7. Conclusion 

The empirical results of the two sectors investigated in this study show that the development of green innovations and transitions are non-linear and highly complex and that the influence of and between agents is multi-directional. Causality cannot be attributed to single actors or decisions but rather to the sum of different individual efforts working together. Directionality and causality become even more blurred the more one examines the micro-processes that determine key decisions (policies, legislation and private and public investment) and the relationships between actors. However, we acknowledge that change emerges precisely at the interphase between key players, where co-operation is the catalyst and the means for knowledge exchange and learning and trust is a key condition for putting knowledge into action. Figure 10 helps visualise the process of systems innovation resulting from the sum of actions of all relevant actors in our case studies, which intentionally and unintentionally exploit the knowledge that is continuously circulating among them.

However, the complex and non-linear nature of systems innovation does not mean that directionality is irrelevant. While many actions unintentionally lead to systems change, most of these are not random but have a specific purpose. Businesses engage in new activities in search of new economic opportunities: although not necessarily with the aim of changing ‘the world’ they inevitably contribute to processes of structural change. Policies and regulation are more intentionally designed to address systemic issues, including systems innovation and economic path creation. However, directionality does not unfold in the same way in every context. Different actors and institutions can assume the role of change agents/leaders. For instance, the state and local authorities can play a more general role in setting the framework for new green developments and financing the green transition through, e.g., research grants geared towards tackling problems rather than supporting one specific technology. Regulations can act both as a gatekeeper and a door opener. They encourage innovation by guiding private actors towards new opportunities and at the same time determine ‘exnovation’, meaning the path towards abandoning specific technologies, processes or products that are deemed ‘unwanted’. Moreover, in certain cases, authorities become more than administrative units, setting the rules of the game by taking a more active role in pursuing a course of action, mobilising stakeholders, co-ordinating actions and addressing practical bottlenecks. In other cases, the business and scientific community play a more prominent role in leading systems innovation. 

When it comes to place-based developments, identifying the formal and informal roles of individuals who act as ‘champions’ is relevant, even as they move between jobs, from private to public sectors and vice versa. The changing roles of different actors can be seen at an institutional level when either public, private, academic or hybrid entities are activated and assume a leading role. Companies can also mutate and change their market position by entering new market segments or expanding their presence along supply chains. Companies often create sister companies if suppliers of related products and services are missing, or when existing partner companies resist change, or more simply to cut costs, reduce intermediaries and increase efficiency. Finally, actors setting directionality can also change over time. While authorities can play an important role at a given point in time by changing the rules of the game, they may become less relevant at a later stage. Similarly, businesses can at one moment resist new developments yet subsequently change their attitudes and even lead to market creation or expansion. This also holds true for complementary actors. For example, risk-averse financial capital tends to be reluctant to support new ventures until these are proven viable, although here, we can also observe that context matters. 

Returning to the structure-agency debate, agency is, in effect, the conductor of change. However, context (structure) provides the preconditions to enable or halt agency, such as functioning markets, appropriate regulatory frameworks and access to labour, knowledge and capital. In the Nordic countries, a major enabler of change is the so-called ‘Nordic gold’ or trust, understood as the high degree of trust placed in authorities and individuals prevalent throughout society.