V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This report set out to identify both the general and more specific characteristics of the Nordic innovation systems, and how the Nordic countries are implementing MOIPs to varying extents, and in more explicit and implicit ways. The report focuses on Sweden, Finland and Denmark – three countries with strong innovation systems and traditions. The following cross-country comparison and discussion is based on the three country chapters and discussions with the authors.

The first – and most important – takeaway from this policy overview is that Sweden, Finland and Denmark each exhibit distinctive features in their approach to MOIPs. However, there are also notable similarities, especially between Sweden and Finland, both of which have a longer history than Denmark of linking innovation policies with sustainable development. This historical context influences their current policy frameworks. Sweden, for example, has adopted various transformative innovation policy frameworks, which integrate mission-oriented approaches into a consensus-driven policy-making environment. This evolution is partly a response to the Lund Declaration and subsequent policy actions that positioned Sweden as a frontrunner in innovation policy.

Finland, on the other hand, distinguishes itself through an embedded approach that invites companies to lead innovation ecosystems. This approach places significant emphasis on the role of private enterprises in directing innovation policy. Denmark also places sustainable development high on the agenda, but adopts a clearly distinct, more centralised approach, marking a clear break from the otherwise hands-off, fragmented policy landscape. The Danish government takes a prominent role in formulating missions, and therefore aligns closely with Mazzucato’s (2018) framework, even if not all Danish missions are challenge-based. Some focus on specific, mostly technical solutions, which reflects a more classical approach to missions than the one outlined in Mazzucato’s (2018) MOIP principles.

The extent to which missions are integrated into national innovation systems varies across the three countries. In Denmark, missions add a new layer to existing research, development and innovation (RDI) instruments, and there is only limited coordination with parallel instruments. The government does not always clearly define the missions’ goals; instead, stakeholders develop roadmaps through bottom-up processes. Sweden has rather explicitly used different ‘transformative’ innovation policy frames – from challenge-oriented, to transformative, to missions. The mission-oriented approach is central to Sweden’s Impact Innovation framework, but appears to be less diffused across the entire governance system. While agencies have proactively adopted transformative innovation policies, clear, high-level missions (e.g. reducing emissions to zero) have not penetrated all levels of governance. Sweden has clearly drawn inspiration from Mazzucato’s approach, but in practice the application of missions is closely integrated with the more consensus-oriented approach to policy-making, and as such functions primarily as a tool for stakeholder mobilisation, rather than dictating specific actions. In Finland, ‘missions’ are not explicitly applied, but research-related innovation is challenge-oriented, and MOIP approaches are embedded in many, if not all, innovation policy programmes. While steps towards MOIPs have fallen short, the overlapping and often interchangeable use of concepts such as ‘mission’, ‘transformative’ and ‘challenge’, as a fuzzy policy cloud, shows a clear desire to focus innovation efforts to address societal challenges. The embedded nature of innovation policy therefore facilitates continuous, bottom-up content evolution, in which themes are developed through open consultation among academia, businesses and the public sector. 

Furthermore, this policy overview clearly shows that the role of state and non-state actors in defining and implementing RDI goals varies both across the three countries and within the national contexts, reflecting a mix of top-down and bottom-up processes. Denmark employs a combination of approaches – the selection of broad priorities, aims and missions is predominantly a top-down exercise; whereas the more specific selection of goals, targets and actions results from a more bottom-up process of deliberation involving stakeholders. In Sweden, missions are predominantly stakeholder-driven, with broad governmental goals that facilitate system changes, rather than dictating specific directions. National research programmes, however, exhibit more top-down characteristics, as they are defined by topics and challenges outlined in research bills. Nevertheless, the way in which these challenges and topics are defined, and incorporated into research bills, often follows an intense stakeholder-driven consultation process, thus challenging the top-down/bottom-up dichotomy. Finland mirrors Sweden in its stakeholder-centric approach, with agencies like Vinnova and Business Finland learning from each other and promoting collaboration. The formal structure suggests a top-down system, but in practice regional and local actors significantly reinterpret and localise the innovation policies.

Innovation policies in the Nordic countries are generally place-less, yet have clear spatial impacts, as they favour actors or industries based in specific locations. In Denmark, missions are selected without specific geographic considerations, although their implementation may benefit certain areas due to existing capabilities. The eight Regional Business Beacons, however, do have an explicit place- and challenge-based focus, although they are primarily concerned with stimulating growth and competitiveness. Sweden’s move towards transformative innovation policies has been relatively aspatial, favouring actors with stronger capabilities in competitive calls. However, mission-oriented pilots have started to reintroduce considerations of place, particularly through territorially anchored community engagement. In Finland, the innovation policy itself is place-less, but its implementation favours regions with robust universities and strong companies. Local actors often adapt and influence overall policies through reinterpretation and localised funding. One key reflection among the authors is that there tend to be considerable differences between the system as it appears in its formal structures (top-down), and the reality of how it works, and how actors at multiple levels are involved in designing innovation activities. This is also the case for regional and local authorities that are not formally part of the innovation policy structure, yet have a degree of formal responsibility for innovation work. This leads to a process of re-interpretation and localisation of innovation policy efforts.

This report posed two simple questions: Are MOIPs currently being implemented in three Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland and Sweden)? And if so, what characterises the process of adopting MOIPs in these countries? These questions turned out to be not as simple as they first seemed. While missions and the mission-oriented approach have found their way into the national innovation systems toolbox, it is important to highlight that they have not replaced pre-existing structures. For the most part, missions add an extra layer to the already complex and fragmented policy frameworks and funding mechanisms. There is also a degree of fragmentation in the application of MOIPs themselves – depending on the programme, there are multiple ways to implement and coordinate mission-oriented efforts. For instance, the Swedish policy experimentation journey shows that the mission approach to innovation programmes can enhance interdisciplinary collaboration and scientific performance. However, the different programmes yielded mixed results, which exhibit a high degree of fragmentation at project level. In-depth evaluations of different programmes could therefore support policy-makers’ ability to design and adapt TIPs and MOIPs.

Moreover, the country reviews reveal that the implementation of MOIPs cannot be simply characterised as either top-down or a bottom-up processes. Instead, the implementation of MOIPs seems to be ingrained into well-established national innovation systems, and long traditions of policy- and decision-making are characterised by more circular, consensus-based processes. Despite this commonality, the Nordic countries’ unique national innovation systems, institutional set-ups, industrial bases, actors, capabilities and traditions result in different interpretations of the missions-oriented approach, and different processes for defining and selecting priorities and goals. However, little is known about how the Nordic countries’ MOIPs are interpreted and applied at the subnational level. 

Given that MOIPs are attracting more attention and are likely to remain an integral part of the innovation policy toolbox in the years ahead, future research should focus on empirical analyses of their outcomes and how they are impacted by different organisational approaches. It is crucial to understand how the sub-national levels and vertical policy coordination affect MOIP implementation. Investigating how local actors combine national and European innovation policies to pursue their goals can provide deeper insights into the operationalisation and impact of mission-oriented approaches. More empirical evidence will ultimately be critical to legitimise not only MOIP approaches, but also the processes used to formulate problems, solutions and goals.

Finally, further empirical research should help to identify how MOIPs, or specific interpretations of transformative policies, are suited to the peculiarities of each Nordic country’s innovation systems and innovation modes. Trust is often identified as a key Nordic asset that enables collaboration and consensus-building. However, it remains unclear to what extent this impacts innovation efforts, particularly in comparison to societies with lower levels of trust. For instance, the Swedish system has a strong capacity for coordinating action, which clearly facilitates the application of missions. However, the choice of missions and directionality remains open and subject to further debate. Furthermore, the fragmentation in the three countries’ innovation policy efforts, ranging from a ‘hands-off approach’ in Denmark to a state of ‘policy confusion’ in Finland (as described in chapters III and IV in this report), calls for more reflection and research into the overall effectiveness of both the institutional arrangements and the individual programmes. Whether MOIPs can be integrated in the Nordic countries across ministries, agencies and sub-national authorities, as well as private research foundations, is an interesting question that warrants further empirical study.