Go to content
Photo: Werner Nystrand/Folio/ imagebank.sweden.se

Implications and Recommendations for
MOIPs in Nordic regions

Despite MOIPs’ increasing popularity, their diffusion at different territorial levels might be easier said than done (e.g., Wanzenböck & Frenken, 2020). Indeed, we have shown here that the penetration of missions into national and regional innovation systems varies significantly across the three countries. 
It is key to highlight that mission-oriented approaches have not replaced pre-existing structures but appear as one additional tool in countries’ and regions’ innovation systems toolbox. In the Nordic countries, MOIPs seem to be integrated into well-established consensus-based policy- and decision-making traditions. There tends to be a major difference between how the system appears formally and how actors at multiple levels are involved in designing innovation activities. The reality depicts a mix of top-down and bottom-up processes leading to a great deal of re-interpretation and localisation of innovation activities. 
Given the ongoing debate, contentious argumentation for and against mission-innovation approaches, and their heterogeneous understanding and implementation, the recommendations here do not lay out a pathway for implementation but rather present a number of key points that require reflection from the relevant authorities. Recognising the importance of the regional context and the unsuitability of one-size-fits-all approaches in the design and implementation of MOIPs represents a fundamental point of departure. The recommendations are based on the findings from the case studies from three different types of predominantly manufacturing regions in Nordic countries and, therefore, may not apply to regions with different contextual characteristics. 
  • Regional context: take the regional context as a point of departure
    I. Consider how the specific regional context can determine the mission approach regarding the available resources, economic structure, social context, and collaborative culture. The economic specialisation, e.g., manufacturing, process industries, or services; geographical location, e.g., peripheral or centrally located; population size; or level of maturity of stakeholder organisation may largely determine how missions are shaped. 
  • Multi-level policy implementation: recognise the opportunities for regional policy and suitability of MOIPs based on the degree of flexibility of administrative and legal structures.
    II. Review the legal mandates, policies and directives to understand the responsibilities of different government tiers and the degree of flexibility and autonomy of implementation each level has. Flexibility in the system may allow regions to re-interpret and localise top-down policy. However, a restricted mandate may challenge the possibility of regional authorities setting and implementing ambitious missions or may need support from the local, national or European levels to achieve them.
    III. Consider the advantages and disadvantages of aligning regional policy efforts with EU, national and local authorities. Stronger coordination may enhance impact and build momentum, but alignment can also risk neglecting regional priorities.
  • Leadership and legitimacy: Embrace collaborative approaches
    I. Spreading responsibilities and de-centralised leadership can enhance action and build legitimacy over common goals. In cases where the regional mandate is weaker, de-centralised leadership may be a way to pull resources together. 
    II. Recognise different actors’ knowledge and capacities and enhance their abilities to lead or co-lead actions of common interest. 
  • Nature of challenges: Acknowledge the different nature of the challenges addressed by MOIPs adopting different approaches, types of solutions, and timelines.
    I. Addressing different societal challenges may require technical and non-technical, e.g., institutional innovations and behavioural change. MOIPs need to be designed according to these different perspectives.
  • Targeted vs. open-ended missions: Consider the degree of certainty, complexity and contestation around problems and possible solutions (Wanzenböck & Frenken, 2020) to define the level of specificity of the missions. If there is much contestation and uncertainty around a mission, it may be challenging to define targeted and measurable goals and set strict deadlines. Room for flexibility and an explorative approach to discovering the goals along the way may sometimes be preferable. 
  • Managing expectations: missions often entail conflicting or competing interests. Therefore, an important role of the authority is to manage expectations, help stakeholders find compromises, negotiate, and agree on common visions. Consensus, however, should not be understood as eliminating competition. Competition can co-exist with cooperation.
  • Building capacities – Build the capacities and tools necessary to address complex challenges within public administrations and among stakeholders. Those involved in leading transformations need to be equipped with capacities that allow them to envision long-term plans as well as the agility to adapt to sudden changes in conditions and emerging knowledge. to be able to design, implement, monitor, and evaluate missions. More specifically, capacities are needed for:
    I. Designing missions addressing socio-technical systems (long-term vision) and processes that are inclusive and build legitimacy around the priorities and goals set. 
    II. Coordination including both having facilitation skills (not only single events but continuously throughout the process) and the ability to understand and process different types of expertise (e.g., technical information and data vs values), different timelines (e.g. technological innovations, business plans, social-behavioural change) and expectations.
    III. Allowing for reflexivity, continuously monitoring the progress, the global context (e.g., markets, social trends, technological innovations, etc.), and evaluating objectively and inclusively the results and challenges. This process or reflexivity needs to be followed by a process of recalibrating the goals and timelines set and the means to achieve them. This may entail changing focus from technical to institutional solutions, for instance. 
Nordregio policy brief 2025:17