Introduction

Mission-oriented innovation policies (MOIP) have gained traction in academia and policy in recent years as a possible means to set directionality of collective efforts and accelerate transformative change around some of today’s grand societal challenges (e.g., Mazzucato, 2018; Schot & Steinmueller, 2018). This policy brief aims to shed some light on the mission's approach, specifically within innovation policy, and how it is interpreted and implemented at different territorial levels. First, the academic debate around the territorial dimensions of MOIPs is presented, followed by a brief discussion of how MOIPs have been adopted so far at the supra-national, national and sub-national levels. More specifically, a snapshot of the innovation policy landscape and the degree of penetration of mission and transformative approaches in Denmark, Finland and Sweden is presented. Furthermore, the interpretation and adoption of missions at the regional level are discussed based on the results of three Nordic case studies, including Northern Jutland (DK), Ostrobothnia (FI) and Västerbotten (SE). The final section discusses the implications of adopting MOIPs and provides a list of recommendations for Nordic regions.

The policy brief is based on research conducted on the project Green Innovation: Systems Perspective and Mission-oriented Policies, funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers via the Nordic Thematic Group on Green, Innovative, and Resilient Regions. The authors do not take any specific stance on whether authorities should or should not adopt mission approaches but rather present the academic and policy debate openly. In that spirit, the recommendations in the final section do not lay down a path forward but list key questions that competent authorities should consider when adopting mission-oriented approaches. 

Traditionally, innovation policy was mainly concerned with economic growth (Binz & Castaldi, 2024). In contrast, MOIPs and other related types of transformative innovation policies are today broadening innovation policies' objectives towards addressing grand societal challenges (Tödtling et al., 2020). Definitions of MOIPs vary. However, one dominant approach defines missions as setting ambitious societal goals, concrete success criteria, and a specific time frame within which they should be achieved (Mazzucato, 2018). 

While both the European Commission (EC) and several countries and regions have adopted a mission-oriented approach to their innovation policies in recent years, there is little clarity about what it takes for public administrations at different levels to design and implement successful MOIPs (e.g., Bugge et al., 2022). A narrower understanding of mission-oriented innovation can be dated back to the 1980s (e.g., Ergas 1987), and indeed, directionality and transformative policy approaches are common at the level of programmes and schemes. However, the broader understanding of government-led missions as a new way of applying Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) efforts to coordinate work within the public sector, across levels, and with society is rather new (OECD, 2022). Examples of national MOIPs include the Mission-driven Topsector and Innovation Policy of the Netherlands, the High-Tech Strategy 2025’s missions of Germany, the Moonshot R&D Program of Japan, and the Innomissions - Mission-driven green partnerships – of Denmark. However, it is premature to assume that a broader understanding of mission-oriented innovation will become the norm. Indeed, governments in many countries are assessing the suitability of the approach in their contexts, while others have adopted smaller, more careful steps, mainly at the programme level.  

MOIPs have received growing attention from both policy and academia, and several countries and regions are beginning to implement them (Edler & Fagerberg, 2017). However, MOIPs have also been criticised for different reasons. Critics argue that MOIPs can be too top-down (Henderson et al., 2023) and that by narrowing the scope, there is a risk of leaving out alternatives or focusing on the wrong missions (Wøien Meijer et al., 2022), which eventually could risk harming the overall goal, e.g., climate neutrality. Furthermore, it is uncertain what tools are necessary for implementing MOIPs (Mazzucato, 2018), as most societal challenges that missions try to address are so-called “wicked” problems (Boon & Edler, 2018). Wicked problems tend to be highly complex, difficult to solve, involve numerous stakeholders with varying and even opposing interests, require action at different institutional levels, and no single solution or approach can be identified (Rittel & Webber, 1973; Elia & Margherita, 2018). Another key critique relates to the lack of geographical focus of MOIPs despite being developed and deployed at different territorial levels (e.g., Wanzenböck & Frenken, 2020). Scholars have long argued that applying one-size-fits-all policies to innovation efforts tends not to be feasible and risks damaging regions by disregarding existing regional specificities and capacities (Tödtling & Trippl, 2005). This argument has also been raised more specifically about MOIPs, where some scholars have questioned whether sufficient geographical knowledge is considered (e.g., Coenen et al., 2015). Scholars have, among others, feared that especially structurally weaker regions could risk suffering under EU and nationally mandated MOIPs (Cappellano et al., 2023). It is argued that today's move towards adopting MOIPs could be scrutinised (Brown, 2021), e.g., due to the lack of empirical evidence (Bloom et al., 2019). However, how are MOIPs being implemented at different territorial levels today? The following sections will shed some light on this question.