. 8, 12, 44, 89, 1996, pp. 51, 59–60, 2000, pp. 2, 6–7, 11, 14, 39, 2003,pp. 4, 14) and of Tekes (2004a)

Consistency The consistency of, or the potential conflicts between, the different objectives have not been discussed inthe strategy documents of the Science and Technology Policy Council. Tekes’s technology strategy pointsout the overlap between its different thematic areas

Weighting The importance of environmental aspects has been implicitly emphasised in the strategies (Science andTechnology Policy Council, 1990, p. 48, 1993, p. 12, 1996, p. 51, 2000, pp. 2, 6). However, no rankingbetween the environmental and other objectives has been provided for cases where prioritisation must bemade. Environmental issues were less emphasized in the 2003 review of the Science and TechnologyPolicy Council than in the previous reviews. In Tekes’s strategy, the financial resources allocated to thesustainable development theme are below average but sustainable development is also integrated in otherthemes

Reporting The strategies have not in general included specifications about how their environmental aims are to befollowed up and reported. The requirement for cross-sectoral assessment of the research area of“environment, energy and natural resources” in the 1996 review of the Science and Technology PolicyCouncil is an exception

5. Policy instruments—environmental objectivesin the public technology programmes

The instruments used by Tekes to implement its strat-egy comprise technology programmes, selective projectfunding, commercialisation of research results, supportfor the creation of new companies and business oper-ations, and the internationalisation and networking ofactors (Tekes, 2004a). Technology programmes, first ini-tiated in the early 1980s, are a major technology policyinstrument and a means to allocate public R&D fund-ing. Tekes views them as a proactive instrument to makestrategic choices and set priorities, to direct attentionto specific nationally important issues, and to increaseinteraction between projects (Tekes, 2004b; InterviewsI4 and II5). In 2003, 48% of Tekes’s R&D finance waschannelled through technology programmes, in totalaround D 180 million (Tekes, 2004b).

By the late 1980s, environmental aims were partof some technology programmes while they werenot systematically part of Tekes’s operation. Someof the programmes were decidedly focused on spe-cific environmental issues such as pollution from pulpproduction—due to immense public pressure to act onissues such as chlorine bleaching. There have been clearindustry and programme specific differences. For exam-ple, the first generation pulp and paper industry pro-grammes were largely environmentally focused, but later

3

the focus shifted to quality concerns (Interview III6).This emphasis has been replaced in some other areas;e.g. two extensive research programmes related to cli-mate change were initiated in 2003 and 2004.

Eleven technology programmes carried out during theperiod 1988–2002 were selected to examine environ-mental policy integration into the programme objectivesand their results (Table 2). All the programmes chosenincluded research affecting the pulp and paper indus-try. Some of them were focused exclusively on thisindustrial sector while others covered wider areas incor-porating some pulp and paper sector related research.This selection was made to complement our previ-ous research on the factors affecting pulp and papersector innovations (e.g. Hilden et al., 2002; Kivimaaand Mickwitz, 2004). The programmes studied repre-sent 9% of the total number of technology programmesand 8% of the total budget of the programmes initi-ated during the period 1987–2000. The selected sampleis expected to be the best-case example with respectto considering environmental issues in technology pro-grammes, representing 30% of the environment-relatedprogrammes.

SIHTI (1990–1992) was the first programme specif-ically targeted at environmental issues, i.e. the develop-ment of less polluting energy technology. The precedingprogrammes, such as LIEKKI (1988–1992), had resultedin some environmental improvements but had focused

4 Interview I: Jari Romanainen, National Technology Agency Tekes,1 March 2004.5 Interview II: Tarmo Lemola, Advansis Ltd., 30 March 2004.

6 Interview III: Christine Hagstrom-Nasi, National TechnologyAgency Tekes, 22 March 2004.


Table 2Public technology programmes examined

Technology programme Duration Topic Total expenditure

LIEKKIa 1988–1992 Combustion technology D 24 millionKUITUb 1988–1992 Energy-efficient mechanical pulping D 7 millionRAINAc 1988–1992 Energy-efficient paper production D 10 millionSIHTId 1990–1992 Energy and environmental technology D 4 millionLIEKKI 2e 1993–1998 Combustion and gasification technology D 38 millionSIHTI 2f 1993–1998 Energy and environmental technology D 17 millionSustainable Paperg 1993–1998 Energy in paper and board production D 20 millionCACTUSh 1996–2000 Low-water-consumption paper production D 26 millionPigmentsi 1998–2001 Pigments as raw materials of paper D 4 millionWood Wisdomj 1998–2001 Integrating forestry with other parts of the production chain D 33 millionCODEk 1999–2002 Modelling of combustion processes D 13 million

a Hupa (1994).b Sundholm (1993).c Paulapuro and Komppa (1994).d Pietila (1991).e Hupa and Matinlinna (1996).f Thun and Korhonen (1999).g Lahepelto (1998).h Komppa and Neimo (2000).i Tekes (2002).j Paavilainen (2002) and Seth et al. (2002).k Partanen (2003).

on a few selected technologies, thereby excluding othertypes of solutions to the issues tackled. This was gen-erally the case in the first technology programmes thatwere “either clearly technology specific or industry spe-cific” (Interview I (see Footnote 4)). This reduced theirpotential for achieving the most effective alternativefrom an environmental viewpoint and provided feweropportunities for radical change. Nevertheless, the sig-nificance of the programmes such as LIEKKI shouldnot be underestimated, because they have provided aconsistent and continuous framework for generating thenecessary knowledge base for innovation and createdcompetitive know-how for Finnish companies on theworld markets (Kivimaa and Mickwitz, 2004).

Through SIHTI the opportunities for different envi-ronmental innovations increased but its budget was smallin comparison to the preceding programmes. SIHTI wasfollowed by SIHTI 2 (1993–1998), with a larger bud-get, and other research programmes with more focus onenvironmental issues than before. For example, LIEKKI2 (1993–1998) had “a special focus on research servingthe development of new, more efficient, environmen-tally friendlier technologies” and made it possible tomeet the tightening NOx emission requirements (Hupaand Matinlinna, 1996). Nevertheless the programmeswere still limited in terms of narrow scope regardingenvironmental issues. For example, Sustainable Paper(1993–1998) focused on energy but excluded the use

of wood for energy and environmental issues relatedto energy generation (Lahepelto, 1998). However, onemight argue that neutral and undirected consideration ofissues and technologies is not possible, or even desir-able, in technology programmes. When the programmesare a means for focusing on issues perceived as nation-ally important, the role of independent public funding isthen to create possibilities for projects falling outside thescope of any particular programme.

In the late 1990s a more holistic perspective on envi-ronmental issues was adopted in some sectorally focusedprogrammes. The CACTUS programme (1996–2000)aimed principally at reducing water consumption inpaper-making but also included general environmen-tal aims such as “reducing environmental impacts onwater, air and land” (Komppa and Neimo, 2000, p.3). Unfortunately the programme’s environmental aimsdid not in all cases extend to the level of the fundedprojects. The programme was initiated by collectingongoing projects on the topic without a proper unifyingidea, so not all individual project objectives were in linewith the programme objectives; yet, CACTUS producedknowledge and practical methods for cutting down emis-sions through reduced water consumption (Komppa andNeimo, 2000). For example, the “Paper Machine Com-pact Wet End” project did not include any environmentaltargets, albeit resulting in significant water and energysavings (Kivimaa and Mickwitz, 2004).


Table 3Environmental policy integration in Finnish technology programmes

Criteria Result

Inclusion Environmental objectives have been included in 9 of the 11 studied pulp and paper sector relatedtechnology programmes; 4 of these programmes comprised only energy-related environmental aims.Sector specific differences have been noted to exist and environmental aspects are rarely considered inprogrammes without clear environmental objectives, e.g. Pigments (1998–2001)

Consistency Within programme objectives no direct conflicts can be observed. However, the environmental objectiveshave rarely been all inclusive and have focused mostly on energy efficiency or emissions. Consistenciesbetween the different programmes and between the objectives and all environmental impacts have notbeen assessed in the documents

Weighting In selected technology programmes some environmental issues have been emphasised and someprogrammes have been specifically designed for environmental technologies. Their importance, however,has diminished in recent years when the focus has shifted to quality concerns. No ranking between theenvironmental and other objects has usually been provided

Reporting Positive environmental impacts generated by the programmes have been brought up in the final reportsand assessments of only those programmes containing environmental objectives. Some thematicassessments of groups of programmes have also been carried out by Tekes, but so far they have onlycovered climate change-related environmental impacts

More recent programmes have tended to focus lesson environmental technologies but may include someenvironmentally relevant aims. For example, CODE(1999–2002) included minimising combustion emis-sions and increasing the efficiency of fuels used in itsresearch focus (Partanen, 2003). However, if the researchfocus does not include environmental aims, the environ-mental aspects of the programme may go completelyunmentioned. For example, the final report of the Pig-ments Programme (1998–2001) provides no informa-tion on the environmental aspects of the research area(Tekes, 2002). This may partly be explained by thehorizontal application of environmental objectives inTekes’s operation, yet this should not imply that theactivities have no impacts, negative or positive, on theenvironment.

At present Tekes assesses the ex post outcomes oftechnology programmes, not programme specifically,but thematically starting from the outcomes and bene-fits and then looking at how a group of programmes hasaffected their emergence (Interview I (see Footnote 4)).For example, recent ex post assessments have lookedat the significance of selected technology programmesfor achieving climate change targets (Hjelt et al., 2003),innovation process changes (Valtakari et al., 2004) andinternationalisation (Halme et al., 2004). The achieve-ment of societal welfare targets, however, is difficult tomeasure and these targets, especially those related toclimate change, are marked by uncertainty when theoutcomes are realised in the long-term future (Hjelteht

grammes and technology policy measures on the aspectsstudied.

Table 3 summarises our evaluation of environmentalpolicy integration in the technology programmes listedin Table 2.

6. Policy outputs—environmental aims reflectedin project funding decisions

It is clear that environmental policy integration cannotbe assessed simply by examining the aims and objec-tives of the policy strategies and instruments as theyonly reveal the intentions of the policies and could beprimarily symbolic. For example, Lenschow (2002, p.7) has stated that “the integration process currently facesthe challenge of ensuring that substance follows fromprocedure”. Integration may result in cases where envi-ronmental aspects are implicit in policies and in newconcepts. The implicitness may be an indication of bonafide integration but it complicates assessments regard-ing the environmental credentials of policies and policyinstruments.

When Tekes selects projects to be funded, envi-ronmental impacts are intended to be assessed as onecriterion among many others, such as business poten-tial, employment and regional development. In prac-tice the criterion is only used for those projects thathave obvious environmental connections (Interviews Iand II (see Footnotes 4 and 5, respectively)). Tekes’s(2004a) application forms for project funding do not

t al., 2003). Often the scopes of ex post assessmentave included only a selection of programmes and havehus excluded the indirect outcomes of many other pro-

include a section for environmental impacts althoughthis is one of the funding criteria. The company fund-ing application for research and product development


includes Section 12 “summary of other effects—indirecteffects in other companies and societal effects” withno specific comment on environmental impacts in theapplication form guidelines. The public research fund-ing application, in turn, has Section 9 “benefits andeffects”, which refers, for example, to societal and indi-rect effects. Tekes has, however, included on its Internetsite the conditions for funding which state that “pos-itive effect of the project on the realisation of gen-erally accepted societal goals influences the financedecision favourably” including climate change preven-tion and other positive environmental impacts (Tekes,2004a).

In general discussions several representatives of theagencies in charge of technology policy have expressedthe view that positive environmental impacts are indeedcounted as a plus in deciding on finance applications.7

However, no systematic procedure exists for assess-ing the overall environmental impacts of the pro-posed projects, both the positive and the negativeimpacts.

The actual funding applications and the decisions onthem are confidential, so we found it difficult to accessthe details and conduct comprehensive evaluation ofenvironmental policy integration regarding project fund-ing decisions. We acquired this information directly fromthe participants of two technology programmes – CAC-TUS (1996–2000) and Pigments (1998–2001) – withfairly low response rates. The answers received throughthis survey indicate that the environmental impacts of

Table 4Environmental policy integration in project funding

Criteria Result

Inclusion In principle, environmental impacts are amongthe criteria for selecting projects. In practice,however, the funding application forms do notitemise a section for environmental impacts.Based on a limited sample of two technologyprogrammes, no list or assessment of potentialenvironmental impacts appears in fundingapplications or project descriptions

Consistency The project objectives tend to be very specificand technically detailed. Consistency is difficultto evaluate without expertise in the technologicalfield and in the absence of specificenvironmental objectives

Weighting Environmental aspects are not considered asrelevant as, e.g. the technological or businesspotential (or in some cases they may be implicitin technical project objectives)

Reporting The ex post assessments of project outcomesare, again, very technically detailed and do notmention the environmental impacts of theprojects

7. Policy outcomes—contribution of technologyprogrammes to environmental innovations

Concrete technological innovations would be an idealway to assess whether policy integration has resulted insuch policy outcomes that can generate positive envi-ronmental impacts. Innovations, however, result from avariety of driving forces, of which technology policymeasures are only one. Even when focusing solely onpublic R&D efforts, an innovation may result from sev-eral consecutive technology programmes and is oftenbased on several funding decisions, since new technolo-gies take years or even decades to develop. Yet some expost assessments of programme outcomes can be found,made by the participating parties (see e.g. sources inTable 2). Due to the complexity of factors affecting inno-vations, this section does not present any causal analy-sis, merely indications that the technology programmesstudied have been among the factors influencing techno-logical development.

According to four pulp and paper companies, the fea-sibility studies made during the CACTUS programmeincreased the ability to assess problems and conditionsencountered with more closed water loops, such as com-plications of the processes, increased use of energy, mas-tering of dynamics and increased risks of spills (ForestIndustry, 2001). For the technology company Metso,the profound understanding of the phenomena createdthe basis for developing separate machinery and sub-

the projects were not widely assessed ex ante by thoseapplying the funding, even in the case of the environ-mentally focused technology programme, CACTUS. Wecould only evaluate the environmental benefits of theprojects on the basis of their stated objectives and aims.It must be noted that in the mid-1990s when the pro-grammes studied were initiated, the application formsdid not include any section for other effects but onlya section on “utilisation targets in industry”8 despitethe fact that environmental considerations have beenstated in Tekes’s annual reports to be among the cri-teria for decisions on allocating finance since the early1990s.

Evaluation of environmental policy integration inproject funding is summarised in Table 4.

7 Participant observation by the authors at the numerous eventsorganised by the ProACT Research Programme—funded by the Min-istry of Trade and Industry and Tekes.

8 Comment by one of the respondents to the questionnaire. This issupported by the type of responses obtained from other questionnairereplies.


processes, as well as the integration of the machines intothe entire process (Pekkarinen, 2001). The freshwaterconsumption of Metso paper machines declined from7.5 m3/tonne of paper to 2.5 m3 during the 1990s, partlybecause of the research carried out on the CACTUSProgramme (Haavanlammi, 2001). In addition, POMtechnology – described as one of the most significantpulp and paper innovations of the 1990s and resulting inimproved energy efficiency and reduced water consump-tion – was part of the programme in its later developmentstages (Kivimaa and Mickwitz, 2004).

Some other environmentally beneficial technologicaloutcomes have emerged from other technology pro-grammes examined. Of the early 1990s programmes,SIHTI and RAINA appeared to have achieved only mod-est improvements in reducing energy consumption, butthey provided a basis for the further development ofenergy-efficient technologies. LIEKKI had a substan-tial role in developing new, more environmentally soundcombustion technology and, for example, Ahlstrom’scombustion boiler (PCFB) was tested during the pro-gramme. During SIHTI, Selective Catalytic Reductionfor marine diesel NOx emissions by Wartsila and NOx

scrubber for power plants by Tampella were some of thetechnologies tested (MTI, 1993; Pietila, 1991).

The following technology programmes, during1993–1998, had more ground to build on from theearlier programmes and several technologies emergedpartly from that development. The LIEKKI 2 resultsprovided valuable information for the design of energypenfiSaswKSioot(

riite

comings of technological innovations as indicators ofenvironmental policy integration. Some kind of ex anteand ex post environmental impact assessment procedureswould be needed to systematically evaluate environmen-tal policy integration in policy outcomes.

8. Discussion

8.1. The extent of environmental policy integrationin Finnish technology policies

Environmental considerations have been included inthe technology policy strategies of Finland and selec-tively in the public technology programmes, but gener-ally they have had no priority over other issues. Laffertyand Hovden (2003) stated in their normative ideal casethat the principled priority of environmental policies isone of the determinants of environmental policy inte-gration. Liberatore (1997, p. 119), in turn, argued thatintegration should include components of similar impor-tance and weight – not necessarily priority – but, if one ofthe components is much weaker, it is likely to be diluted.Our analysis indicates that the specific emphasis on envi-ronmental issues has diminished in recent years, while ithas been made more implicit in technology policy strate-gies. If this trend continues and the specific existenceof environmental considerations among the other policyobjectives is not guaranteed, there is a danger that theenvironmental aspect will be diluted.

The Science and Technology Policy Council of Fin-
roducing power and recovery boilers, and already in thearly stages of the programme, for example, the tech-ology developer Ahlstrom’s Pyroflow Compact multi-uel boiler and Tampella’s Cymic boilers were installedn Finnish power plants (Hupa and Matinlinna, 1996).IHTI 2 had a more holistic approach to the environmentnd produced a life cycle databank, new emission mea-urement techniques and developments towards closedater cycles in the pulp and paper industry (Thun andorhonen, 1999). The considerable developments in theustainable Paper Programme included methods allow-
ng a reduction of 5–15% in the energy consumptionf the mechanical pulping processes, a few new meth-ds for pilot trials and making a previously developedechnology, the Condebelt drier, commercially availableLahepelto, 1998).

The programmes after CACTUS have had less envi-onmental focus and the identification of technologiesmproving the environment was difficult. This mightndicate that without environmental policy integration inhe programme aims the programmes fail to improve thenvironment. Alternatively, it may illustrate the short-

land involves many different actors, including represen-tatives of the environmental administration. Therefore,the Council should have some preconditions for creatingstrategies that are consistent and coordinated with otherpolicy fields. It is more difficult, however, to say howconsistency is achieved in the work of Tekes. The inclu-sion of environmental objectives at the policy strategylevel has been translated into criteria for project fund-ing and for the design of technology programmes atthe policy instrument level. A problem appears in theimplementation of the objectives, in that environmentalaspects are in practice only considered with respect tothose operations intended to have clear positive effectson the state of the environment.

No systematic assessments of the positive and neg-ative environmental impacts of the funded projects arecarried out, and there is no pre-screening of the over-all environmental impacts of the activities promoted bythe technology policies. This may be caused by a lackof ability, for example in terms of know-how or bud-get limitations, to implement systematic environmentalassessments. The time periods of technological devel-


opment and diffusion are long, and it can take decadesto observe the long-term effects of the use of newtechnologies on the environment. Since environmentalpolicies are largely reactive, the consistency betweenthe policies will not become apparent until time haselapsed. This is especially the case because of the lack ofpre-screening.

The extent of environmental policy integration intechnology programmes has been issue- or sector-specific. This means that environmental policy integra-tion has been selectively pursued at the policy instrumentlevel. In the environmental technology programmes pri-ority for environmental issues could be observed, yetthis should be self-evident. The diminished weighting ofenvironmental issues at the strategy level is also reflectedon the instrument level. For example, in the pulp andpaper sector programmes the focus has shifted in recentyears from environmental issues to quality concerns. Yet,this emphasis has been replaced in some other areas,such as climate change. An implementation problem atthis level can also occasionally be detected: the objec-tives of funded projects have not always correspondedto programme objectives. This may result if the goalsimposed by the funding agency are incompatible withthe goals of the organisation(s) carrying out the projector the other institutional goals imposed on the project(see Oliver, 1991).

Our results concerning the selected technology pro-grammes indicate that, although some new technologiesproviding improved environmental impacts have been

Another apparent shortcoming is the lack of reportingand assessment procedures for documenting the achieve-ment of the environmental objectives or of environmentalpolicy integration at all levels. The lack of environmentalpolicy integration based on the reporting criterion couldbe caused simply by the lack of priority given to theenvironment.

The empirical focus of this study was largely con-fined to analysing the Finnish technological R&D sup-port from the forest industry perspective. This mustbe acknowledged, because sector specific differencescan be observed in the execution of the technologyprogrammes. The forest industry in Finland is muchemphasised in economic and environmental terms. Sincethe 1930s the forest sector agreement has meant safe-guarding the growth preconditions (raw material, capital,labour, technology, infrastructure) and the competitive-ness of the forest industry by many economic policy andsocio-political solutions, often at the expense of otherobjectives (Donner-Amnell, 1995, pp. 193–194). Sincethe 1980s the sector has been a target of many environ-mental protection pressures from the NGOs, customersand public administration—more so than many otherindustrial sectors. These factors have clearly shaped theformation of Finnish technology policies affecting thisindustrial sector. One would therefore expect environ-mental objectives to have been more, rather than less,integrated into programmes affecting this sector com-pared to other programmes. Further examination of othersectoral programmes would be needed to obtain more

created as part of the programmes, systematic environ-mental policy integration in the policy outputs and out-comes is fairly weak. The lack of environmental consid-erations in the objectives and assessments of the executedprojects is partly explained by the lack of requirements toconsider the environmental impacts in the funding appli-cation forms. If the environmental criterion for fundingis not adequately reflected in the application forms and,therefore, in the funding decisions the absence of envi-ronmental considerations in the projects funded is notsurprising. The limitation of the application forms is alogical consequence of the general perception that envi-ronmental issues are handled by separate programmesfocused on environmental technologies, and for theseprogrammes the positive environmental impacts wouldbe reflected in the main goals. A more comprehensiveassessment of the environmental impacts would not onlyrequire collecting information, but increased environ-mental know-how would also be needed. For exam-ple, integrating environmental aims in the World Bankdepended on a significant change in organisation, prac-tices, partnerships and competences (Picciotto, 2002).

comprehensible results.

8.2. Environmental policy integration—fromstrategies to projects

A systematic inclusion and/or assessment of envi-ronmental considerations in the goals and activities ofa sectoral policy can be carried out independently ofnational strategies, and can also be called environmen-tal policy integration. The question is not so much howto define environmental policy integration; rather whatkind of policy integration is preferable and efficient.

Our results partly indicate that overarching nationalstrategies, although desirable, are not prerequisites forenvironmental policy integration to occur in programmedesign and projects actually funded. For instance, theprogramme specific variation in incorporating environ-mental considerations in Finnish technology policy pro-grammes indicates that the actions taken depend on theinterests and know-how of the people directly involved.Kuhlmann (2001) has described innovation policy being,not just about implementing policies based on top-down


decision-making, but a process of networking betweenheterogeneous actors. Thus, a uniform principle, such asenvironmental policy integration, may lead to differentinterpretations while applied.

Stressing that overarching national strategies are nota prerequisite does not deny the importance of strategies,it merely points out that environmental policy integrationmay also occur independently of the strategies. Nationalstrategies, however, are important in achieving coordi-nation between different policy sectors, in highlightingissues that are perceived important to society and policy-making, and in gaining support for environmental pol-icy integration from actors involved in the innovationsystems. Conversely, environmental policy integrationincluded in innovation strategies cannot result in newpolicy outputs or outcomes without the actions of theactors.

There is a difference between formal strategic goalsand the informal goals in all organisations (Mulders,1999). The difference between the goals may eas-ily increase if the strategic goals change, for instancewhen requirements to integrate environmental aims areadopted, and the organisation, partnerships and compe-tences are not changed accordingly. Incomplete integra-tion is a natural consequence when informal goals aremore important for the actual practices than formal goals.While the reasons for incomplete environmental policyintegration are important, a more detailed analysis ofthese would be beyond the scope of this paper.

8e

aa2poteidafcfa

ptT

principle it is straightforward to evaluate whether envi-ronmental issues are integrated into a decision to funda research project, the policy output of a technologyprogramme. In practice, however, it is often easier toevaluate integration at the strategy level than at the lowerlevels of the implementation chain. This is partly due tothe extent of the documentation material; while thereare only a few essential strategic processes and docu-ments, the number of processes and instruments throughwhich they are implemented is often much larger. Forexample, in the case of Finnish technology policies theseven strategy documents examined represent, if not all,then most of the relevant strategies, while at the level ofthe technology programmes the 11 programmes studied,comprising hundreds of funded projects, represent just asmall sample of all the programmes and the material isstill several times larger. In addition to the limited amountof material, the public policy strategies are often moreaccessible and transparent than the policy instrumentsthrough which they are implemented.

The challenges of evaluating environmental policyintegration in policy outputs depend largely on the natureof the policies and the policy instruments. It is clearthat the situation is different in the case of transportpolicies implemented in public plans for constructingnew roads compared with technology policies imple-mented through funding for research and developmentprojects. The details of private and commercial R&Dprojects must be kept secret from existing and potentialcompetitors, which in turn makes independent outside

.3. Challenges in carrying out evaluations ofnvironmental policy integration

Some initiatives have been taken to create criteria forssessing environmental policy integration (e.g. Hertinnd Berkhout, 2003; Lafferty and Hovden, 2003; OECD,002), but they have mainly focused on analysing therocess, often on national or EU level, rather than on theutputs or outcomes of sectoral policies. Policy integra-ion is assumed and expected to occur at so many differ-nt levels (national strategies, sectoral strategies, policynstruments) and has so many different dimensions (e.g.ocumentation, communication, co-operation) that cre-ting overarching and comprehensive evaluation criteriaor all purposes seems impossible. Instead case-specificriteria, for instance, for national strategy evaluation oror sectoral policy evaluation, could be further developednd tested in practice.

It is clear that it is far easier to evaluate processes androcedures than it is to evaluate policy outcomes dueo long timeframes and complex causal relationships.he same, however, is not the case for policy outputs. In

evaluations of environmental policy integration very dif-ficult.

Improved access to information would improve thetransparency of policies and facilitate their evaluation.Many of the respondents to our questionnaire, thoserepresenting research institutes rather than companies,stated that their funding applications contain no con-fidential or secret elements. It appears, therefore, thatconfidentiality is a general status given to all applicationsand decisions by Tekes regardless of the stand taken bythe applicants. The evaluation of the decisions could atleast be improved by allowing external access to thoseapplications that the applicant does not require to be keptconfidential.

9. Conclusions

The focus is shifting from research and technol-ogy policy towards a broader innovation policy. This iswidening the scope to integrate societal concerns, suchas environmental issues. Policy integration may be effec-tive for improving policy coordination, but declarations


of intentions to integrate environmental concerns mayalso be merely symbolic. There is a need to evaluate theefforts to integrate policies.

The Science and Technology Policy Council of Fin-land and the National Technology Agency Tekes havestressed environmental objectives in their strategies. Thedetailed evaluation of environmental policy integrationin Finnish technology policy, focusing on R&D fund-ing, using four main criteria – inclusion, consistency,weighting and reporting – showed elements of envi-ronmental policy integration. However, the integrationdid not occur as extensively in the technology pro-grammes and funded projects as it did in the strategies,and, based on the reporting, consistency and weightingcriteria there was an evident lack of integration. Environ-mental objectives were not systematically incorporatedand assessed in designing technology programmes anddeciding on project funding. Some cases showed inco-herence between the objectives of the funded projectsand of the programmes providing the funding. In additionreporting on environmental impacts was usually lacking.

Achieving substantial results through environmentalpolicy integration requires a coupling between the prin-ciple adopted at the strategy level and the actual practiceof decision-making. National level strategies for envi-ronmental policy integration are not a prerequisite forthis to happen. Environmental policy integration canoccur independently in technology programmes and inthe funded projects, when supported by the actions of theactors implementing the programmes and those applying

matched with resources, capabilities and declared report-ing and assessment requirements.

Acknowledgements

We thank the interviewees for their contribution andthe Editor Martin Bell and the three anonymous review-ers for their inspiring and helpful comments. The studywas undertaken as part of the EcoInno Project, contribut-ing to the Research Program for Advanced TechnologyPolicy (ProACT) funded by the Ministry of Trade andIndustry, Finland, and the National Technology Agency,Tekes. It was first presented at the 2004 Berlin Confer-ence on Human Dimensions of Global EnvironmentalChange: ‘Greening of Policies—Interlinkages and Pol-icy Integration’.

References

Christiansen, A., 2002. Promoting environmental innovation in theenergy sector: an analytical framework for dynamic efficiencyassessments. Energy and Environment 13, 813–832.

Donner-Amnell, J., 1995. Puulla parempiin paiviin ja kestavaan kehi-tykseen? (With wood to better days and sustainable development).In: Massa, I., Rahkonen, O. (Eds.), Riskiyhteiskunnan talous.Gaudeamus, Helsinki, pp. 189–197.

Edquist, C., 1995. Technology policy: the interaction between gov-ernment and markets. In: Aichholzer, G., Schienstock, G. (Eds.),Technology Policy—Towards an Integration of Social and Ecolog-ical Concerns. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 67–69.

Environmental Sustainability Index, 2005. Yale Center for Envi-

and using the resources. In contrast, actions by the inno-vation policy organisations are necessary to implementnational strategies.

The above findings highlight some potential short-comings in incorporating environmental considerationsinto technology or innovation policy in general. Thedecision procedures implementing innovation policiesshould include a systematic ex ante assessment ofthe most essential positive and negative environmentalimpacts of all proposals. In addition, the ex post assess-ments of technology programmes and projects shouldincorporate environmental impacts.

Present concerns for global competitiveness andglobal environmental challenges jointly reinforce theimportance of energy- and material-efficiency of all newtechnologies. This makes comprehensive integration ofenvironmental aims especially important. The aim ofenvironmental policy integration, included, for example,in the Treaty of Amsterdam, is to mainstream envi-ronmental considerations in all policy implementation.There is, however, an obvious risk that the environmen-tal objectives will actually be overlooked unless they are

ronmental Law and Policy, Yale University. Center for Interna-tional Earth Science Information Network, Colombia University.Accessed October 10, 2005: http://www.yale.edu/esi/ESI2005Main Report.pdf.

European Commission (EC), 2004. Integrating environmental con-siderations into other policy areas—a stocktaking of the Cardiffprocess. Commission Working Document, COM(2004)394 Final.European Commission, Brussels.

Forest Industry, 2001. Comment on the CACTUS TechnologyProgramme (by UMP, Stora Enso, Metsa-Serla and Myl-lykoski Paper). Accessed September 29, 2004: http://www.tekes.fi/julkaisut/cactus final/results/companies/index.html.

Freeman, C., 1996. The greening of technology and models of inno-vation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 53, 27–39.

Freeman, C., Soete, L., 1997. The Economics of Industrial Innovation,3rd ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Fukasaku, Y., 2000. Innovation for environmental sustainability: abackground. In: Innovation and the Environment. OECD, Paris,pp. 17–34.

Fukasaku, Y., 2005. The need for environmental innovation indicatorsand data from a policy perspective. In: Weber, M., Hemmelskamp,J. (Eds.), Towards Environmental Innovation Systems. Springer,Berlin, pp. 251–267.

Haavanlammi, T., 2001. Shower Water System Under the CactusProgram, Comments by Metso Oyj. Accessed September 29, 2004:http://www.tekes.fi/julkaisut/cactus final/results/companies/index.html.

http://www.yale.edu/esi/esi2005_main_report.pdf

http://www.tekes.fi/julkaisut/cactus_final/results/companies/index.html



Halme, K., Kanninen, S., Lemola, T., Autio, E., Arnold, E., Deuten, J.,2004. Competitiveness through internationalisation: evaluation ofthe means and mechanisms for promoting internationalisation intechnology programmes. Technology Programme Report 10/2004.National Technology Agency of Finland Tekes, Helsinki.

Heaton, G.R., 2000. Workshop on innovation and the environment:Rapporteur’s report. In: Innovation the Environment. OECD, Paris,pp. 7–15.

Heaton, G., Banks, R., 1997. Toward a new generation of environmen-tal technology. Journal of Industrial Ecology 1, 23–32.

Hemmelskamp, J., 1997. Environmental policy instruments and theireffects on innovation. European Planning Studies 5, 177–194.

Hertin, J., Berkhout, F., 2003. Analysing institutional strategies forenvironmental policy integration: the case of EU enterprise policy.Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 5, 39–56.

Hilden, M., Lepola, J., Mickwitz, P., Mulders, A., Palosaari, M., Simila,J., Sjoblom, S., Vedung, E., 2002. Evaluation of environmentalpolicy instruments—a case study of the Finnish pulp & paperand chemical industries. Monographs of the Boreal EnvironmentResearch 21, Helsinki.

Hjelt, M., Luoma, P., Hiltunen, J., Vanhanen, J., 2003. Teknologiao-hjelmat ja ilmastonmuutos (Technology Programmes and ClimateChange). National Technology Agency of Finland Tekes, Helsinki.

Hupa, M., 1994. LIEKKI Combustion technology: final report on theenergy research programme 1988–1992. Reviews B:153. Ministryof Trade and Industry, Helsinki.

Hupa, M., Matinlinna, J. (Eds.), 1996. LIEKKI 2 vuosikirja 1996 osaIII (LIEKKI 2 yearbook 1996 part III). Abo Akademi University,Turku.

Hyvattinen, H., 2004. Teknologiapolitiikka ymparistopolitiikkanaja ymparistopolitiikka teknologiapolitiikkana (Technology pol-icy as environmental policy and environmental policy astechnology policy). In: Lemola, T., Honkanen, P. (Eds.),Innovaatiopolitiikka—Kenen hyvaksi, keiden ehdoilla? Gaudea-mus, Helsinki, pp. 228–241.

H

J

J

K

K

K

K

L

Lafferty, W., 2004. From environmental protection to sustainabledevelopment: the challenge of decoupling through sectoral inte-gration. In: Lafferty, W. (Ed.), Governance for Sustainable Devel-opment. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 191–220.

Lahepelto, J., 1998. Sustainable Paper Research Programme FinalReport 1993–1998. National Technology Agency of Finland Tekes,Helsinki.

Lemola, T., 2002. Convergence of national science and technol-ogy policies: the case of Finland. Research Policy 31, 1481–1490.

Lenschow, A. (Ed.), 2002. Environmental Policy Integration: GreeningSectoral Policies in Europe. Earthscan Publications, London.

Liberatore, A., 1997. The integration of sustainable developmentobjectives into EU policy-making: barriers and prospects. In:Baker, S., Kousis, M., Richardson, D., Young, S. (Eds.), ThePolitics of Sustainable Development. Routledge, New York, pp.107–126.

Lundvall, B.-A., Johnson, B., Andersen, E.S., Dalum, B., 2002.National systems of production, innovation and competence build-ing. Research Policy 31, 213–231.

Mickwitz, P., Kivimaa, P., in press. Evaluating Policy Integration—TheCase of Policies for Environmentally Friendlier TechnologicalInnovations. Evaluation.

MTI, 1993. SIHTI Energy and environmental technology: Final reporton the energy research programme 1991–1992. Energy DepartmentReviews B171. Ministry of Trade and Industry, Helsinki.

Mulders, A., 1999. Views of nature versus policy managementapproaches in nordic environmental administrations. In: Joas, M.,Hermanson, A.-S. (Eds.), The Nordic Environments. Ashgate,Aldershot, pp. 67–89.

Nilsson, M., Persson, A., 2003. Framework for analysing environ-mental policy integration. Journal of Environmental Policy andPlanning 5, 333–359.

Nordberg-Bohm, V., 1999. Stimulating ‘green’ technological innova-tion: an analysis of alternative policy mechanisms. Policy Sciences

yvattinen, H., Hilden, M., 2004. Environmental policies and marineengines—effects on the development and adoption of innovations.Marine Policy 28, 491–502.

acob, K., Volkery, A., 2003. Instruments for Policy Integration: Inter-mediate Report of the RIW Project POINT. Environmental PolicyResearch Centre, Freie Universitat, Berlin.

affe, A.B., Newell, R.G., Stavins, R.N., 2005. A tale of two market fail-ures: technology and environmental policy. Ecological Economics54, 164–174.

emp, R., 2000. Technology and environmental policy: innovationeffects of past policies and suggestions for improvement. In: Inno-vation and the Environment. OECD, Paris, pp. 35–62.

ivimaa, P., Mickwitz, P., 2004. Driving forces for environmentallysounder innovations: the case of Finnish pulp and paper indus-try. In: Jacob, K., Binder, M., Wieczorek, A. (Eds.), Governancefor Industrial Transformation, Proceedings of the 2003 BerlinConference on the Human Dimensions of Global EnvironmentalChange. Environmental Policy Research Centre, Berlin, pp. 356–372.

omppa, A., Neimo, L., 2000. Vahavetinen paperin valmistus CAC-TUS 1996–1999 (Low water consumption paper manufactureCACTUS 1996–1999). Technology Programme Report 1/2000.National Technology Agency of Finland Tekes, Helsinki.

uhlmann, S., 2001. Future governance of innovation policy inEurope—three scenarios. Research Policy 30, 953–976.

afferty, W., Hovden, E., 2003. Environmental policy integration:towards an analytical framework. Environmental Politics 12, 1–22.

32, 13–38.OECD, 2000. Innovation and the Environment. OECD, Paris.OECD, 2002. Improving Policy Coherence and Integration for

SD: A Checklist. OECD, Paris. Accessed October 29, 2004:http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/1/1947305.pdf.

Oliver, C., 1991. Strategic responses to institutional pressures. TheAcademy of Management Review 16, 145–179.

Paavilainen, L. (Ed.), 2002. Final report: Finnish Forest ClusterResearch Programme WOOD WISDOM (1998–2001). NationalTechnology Agency of Finland Tekes. Academy of Finland, Min-istry of Agriculture and Forestry, Ministry of Trade and Industry,Helsinki.

Partanen, J. (Ed.), 2003. Modelling of Combustion Processes: CODETechnology Programme 1999–2002. Technology ProgrammeReport 4/2003. National Technology Agency of Finland Tekes,Helsinki.

Paulapuro, H., Komppa, A., 1994. RAINA Energy-efficient paperproduction: Final Report. Reviews B:165. Ministry of Trade andIndustry, Helsinki.

Pekkarinen, T., 2001. Cactus has supported the development of thepaper mill water circulation. Comments by Metso Oyj. AccessedSeptember 29, 2004: http://www.tekes.fi/julkaisut/cactus final/results/companies/index.html.

Picciotto, R., 2002. The logic of mainstreaming: a development eval-uation perspective. Evaluation 8, 322–339.

Pietila, S., 1991. SIHTI Energia- ja ymparistotekniikan tutkimus- jakehitysohjelma: Tutkimussuunnitelma 1991 (SIHTI Energy and

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/1/1947305.pdf



environmental technology R&D programme: Research plan 1991).Ekono Environmental Technology, Helsinki.

Pollitt, C., Bouckhaert, G., 2000. Public Management Reform: A Com-parative Analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Porter, M., van der Linde, C., 1995. Toward a new conception of theenvironment–competitiveness relationship. Journal of EconomicPerspectives 9, 97–118.

Rennings, K., 2000. Redefining innovation—eco-innovation researchand the contribution from ecological economics. Ecological Eco-nomics 32, 319–332.

Roberts, R., 1998. Managing innovation: the pursuit of competitiveadvantage and the design of innovation intense environments.Research Policy 27, 159–175.

Schienstock, G., 2005. Sustainable development and the regionaldimension of the innovation system. In: Weber, M., Hemmelskamp,J. (Eds.), Towards Environmental Innovation Systems. Springer,Berlin, pp. 115–136.

Schienstock, G., Hamalainen, T., 2001. Transformation of the Finnishinnovation system: a network approach. Sitra Reports Series 7.The Finnish National Fund for Research and Development (Sitra),Helsinki.

Schrama, G., Sedlacek, S., 2003. Introduction. In: Schrama, G., Sed-lacek, S. (Eds.), Environmental and Technology Policy in Europe.Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 1–23.

Science and Technology Policy Council, 1987. Tiede- ja teknolo-giapoliittinen katsaus 1987 (Science and Technology PolicyReview 1987). Science and Technology Policy Council of Finland,Helsinki.

Science and Technology Policy Council, 1990. Katsaus 1990: Tiede-ja teknologiapolitiikan suuntaviivat luvulla (Review 1990: Guide-lines for Science and Technology Policy in the 1990s). Science andTechnology Policy Council of Finland, Helsinki.

Science and Technology Policy Council, 1993. Tiedon ja osaamisenSuomi: Kehittamisstrategia (Towards an Innovative Society: ADevelopment Strategy for Finland). Science and Technology Pol-

Sedlacek, S., Schrama, G., 2003. Synthesis. In: Schrama, G., Sed-lacek, S. (Eds.), Environmental and Technology Policy in Europe.Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 225–240.

Seth, R., Deglise, X., Ilmakunnas, P., Kliger, R., Leban, J.-M.,O’Malley, D.M., Westermarck, U., 2002. Finnish Forest ClusterResearch Programme 1998–2001 Evaluation Report. Publicationsof the Academy of Finland 15/02, Helsinki.

Smits, R., Kuhlmann, S., 2004. The rise of systemic instruments ininnovation policy. International Journal in Foresight and InnovationPolicy 1, 4–32.

Sundholm, J., 1993. KUITU Energy-efficient mechanical pulping: finalreport. Reviews B:167. Ministry of Trade and Industry, Helsinki.

Sørensen, C., 2003. Environmental policy integration—organisationalobstacles. The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies2, 1–12.

Tekes, 2002. Pigmentit paperin raaka-aineena 1998–2001 loppu-raportti (Pigments as raw material of paper 1998–2001 finalreport). Technology Programme Report 5/2002. National Technol-ogy Agency of Finland Tekes, Helsinki.

Tekes, 2004a. National Technology Agency of Finland Tekes, Helsinki.Accessed April 7, 2004: http://www.tekes.fi.

Tekes, 2004b. Annual Review 2003. National Technology Agency ofFinland Tekes, Helsinki.

Thun, R., Korhonen, M. (Eds.), 1999. SIHTI 2 Energia jaymparistoteknologia: Tutkimusohjelman vuosikirja 1998 (SIHTI 2Energy and environmental technology: Research programme year-book 1998). VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo.

Underdal, A., 1980. Integrated marine policy: What? Why? How?Marine Policy, 1980.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2001. HumanDevelopment Report 2001: Making New Technologies Workfor Human Development. Oxford University Press, NewYork.

Valtakari, M., Pulkkinen, M., Leminen, S., Pelkonen, T., Rajahonka,M., Kiuru, P., Laurila, H., 2004. Kaupallistaminen ja innovaatio-

icy Council of Finland, Helsinki.Science and Technology Policy Council, 1996. Suomi: Tiedon ja

osaamisen yhteiskunta (Finland: A Knowledge-based Society).Science and Technology Council of Finland, Helsinki.

Science and Technology Policy Council, 2000. Review 2000: TheChallenge of Knowledge and Know-how. Science and TechnologyPolicy Council of Finland, Helsinki.

Science and Technology Policy Council, 2003. Knowledge Innovationand Internationalisation. Science and Technology Policy Councilof Finland, Helsinki.

tavoitteet teknologiaohjelmissa (Commercialisation and innova-tion targets in technology programmmes). Technology ProgrammeReport 11/2004. National Technology Agency of Finland Tekes,Helsinki.

Weale, A., 2002. Environmental Rules and Rule Making in the Euro-pean Union. In: Jordan, A. (Ed.), A Guide to EU EnvironmentalPolicy: Actors, Institutions and Processes. Earthscan, London, pp.198–213.

Weber, M., Hemmelskamp, J. (Eds.), 2005. Towards EnvironmentalInnovation Systems. Springer, Berlin.

http://www.tekes.fi/

The challenge of greening technologies—Environmental policy integration in Finnish technology policies

Documents