1-s2.0-S221042242400011X-main

Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 50 (2024) 100820
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eist
Research article
Responsible mission governance: An integrative framework and

research agenda
Martijn Wiarda a, *, Matthijs J. Janssen b, c, Tom B.J. Coenen d, Neelke Doorn a
a
Faculty of Technology, Policy, and Management, Department of Values, Technology, and Innovation, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5,
2628 BX Delft, the Netherlands
b
Innovation Studies, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Princetonlaan 8a, 3584 CB Utrecht, the Netherlands
c
Dialogic Innovatie & Interactie, Hooghiemstraplein 33-36, 3514 AX Utrecht, the Netherlands
d
Department of Civil Engineering & Management, Faculty of Engineering Technology, University of Twente, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522 NB Enschede, the
Netherlands
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Governance lies at the heart of instigating, steering, and creating the conditions for mission-
Mission oriented transitions that potentially help resolve some of our grand societal challenges. In
Innovation policy doing so, policymakers will need to navigate both epistemic and normative considerations to
Societal challenge
develop, implement, and evaluate missions responsibly. A number of scholars have therefore
Transformation
Transition
expressed the need for a better conceptualization of responsible mission governance as a proce
Responsible innovation dural approach, particularly with the aim of coping with the complexity, uncertainty, and contes
tation that render these wicked problems intractable. In this paper we develop an integrative
framework for responsible mission governance by taking wickedness dimensions as our entry
point. Accordingly, we argue that responsible mission governance should integrate various
complementary governance responsibilities (e.g., reflexivity) and modes (e.g., reflexive gover
nance) that potentially improve the effectiveness and desirability of missions. We conclude by
discussing urgent avenues for future research
1. Introduction
The past years have witnessed a renewed interest in mission-oriented innovation policy (MOIP) as a policy approach to address
grand societal challenges like climate change, pandemics, and social injustice (Mazzucato, 2018). MOIP uses “an urgent strategic goal
that requires transformative systems change directed towards overcoming a wicked problem” (Hekkert et al., 2020, p. 1).
It is precisely the wickedness of societal challenges (Rittel and Webber, 1973) that poses a substantial ‘governability’ issue to
policymakers (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee, 2009; Wanzenböck et al., 2020). In developing policies, they need to navigate both epistemic
considerations (e.g., pluralities of knowledges, experiences, insights) and normative considerations (e.g., pluralities of values, con
cerns, and principles such as equity, fairness, justice) in order to promote transformative change that is deemed both effective and
desirable.
In this context, the notion of mission governance largely refers to the processes that serve to develop, implement, and evaluate these
policies, and which set the conditions that are conducive to transitions (Patterson et al., 2017). However, questions such as “who makes
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: m.j.wiarda@tudelft.nl (M. Wiarda).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2024.100820
Received 19 October 2023; Received in revised form 27 January 2024; Accepted 31 January 2024
Available online 8 February 2024
2210-4224/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M. Wiarda et al. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 50 (2024) 100820
decisions, what is considered a desirable future, and (even if we assume consensus) how do we get there[?]” remain unresolved
(Patterson et al., 2017, p. 8). Simply ‘pulling’ or ‘pushing’ solutions into society without caution, deliberation, and ethical consid
eration risks inducing ‘failures’ and ‘dark sides’ of transitions (Blythe et al., 2018; Turnheim and Sovacool, 2020). In addition,
transition governance at large has been criticized for under-appreciating normative issues (Kirchherr et al., 2023; Smith and Stirling,
2010). These struggles raise the question of how missions can be governed more responsibly (Klerkx and Rose, 2020) by better coping
with the core wickedness dimensions of the problems they intend to address (i.e., complexity, uncertainty, and contestation; Janssen
et al., 2021; Wanzenböck et al., 2020).
Such questions are important because these mutually reinforcing wickedness dimensions render problems intractable – that is to
say, incomprehensible and unmanageable – and commonly lead to ineffective and irresponsible outcomes (Head, 2019; Mueller et al.,
2023; Snowden and Rancati, 2021). Because missions target wicked problems, policymakers are in need of novel mission governance
frameworks that help them more responsibly cope with wickedness when developing, implementing, and evaluating missions (Hekkert
et al., 2020).
This paper aims to address the need for such a framework. In what follows, we will use complexity, uncertainty, and contestation –
three broadly recognized wickedness dimensions – as our entry points for the development of an integrative framework for responsible
mission governance. We do so by linking existing governance responsibilities (e.g., inclusion) and governance modes (e.g., partici
patory governance) with these dimensions to help policymakers better cope with wickedness, and to subsequently benefit the effec
tiveness and desirability of missions (Section 2). Hereafter, in Section 3, we argue in favor of integrating these responsibilities and
modes for mission governance, after which we discuss what this could mean in the multi-level context of missions (Section 4). In
Section 5, we apply and reflect upon our framework through an illustrative vignette. Lastly, Section 6 proceeds by discussing important
avenues for future research before we end with concluding remarks in Section 7.
2. Procedural approaches to coping with wickedness: governance responsibilities and modes
So-called ‘transformative’ or ‘transformer’ missions target societal challenges that require fundamental socio-technical, institu
tional, and behavioral transformations of our society (Hekkert et al., 2020; Wanzenböck et al., 2020; Wittmann et al., 2021). They
prioritize bold, clear, and ambitious goals to evoke cross-boundary and distributed responses (Mazzucato, 2018) and aim to set the
conditions that potentially bring about relatively open-ended and non-linear transitions (Köhler et al., 2019). The European Com
mission has already developed and implemented five of such missions, which collectively represent investments of over a 100 billion
Euros (European Commission, 2022). Many countries such as Japan, the United Kingdom, and The Netherlands have similarly
launched their own transformer missions (Larrue, 2021).
Missions and the associated formulations and strategies are social constructs that are co-produced across policy, science, and so
ciety, and which inscribe performative visions about the future world (Wiarda et al., 2023a). Mission governance will need to mobilize
and coordinate stakeholders to successfully develop, implement, and evaluate missions (Janssen et al., 2021). In such efforts, it is
important to pay attention to “the structures, processes, rules and traditions that determine how people in society make decisions and
share power, exercises responsibility and ensure accountability” (Patterson et al., 2017, p. 3).
An increased awareness has emerged that the transitions encouraged by mission governance are not value-neutral (Kok and Klerkx,
2023). The associated mission strategies come with strong normative visions of what future societies should look like, even if this
normativity is not widely shared by society. As with any attempt to deliberately drive transformative change, pursuing missions may
lead to potential transition failures, disruptions, and ‘dark sides’ (Blythe et al., 2018; Geels and Schot, 2007; Turnheim and Sovacool,
2020) and risks generating maladaptive outcomes that reinforce, redistribute, and create vulnerabilities across communities (Blythe
et al., 2018; Eriksen et al., 2021; Lennon, 2017). For instance, while policy-supported solutions like solar panels play a crucial role for
the energy transition, resources required for their production tend to be mined by people from low-income countries who suffer from
poor working conditions (Zehner, 2012). Transitions are moreover associated with creative destruction (Schumpeter, 1934), power
shifts (Morrison et al., 2017), and labor shifts (Sharma and Banerjee, 2021). Blythe et al. (2018) subsequently ask: “who gains and
loses, who has agency and who decides about the trajectory, rate and scale of changes?” (p.1218). Similarly, scholars have expressed
ethical concerns and advocate for fair and just transitions (Moglia et al., 2021; Wang and Lo, 2021; Yalew et al., 2021). For example,
the abovementioned illustration about solar panels underlines the need for explicit attention to distributive justice, that is to say,
whether (un)desirable impacts of missions are shared fairly among stakeholders, and according to whose perspective. These questions
are both of ethical and instrumental nature as the success of missions depends on the trust, legitimacy, input, and broad support from
stakeholders (Elzinga et al., 2023).
Many undesirable and unintended consequences of challenge-led policies are the result of the persistent complexity, uncertainty, and
contestation associated with wicked problems, and which subsequently give rise to intractability (Farrell and Hooker, 2013; Ferraro
et al., 2015; Head, 2022, 2019; Wanzenböck et al., 2020). Although intractability is neither a wickedness dimension nor a synonym for
wickedness,1 it is an important consequence of the three wickedness dimensions and therefore requires explicit consideration (Head,
2022).
To understand how policymakers can better cope with complexity, uncertainty, contestation, and intractability, it is important to
make a distinction between substantive and procedural forms of governance (Head, 2022; Head and Xiang, 2016). Substantive
1
We recognize that problems can be intractable without being wicked. For instance, relatively tame problems that are characterised by high
degrees of complexity, but low degrees of uncertainty and contestation.
2
governance generally focusses on outcome-driven policies, whereas procedural governance centres around the underlying and
continuous processes that lead up to the development, implementation, and evaluation of policies (Bali et al., 2021). Substantive
governance has been heavily criticized in the wicked problems literature because it tends to merely cure a problem’s symptoms
without addressing the deeper interrelated constellation of problems (e.g., Churchman, 1967; Dery, 1984; Head and Xiang, 2016;
Hoppe, 2011; Termeer et al., 2019). In contrast, procedural governance, as a way of ‘working with’ wicked problems, requires pol
icymakers to “enter into a deep, mutual understanding of the untamed aspects of the problem” before defining substantive outcomes
(Churchman, 1967, p. 142; Head and Xiang, 2016). Accordingly, Wanzenböck et al. (2020) emphasize this importance in their plea for
a process-oriented view on mission governance, stating that “to find effective solutions for ill-defined societal challenges, more dy
namic, and flexible [policy] approaches are needed” (p.484).
In what follows, we will use complexity, uncertainty, and contestation and the resulting intractability as our entry points for the
conceptualization of responsible mission governance as a procedural approach (c.f., Bali et al., 2021; Head and Xiang, 2016). The
emphasis of this framework lays on helping policymakers ‘cope with’ or ‘work with’ wickedness more responsibly when governing
missions that are directed toward wicked problems – that is to say, to govern missions in greater accordance with stakeholder values
and worldviews. After discussing how a given wickedness dimension problematizes mission governance, we will argue which
particular governance responsibility is most pertinent (i.e., inclusion, anticipation, reflexivity, and responsiveness). This points at the
relevance of at least four existing governance modes suitable for addressing these governance responsibilities (i.e., participatory,
anticipatory, reflexive, and tentative governance, respectively). These modes stem from distinct fields of research that specifically
incorporate the aforementioned responsibilities into governance, but which have not yet been combined into an integrative framework
for addressing wicked problems. These four governance modes partly overlap (e.g., in how they are enacted), and therefore may also be
relevant for responsibilities other than the one they were developed for. For each governance mode, we will provide
implementation-related suggestions and research avenues.
2.1. Managing complexity with participatory governance
The complexity of wicked problems stems from their multitude of dimensions, actors, and scales that are constantly changing
(Wanzenböck et al., 2020). In contrast to complicated problems, complex problems impose an everlasting knowledge deficiency on
policymakers regarding the problem’s intricacies (Stirling, 2010). Wickedness obscures the division of problems and solutions, as
solutions both solve and create problems (Kuk et al., 2023). Agricultural innovations, for example, have both significantly benefited
food production and affordability, while simultaneously giving rise to challenges like soil contamination, air pollution, deforestation,
and the mutation and spread of infectious diseases. Problems emerge, interact, and co-evolve, and require interventions and coor
dination across multiple levels of governance (e.g., subnational, national, and supranational; Wanzenböck and Frenken, 2020; Wiarda
and Doorn, 2023). This may include interventions across the niche, regime, and landscape levels (Geels, 2002) and draws attention to
possible policy coordination failures (Weber and Rohracher, 2012). A major challenge to mission governance is the idea that missions
are usually implemented within specific geographical borders while complex ‘grand societal challenges’ tend to surpass these (Coenen
et al., 2015). What is more, wicked problems are so-called ‘problems of many hands’ (Van de Poel et al., 2012) in which “no actor is in
control, but everyone is implicated, has agency and therefore is responsible” (Macnaghten et al., 2014, p. 195). Such a collective re
sponsibility, however, does not necessarily imply an equally shared responsibility (Muttitt and Kartha, 2020; Young, 2002).
Coping with complexity calls for inclusive approaches because knowledge, moral judgement, and agency are distributed among
stakeholders (Ferraro et al., 2015; Head, 2008). Participatory, collaborative, network, and polycentric governance modes are all
relevant because they focus on identifying and leveraging stakeholder values and worldviews (Ansell and Gash, 2008; Morrison et al.,
2017; Newig and Fritsch, 2009; Sørensen and Torfing, 2009). In practice, these governance modes may take forms of consultation or
participation (Rowe and Frewer, 2005). There are various normative, substantive, and instrumental rationales that motivate why
addressing complexity requires mission governance to open up to a more diverse set of stakeholders, such as citizens, (mini-)publics,
and civil society organizations (Stirling, 2008; Wiarda et al., 2023b). For instance, these stakeholders can provide lived experiences
and contextual insights in relation to the problem’s local manifestation and the potential solutions’ implementation, all of which will
benefit the social robustness of mission strategies and outcomes (Nowotny, 2003). In the context of mission governance, such social
robustness refers to the extent to which decisions “are congruent with, or authentically embody, societally deliberated, publicly
reasoned values, knowledges, and meanings” (Stirling, 2008, p. 272). In addition, the lack of knowledge that comes with complexity
provides that conventional science-based policies are inadequate, and therefore require a greater epistemological breadth (Head,
2019). Policymakers need to draw from other ways-of-knowing to make more inclusive and informed decisions by, for instance,
drawing from local, cross-cultural, and cross-disciplinary knowledges (Balanzó et al., 2023). Some scholars have nevertheless argued
that transition strategies commonly exclude certain epistemological frames (Cameron et al., 2015). What is more, while missions act as
so-called boundary objects by presumably mobilizing stakeholders into a shared direction (Janssen et al., 2023a, 2023b), recent
findings suggest that missions do not necessarily mobilize a more diverse set of stakeholders than conventional policies (Wiarda et al.,
2023b). While participatory governance helps cope with complexity, this modes also come with limitations. For example, participatory
modes are resource-consuming and may slow down decision-making processes despite the urgency of complex problems (Bommel
et al., 2009). Unintended consequences of participatory governance may be caused by unequal stakeholder representation or rein
forced power structures. As Turnhout et al. (2020) put it: “the outcomes of participatory interventions can even be paradoxical,
reinforcing the problems that they intended to solve but now sanctioned or legitimized by the participatory process” (p.15).
Having such pitfalls in mind, the literature on participatory governance underlines the need for a more inclusive mission gover
nance to cope with complexity (Rabadjieva and Terstriep, 2021). Future research should examine who is included and excluded in
3
mission-oriented innovation. The inclusion of non-governmental stakeholders can take place in so-called ‘invited spaces’ like mission
arenas (Wesseling and Meijerhof, 2023), deliberate forums (e.g., citizens’ juries; Rowe and Frewer, 2000), and hybrid forums (Callon
et al., 2009), all of which could help democratize mission-oriented transitions. A relational and systemic view on such participatory
spaces could even reveal their interrelated nature and how they co-produce stakeholder involvement in mission-oriented innovation
systems at large (Chilvers et al., 2018). Policymakers may also leverage certain actors, like intermediaries and platform orchestrators,
to promote stakeholder inclusion (Ritala, 2023; Wiarda et al., 2023b). The role of such actors in missions has largely been neglected.
Participatory governance furthermore calls for a better understanding of multi-level mission governance, and how actors on various
levels (e.g. national and sub-national) are represented, coordinated, and included in missions. Scholars have argued in favor of the
subsidiarity principle to take decisions as close as possible to the citizen (Wanzenböck and Frenken, 2020). It is unclear, however, what
the role of local forms of innovation are in the context of missions. Relevant forms include, but are not limited to, grassroots innovation
(Seyfang and Smith, 2007), open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003), participatory innovation (Buur and Matthews, 2008), and
user-driven innovation (von Hippel, 2005). In contrast, research could also reveal how specific closing mechanism (e.g., framings) and
power imbalances serve to exclude certain stakeholders or may lead to forms of tokenism (Arnstein, 1969). Incumbents may, for
example, leverage institutional strategies to exclude entrepreneurs and ‘keep missions on a leash’ (Smink et al., 2015).
2.2. Exploring uncertainty through anticipatory governance
Wicked problems and their solutions carry with them aleatoric, epistemic, and normative uncertainties that problematize mission
governance (Head, 2008; Olsson, 2007; Wanzenböck et al., 2020). While problems and solutions may be prone to the statistical
randomness that comes with aleatoric uncertainty (i.e., uncertainty related to the physical nature of some processes or phenomena), it
is the nature of the latter two uncertainties that causes wickedness. Epistemic uncertainty refers to the unknowns that policymakers
face in their ways of understanding problems and solutions. It describes the difficulty of obtaining ‘objective’ knowledge, commonly of
scientific or technical character. Epistemic uncertainty implies that policymakers cannot predict future mission impacts, their severity
or their likelihood (Hansson, 2009). For instance, it is impossible to predict the socio-ecological repercussions that climate geo
engineering might have, despite its potential for mission attainment (Pidgeon et al., 2013; Vaughan and Lenton, 2011). In addition,
policymakers will need to account for (future) gaps in institutionalized norms and rules that will help guide and safeguard the social
acceptability of mission-oriented innovations and their associated impacts. Such institutional voids (Hajer, 2003) foreshadow the
normative uncertainty that “there is not one unequivocal right or wrong answer to an ethical question regarding risk” (Taebi et al.,
2020, p. 2). Normative uncertainty thus describes the difficulty of foreseeing what subjective, commonly value-based, considerations
will be of importance in the future. Epistemic and normative uncertainties also interact. For example, they give rise to forms of
economic uncertainty – the uncertainty of whether solutions will be technically and economically viable in light of future supply and
demand. Given these uncertainties, policymakers face a dilemma on a transition scale, similar to that of the Collingridge dilemma
(Collingridge, 1980; Genus and Stirling, 2018). The Collingridge dilemma conventionally describes how innovators are faced with
great uncertainties in early phases of development, when their innovations are still malleable, before these become too rigid and too
socially embedded to control once innovators have more certainties in later phases of development. A similar phenomenon takes place
for mission governance as policymakers face high degrees of uncertainty in early transition phases when they can still control the
development of mission formulation and strategies. In later transition phases, however, they may have a greater understanding of the
implications of their missions, while mission governance itself becomes more problematic due to lock-ins (Arthur, 1989; Unruh, 2000),
path dependencies (David, 1995), and convergence in the problem-solution space (Wanzenböck et al., 2020).
Dealing with uncertainty requires forms of anticipation in which policymakers have to move beyond risk-based governance by also
exploring uncertainties, ambiguities, and unknowns to yield a greater degree of preparedness (Hansson, 2009; Hoffmann-Riem and
Wynne, 2002; Stilgoe et al., 2013; Stirling, 2010). Such an exploration includes paying attention to how stakeholders are affected in
different ways and to different extents. Policymakers may yield this preparedness through forms of anticipatory governance (Guston,
2014; Nelson et al., 2021), revealing pluralities of possible, probable, and desirable futures (Börjesona et al., 2006). Anticipatory
mission governance recognizes the multitude of performative expectations (Truffer et al., 2008), visions (Grin and Grunwald, 2000)
and imaginaries (Wiarda et al., 2023a) that draw attention to both hard (i.e. quantitative) and soft (i.e., qualitative) impacts (van der
Burg, 2009). These ideas about the future are implicitly or explicitly embedded in scenarios (Robinson, 2009; Selin, 2011), technology
roadmaps (Kostoff and Schaller, 2001), narratives (Roßmann, 2021), and even science fiction (Stahl et al., 2014) and have discursive
and performative power. Their influence on present developments warrants forms of constructive (Schot and Rip, 1997), real-time
(Guston and Sarewitz, 2002), and participatory technology assessments (Kaplan et al., 2021) that could help shape
mission-oriented transitions in accordance with the values and worldviews of stakeholders.
In light of the importance of anticipatory mission governance, a better understanding is needed of how possible, probable, and
desirable impacts of missions are defined, foreseen, and evaluated under high degrees of uncertainty. We wonder what ideas about
mission futures are deemed valid and are taken up in mission strategies, and what ideas are excluded instead. In particular, we need
insights into how missions and intended outcomes are defined as the ‘right’ outcomes, given the plurality of (evolving) visions for the
future that stakeholders hold. Scholars also argue for a greater focus on alternative, more desirable, transition scenarios (Klerkx and
Rose, 2020).
2.3. Embracing contestation with reflexive governance
Wicked problems and potential solutions are contested because society is inherently pluralistic, while problems and solutions can
4
be explained, framed, prioritized, and tended to in myriads of ways (Rittel and Webber, 1973; Wanzenböck et al., 2020). Missions
likewise suffer from interpretative flexibility (Janssen et al., 2023a, 2023b) and can meet the preferences of one stakeholder while
opposing those of others (Pesch and Vermaas, 2020). Value change (Van de Poel et al., 2022), value pluralism (Anderson, 1993), and
value conflicts (Friedman et al., 2006) exacerbate contestation in the problem-solution space, commonly leading to unsound responses
by policymakers (Wanzenböck et al., 2020; Wiarda et al., 2023a). Mission governance can therefore not assume and expect consensus,
but “thrives on the need to identify and work with diversity, dissension and conflicting worldviews” (Schot and Steinmueller, 2018, p.
1564). Policymakers may draw from constructive approaches that aim to create mutual understanding (Cuppen, 2012; Ligtvoet et al.,
2016). While this is helpful, wicked problems are to some extent irreconcilably contested because disagreement tends to be rooted in
fundamentally opposing values and worldviews. As a result, policymakers will have to make decisions, knowing that they will not meet
everyone’s preferences (Popa et al., 2021; Scott, 2021). Such wicked circumstances raise questions of what decisions are deemed fair,
just, and responsible. Insights from fields like Science and Technology Studies and Ethics of Technology underscore that there is not a
one-size-fits-all answer to these matters, and that such principles will need to be carefully considered in each context.
To deal with contestation, reflexive governance is needed to promote collective sensemaking because policymakers rarely “know
best” or “act best” when governing missions (Garud and Gehman, 2012; Kirchherr et al., 2023, p. 4; Voß and Bornemann, 2011). They
can stimulate both first and second-order reflexive learning by “holding up a mirror” to become aware of their own values and
worldviews and that these are not universally held (Stilgoe et al., 2013, p. 1571). First-order reflexivity refers to learning “within
boundaries of a value system and background theories” (Van de Poel and Zwart, 2010, p. 180). For instance, policymakers may learn
what mission strategy formulations and associated problem-solution configurations help achieve missions most effectively. First-order
reflexivity may also refer to the continuous monitoring and evaluation of missions (Penna et al., 2023; Weber and Rohracher, 2012). In
second-order reflexive learning, however, underlying assumptions and values are to be challenged (Schuurbiers, 2011). For example,
policymakers may reflect on what type of values and epistemologies are reflected in missions, formulations, and strategies. As a result,
reflexivity failures could be prevented through the consideration of a broader set of problem understandings and solution pathways
(Weber and Rohracher, 2012; Wesseling and Meijerhof, 2023).
To reflexively govern missions under contestation, future research should answer questions such as: how can policymakers identify,
describe, and compare divergent views on problem-solution configurations (Wanzenböck et al., 2020)?; how should conflicting ideas
surrounding these missions be navigated and reflected upon (Wiarda et al., 2023a)?; how do policymakers make sure that they do not
exclude viable alternative problem-solution configurations (Wesseling and Meijerhof, 2023)?; and what approaches enable them to
reflect on missions and mission-oriented transitions (Coenen et al., 2023)? We may also ask how mission governance promotes
collaborative, organizational, interactive, and social (un)learning (van Mierlo and Beers, 2020) and challenges the status quo (Elzinga
et al., 2023). Undeniably, dealing with contestation draws attention to the politics of missions (Janssen et al., 2021), and to how
frameworks on fairness, justice and responsibility fit in.
2.4. Responding to intractability with tentative governance
Complexity, uncertainty, and contestation make wicked problems intractable1 (Head, 2022). As discussed, we do not view this
incomprehensibility and unmanageability as a wicked dimension, but rather as a culmination of the other wickedness dimensions.
Intractability strongly relates to how situated stakeholders, like policymakers, experience wickedness in their daily work and how they
“cannot find meta-positions overlooking or unifying perspectives” (Termeer et al., 2019, p. 175). Intractability commonly leads to
‘non-decisions’ because of impasses (Inghelbrecht et al., 2014), ‘analysis paralysis’ (Conklin, 2012), negligence (Norgrove, 2021), or
incumbent strategies that justify business-as-usual (Blythe et al., 2018; Smink et al., 2015). In some cases, this inaction may exacerbate
wickedness because it can be seen as favouring the demands of certain stakeholders while disregarding those of others. Moreover,
transformative action may be hampered by constraints in their political, social, and legal feasibility. Even if policymakers are
responsive, they are facing path-dependencies (David, 1995) and lock-ins that limit agency and create inertia (Arthur, 1989; Unruh,
2000). Policymakers also run the risk of generating misaligned (te Kulve and Rip, 2011), illegitimate (Mena and Palazzo, 2012),
maladaptive (Magnan et al., 2016), and ‘irresponsible’ outcomes (Von Schomberg, 2013) in case they inadequately navigate or un
soundly respond to stakeholder values and worldviews (Head, 2019). This is particularly the case once wicked problems are treated as
‘tame’ (Rittel and Webber, 1973) and when societal concerns are neglected in the pursuit of ‘purely’ science-based interventions
(Head, 2019).
Scholars hint that mission governance requires continuous interventions (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee, 2009) that aim to ‘manage’,
‘resolve’, and ‘cope with’ wickedness (Head and Xiang, 2016; Xiang, 2013). This procedural perspective is important because wicked
problems do not have a ‘stopping rule’ and are continuously changing (Rittel and Webber, 1973). Despite the impression that mission
goals can give, there is no moment in which problems can unambiguous be viewed as ‘solved’ by stakeholders. A significant part of
governance can therefore better focus on the procedures that help incrementally align policies with society (Metze et al., 2023). Hence,
Janssen et al. (2021) portray MOIPs as embedded and evolving coordination devices. Mission governance needs to respond to insights
that emerge from aforementioned participatory, anticipatory, and reflexive governance to obtain “a capacity to change shape or di
rection in response to stakeholder and public values and changing circumstances … while recognizing the insufficiency of knowledge
and control” (Stilgoe et al., 2013, p. 1572). Mission governance thus resonates with the notions of tentative and adaptive governance
(c.f., Fisher, 2019; Folke et al., 2005; Kuhlmann et al., 2019) because transformative policies like MOIP embody “a strategy of in
cremental change with a [long-term] transformative agenda” (Patterson et al., 2017, p. 4). It centers around experimentation and
probing and is therefore “a process which is alive and changing as additional learning takes place”(Gilmore and Camillus, 1996, p.
878). Tentative governance can draw from strategic niche management (Kemp et al., 1998) and small wins (Bours et al., 2021; Termeer
5
and Dewulf, 2019) to incrementally promote, assess, and steer mission-oriented transitions while learning from stakeholder values and
changing circumstances.
While such a responsiveness is needed to address wicked problems, it is argued to be a substantially overlooked form of re
sponsibility (Pellizzoni, 2004). We do not yet fully understand how mission governance can foster path-creation (Karnøe and Garud,
2001) to escape lock-ins (Unruh, 2000), path-dependencies (Arthur, 1989; David, 1995), and so on. The notion of responsiveness also
raises questions about how mission governance responds to diverse interests (Janssen et al., 2021), fosters alignment (Grillitsch et al.,
2019; Metze et al., 2023), and can promote convergence in light of contestation (Janssen et al., 2023a, 2023b; Wanzenböck et al.,
2020). Disagreements likely require policymakers to draw from both constructive and agonistic approaches, with the former approach
focusing on bridging stakeholder values through mutual understanding, and with the latter approach intended to make difficult de
cisions under irreconcilable disagreements (Ligtvoet et al., 2016; Popa et al., 2021). Alternatively, governance could promote multiple
pathways that are responsive to a plurality of values and worldviews (Scoones et al., 2015). Such an approach nevertheless runs the
risk of inviting policy coordination failures across localities and governance levels (Weber and Rohracher, 2012).
3. Towards responsible mission governance: an integrative framework
Up to now, we have discussed how wickedness dimensions, or challenges, require governance to embody certain responsibilities (e.
g., uncertainty demands for forms of anticipation). We have also discussed several governance modes that are dedicated to incor
porating these responsibilities (e.g., anticipatory governance promotes anticipation). Table 1 synthesizes these linkages into an
integrative framework, also including which outcomes can result from implementing the various governance modes.
As the governance modes largely originate from different debates, little attention has been paid to how they might complement
each other. One of the few exceptions is Kivimaa (2022), who discusses how forms of inclusion are helpful in formulating and
co-creating visions for the future. Participatory governance thus contributes to anticipatory governance, as pluralistic input helps
formulate more inclusive visions for the future. Upon closer inspection, most governance modes have the potential of contributing to
multiple wickedness challenges. Table 2 provides an overview of how these modes help to address the wickedness dimension they are
originally most associated with (on the diagonal), as well as how they can be relevant for dealing with the other wickedness challenges.
What is more, for truly wicked problems, the complexity, uncertainty, contestation, and subsequent intractability reinforce each
other substantially. For instance, complexity implies that causalities between problems, solutions, and impacts are difficult – if not
impossible – to foresee, which hence gives rise to uncertainties (Renn et al., 2011). Contestation may follow because stakeholders can
disagree on what levels of these uncertainties are deemed acceptable (Taebi et al., 2020). Such illustrative dynamics highlight that
wickedness dimensions interact, and that the meaningfulness of a single governance responsibility and governance mode is limited. As
a result, policymakers will need to integrate various complementary responsibilities and modes to create a more comprehensive and
responsible form of mission governance that is able to meaningfully cope with wickedness dimensions. Although there are abundant
studies that implicitly demonstrate that such integration is needed, only rarely are these explicitly combined. Klerkx and Rose (2020)
make a similar, but implicit, plea as they argue that “until we articulate inclusive visions of the future, it is difficult to start to anticipate
what the impacts of the [mission-oriented] transition will be, and how they can be made more responsible” (p.5). Taking such claims
seriously, we draw inspiration from Stilgoe et al. (2013) by suggesting that responsible mission governance entails an integrative and
procedural approach to developing, implementing, and evaluating missions that potentially conduce transitions. It embodies the re
sponsibilities of inclusion, anticipation, reflexivity, and responsiveness as a form of mission stewardship to help address wicked
problems without disregarding stakeholder values and worldviews. This can be done through the integration of the four governance
modes that we have discussed, but we recognize that there are other, yet similar, governance modes that may also do this. We suggest
that the responsible mission governance framework could contribute to more desirable transitions, potentially safeguarding principles
of fairness, justice, and equity.
4. Responsible mission governance in a multi-level context
In practice, responsible mission governance takes place in a multi-level and multi-scalar context. However, the ways in which
missions can be governed responsibly across such levels has largely been neglected (Uyarra et al., 2023). On the one hand, re
sponsibilities and authorities are distributed vertically, across multiple levels of (existing) governance structures (i.e., subnational,
national, and supranational; Hooghe and Marks, 2003; Uyarra, 2024; Wanzenböck and Frenken, 2020). On the other hand, wicked
problems emerge, evolve, and interact across various scales (Wiarda and Doorn, 2023).
Table 1
An integrative framework for responsible mission governance.
An integrative framework for responsible mission governance
Challenges Responsibilities Modes Outcomes
Complexity Inclusion Participatory governance Social robustness

Uncertainty Anticipation Anticipatory governance Preparedness
Contestation Reflexivity Reflexive governance Awareness
Intractability Responsiveness Tentative governance Alignment
6
Table 2
Possible complementarities between governance modes in addressing challenges of wicked problems.
Responsible mission governance
Participatory governance Anticipatory governance Reflexive governance Tentative governance
Complexity Reaps distributed knowledge, moral Envisions alternative futures Challenges assumptions and Experiments with and learns from
judgement, and agency through that account for complexity biases complexity for socially robust
inclusion outcomes
Uncertainty Yields pluralistic ideas about the Identifies various futures Unveils alternative, but Mitigates and prepares for future
future through anticipation possible, scenarios scenarios as they are envisioned
Contestation Generates conflicting values and Yields opposing ideas about Creates awareness of Adjusts efforts in response to
worldviews the future disagreement through contestation
reflexivity
Intractability Opens up decision-making Informs about consequences Helps take in meta-positions Responds to insights despite the
of possible decisions for overlooking perspectives insufficiency of knowledge and
control
It is commonly assumed that wicked problems are best dealt with on high governance levels where economies of scale, comple
mentarities, and vast resources can be found (Uyarra et al., 2023). Nevertheless, high-level, scalable, and standardized approaches
generally neglect and obscure context-specific considerations (Pfotenhauer et al., 2022). Regions embody unique values, worldviews,
and other considerations, while simultaneously “challenges do not present themselves as the same for every region or nation, as
underlying problems affect places in different ways and to different extents” (Wanzenböck and Frenken, 2020, p. 56). Subsequently,
there is an increasing awareness of the importance of addressing wicked problems in context-specific ways (Brett et al., 2023; Flanagan
et al., 2021; Wanzenböck and Frenken, 2020; Wiarda and Doorn, 2023). For example, drawing on the small wins framework (Termeer
and Dewulf, 2019), Bours et al. (2021) observe the importance of ‘small’ bottom-up initiatives for missions that address ‘grand’ societal
challenges.
Despite the importance of a context-specific implementation of missions, the formulation of missions tends to occur at high-
governance levels (Reid et al., 2023). To foster top/down integration, responsible mission governance will need to formulate mis
sions that can be translated in alignment with a region’s local context (Coenen et al., 2015; Uyarra, 2024). Responsible mission
governance may do so by leveraging the boundary object characteristic of missions (Janssen et al., 2023a, 2023b). This means
formulating missions that are “plastic enough to adapt to local needs …, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites.”
(Star and Griesemer, 1989, p. 393). Such missions thus promote cross-level translation, communication, and collaboration because
they can be viewed and implemented in context-specific ways.
A possible pitfall for place-based approaches to missions is a vertical coordination failure, in which efforts across governance levels
are misaligned. For example, strategic high-level debates may not reflect the normative considerations of local settings (Brett et al.,
2023). Responsible mission governance could remedy this challenge by reflecting on cross-level relationships to promote synergies.
Approaches to responsible mission governance (e.g., deliberations) should therefore be applied and compared across different
governance levels to implement multi-level responsibilities in mission-oriented innovation systems (Fisher and Rip, 2013; Wiarda and
Doorn, 2023).
In other words, responsible mission governance requires the integration of participatory, anticipatory, reflexive, and tentative
modes across levels of governance to respond to stakeholder values and worldviews, without losing sight of lower/higher level
governance efforts.
5. Applying the responsible mission governance framework: a vignette
The responsible mission governance framework introduced in Table 1 is the result of reviewing and integrating different strands of
literature. While largely conceptual in nature, this analytical work was conducted in the context of various missions that were
implemented by the Dutch government. In what follows, Section 4 uses a vignette to illustrate how the framework was implemented
and tested in one of these missions.
We will first describe the mission context in which this implementation took place, namely, the Dutch mission ‘Circular con
struction by 2050′ (Section 5.1). We proceed in Section 5.2 by elaborating how we applied the responsible mission governance
framework in this context via a so-called ‘mission-oriented transition assessment’ (MOTA). The focus of the vignette lays on describing
how governance responsibilities and modes were implemented in practice. The development of the MOTA approach and the case-
specific insights have been reported elsewhere (Coenen et al., 2023). Lastly, we provide a brief reflection on the framework’s
implementation, and discuss some of its key strengths and challenges (Section 5.3).
5.1. The mission ‘Circular construction by 2050′
In 2016, the Dutch government launched the mission Nederland circulair in 2050 (in English: Circular Dutch economy by 2050;
Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat, 2016). The mission strategy outlined the mission’s boundaries in scope and time, a
portfolio of related projects and strategies, an overview of presumably relevant stakeholders, and an envisioned participatory
governance approach through a so-called ‘Transition Team’. The strategy report, in which the formal mission was presented, explained
7
that: “The idea of the circular economy as a fully closed system is a mobilizing ideal image. The use of primary raw materials and the
creation of residual streams can probably never be completely avoided” (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat, 2016, p. 13).
As part of this circular economy mission, four priority domains and corresponding sub-missions were introduced. One of these
domains includes construction for which the Transition Team Circular Construction advanced the sub-mission ’Circular construction
by 2050′ in 2018 (Transitieteam Bouw, 2018). The associated strategy report stated that the construction sector should procure 100 %
circular in 2023; reduce its use of virgin resources by 50 % in 2030; ‘work circular’ while reducing its CO2 emissions by 49 % in 2030;
and ‘be circular’ in 2050. The transition agendas published in 2018 formed the starting point for the formal transition efforts. While
these overarching agendas were primarily shaped at a national level, the goals and strategies were adopted and operationalized by
several public bodies such as municipalities and provinces.
One of the public bodies that is subjected to the mission is Rijkswaterstaat – the executive agency of the Ministry of Infrastructure
and Water Management in the Netherlands – and is primarily responsible for the construction and maintenance of infrastructure in the
Netherlands. In response to the circular economy mission, Rijkswaterstaat launched various research projects. One of these aimed to
provide insights about how to govern and manage a transition that is required for achieving the stated goals. The responsible mission
governance framework was illustrated and tested as part of this project.
5.2. Implementing the framework with a mission-oriented transition assessment
Based on our responsible mission governance framework, the MOTA approach was developed specifically as a means to help govern
mission-oriented transitions through reflexive and anticipatory deliberations with stakeholders. The approach aims to provide
decision-makers with insights that emerge from collective reflections on missions, mission strategies, and on transitions that these
missions may conduce, ultimately with the goal of yielding a greater responsiveness to heterogeneous stakeholder values and
worldviews. Coenen et al. (2023) defined MOTA as “a collective appraisal of current and future socio-technical changes to inform
stakeholders, particularly policymakers, on how to govern missions” (p.1). MOTA is thus largely procedural by nature, and aspires to
bring stakeholders together to jointly reflect on missions and anticipate associated futures (e.g., potential impacts and transition
barriers). There are a wide variety of ways in which such deliberations can be structured, but in this context we used socio-technical
mission scenarios as our objects of reflection. These scenarios were developed on the basis of two recent studies on the Dutch circular
construction mission, conducted by Coenen et al. (2022) and Bours et al. (2022). One scenario contained a strong centralized
governance approach, while the other scenario presumed a decentralized approach. Each scenario was written in such a way that they
emphasized the wickedness of the mission’s problem-solution space.
The MOTA was conducted in April 2023. The two scenarios were introduced in half-day long focus groups with 17 stakeholders
linked to the construction mission, including government representatives, researchers, market parties, and consultancies. Two dis
cussion rounds were held, with each round consisting of four discussion groups. In the first discussion round, each group reflected on
one of the two scenarios. The discussions focused on identifying possible implications of mission scenarios for the stakeholders
themselves, and how they could cope with the potential challenges that are associated with these implications. The groups were
subsequently reshuffled for the second discussion round in which both scenarios were compared, and stakeholders were asked to
collectively lay out their views on the most desirable short term (0–3 years), medium term (3–10 years), and long term (10+ years)
transition steps. The groups were also asked who they deem responsible for these next transition steps.
At the end of the workshop, the discussion outcomes of all groups were compared in one single plenary session. This session
moreover discussed the validity and usefulness of the MOTA exercise. Stakeholders were also asked to provide their feedback through
an anonymous survey.
5.3. A brief reflection
Although the vignette above does not serve as a robust analysis, it does illustrate how anticipatory and reflexive deliberations with
a diverse set of stakeholders can help integrate mission governance responsibilities and modes as presented in Table 1. Besides
reflecting on those responsibilities (R) and modes (M), we also address the outcomes (O) they engendered.
MOTA centres around stakeholder deliberations (R: inclusion; M: participatory governance) to appraise missions and mission
strategies (R: reflexivity; M: reflexive governance) and to explore possible futures, for example impacts and transitions barriers (R:
anticipation; M: anticipatory governance). Although, unsurprisingly, the MOTA did not result in consensus on the problem definition
and the most desirable solution pathway, it did help converge this problem-solution space, and resulted in several concrete to-be-taken
actions (O: social robustness; O: awareness). For instance, many groups concluded that standardization efforts are needed to
harmonize the notion of circularity before investments can be made and radical actions can be taken. The discussions also helped
identify various current and future transition barriers (O: preparedness; O: awareness).
However, the MOTA also revealed some serious challenges. In bringing stakeholders together, we tried to assemble a diverse set of
stakeholder representatives. It proved difficult to include civil society organizations and NGOs because very few of them were
interested or able to partake in the MOTA exercise. As a result, not all stakeholders were represented (R: inclusion; M: participatory
governance).
In addition, discussions revealed conflicting visions for the transition, with different ideas emerging regarding who should bear
certain responsibilities, who holds power, and what political views are most helpful in the context of the mission. These discussions
also demonstrated how minority views were occasionally regarded as irrelevant or irrational by others, hence disregarding certain
perspectives and underlying values. This dynamic suggests that the act of stakeholder inclusion, and especially the act of reflection,
8
requires more than then the mere inclusion of stakeholders in the physical sense (R: reflexivity; M: reflexive governance).
Stakeholder groups were asked to plan desirable transition steps for the short, medium, and long term. In doing so, the participants
often claimed to take a back-casting approach by using the mission goal as an entry point. However, high degrees of uncertainty nearly
always forced them to start this planning process with short term actions, demonstrating how difficult it is for stakeholders to foresee
futures (R: anticipation; M: anticipatory governance).
Perhaps most crucial of all, although insights were provided to Rijkswaterstaat, it is unclear if, and to what extent, the insights of
the MOTA-based dialogues are taken up by policymakers. This raises serious questions about whether participatory, anticipatory, and
reflexive forms of governance actually feed into tentative actions that aim to align missions with stakeholder values and worldviews (R:
responsiveness; M: tentative governance).
6. Proposing a research agenda for responsible mission governance
Our framework for responsible mission governance opens up new directions for future research (Table 3). While the governance
challenges, responsibilities, modes, and outcomes are extensively taken up in academia and even form dedicated research fields on
themselves, their integrated application and validity in the context of mission governance requires further investigation because
responsible mission governance certainly come with challenges as illustrated by our vignette on the Dutch ‘Circular construction by
2050′ mission.
For example, we speculate that there may be a tension between the urgency of wicked problems (Lazarus, 2009; Levin et al., 2012)
and the time-consuming nature of participatory governance (Wang and Lo, 2021) and reflexive governance (Steen, 2021). Partici
patory governance may furthermore obscure the division of moral labor, potentially leading to organized irresponsibility (Beck, 1992).
Understanding such tensions requires empirical research that studies integrative forms of responsible mission governance in practice.
A number of (emerging) approaches offer a promising point of departure. For instance, Sustainability Foresight (Truffer et al., 2008;
Voß et al., 2006), MOTA (Coenen et al., 2023), and the TransMission approach (Simons et al., 2023) deploy anticipatory and reflexive
deliberations that can inform policymakers on how to govern (mission-oriented) transitions. Our MOTA, as illustrated above, provided
various valuable insights that stakeholders believe should be taken up by policymakers. However, it remains unclear to what extent
this has actually been the case. In accordance with our framework, we therefore ask whether such approaches to responsible mission
governance contribute to more effective and desirable outcomes. More generally, we ask who is included and excluded in mission
governance?; how are pluralities of mission outcomes foreseen, defined, and evaluated?; how do policymakers deal with contested
problem understandings and solution pathways?; and how should policymakers respond to new and conflicting insights?
Table 3
A research agenda for responsible mission governance.
Challenges Premises Research questions
Complexity Dealing with complexity requires participatory mission • Who is included and excluded in mission-oriented
governance to explore stakeholder values and worldviews for innovation?
socially robust outcomes. • How do deliberate forums and hybrid spaces (e.g., mission
arenas) help democratize mission-oriented transitions?
• How are closing mechanisms and power imbalances used to
exclude stakeholders?
Uncertainty Uncertainty warrants anticipatory mission governance to • How are possible, probable, and desirable impacts of
identify, manage, and prepare for (un)desirable impacts. missions defined, foreseen, and evaluated?
• How do utopian and dystopian visions of the future
influence transitions in the present?
Contestation Contestation calls for reflexive mission governance to yield • How can policymakers identify, compare, and describe
awareness of stakeholder values and worldviews and to identify divergent views on problem-solution configurations?
viable alternative problem understandings and solution • How should conflicting ideas surrounding missions be
pathways. navigated and reflected upon?
• How do policymakers ensure that they do not exclude any
viable alternative problem-solution configurations?
• What approaches enable policymakers to reflect on their
own values and worldviews?
Intractability Intractability demands for tentative mission governance to • How can policymakers align and converge values and
respond to participatory, anticipatory, and reflexive governance worldviews of stakeholders?
insights. • How can policymakers foster collective action while leaving
room for polycentric responses that are sensitive to
localities of ‘grand societal challenges’?
• How are undesirable impacts prevented, mitigated, and/or
adapted to?
How to integrate governance Combined forms of participatory, anticipatory, reflexive, and • How do governance responsibilities and modes interact?
responsibilities and tentative governance are necessary to cope with wickedness • What approaches/instruments integrate the various mission
modes? responsibly. governance responsibilities and modes?
• What are the roles of anticipatory and reflexive
deliberations in mission-oriented transitions?
• How can responsible mission governance by different
authorities be coordinated in a multi-level context?
9
We would also like to stress the non-exclusive and non-exhaustive nature of the proposed framework. For example, while
participatory governance may help cope with complexity, there are other governance modes that are likewise helpful for this chal
lenge, such as collaborative and network governance (Ansell and Gash, 2008; Sørensen and Torfing, 2009). Our framework is therefore
not meant as a rigid conceptualization, but rather as a guiding frame that emphasizes the underlying governance responsibilities that
are needed to address wickedness challenges, e.g., the responsibility of ‘inclusion’ needed to deal with the challenge of ‘complexity’.
Future contributions could also identify additional governance challenges, responsibilities, modes, and outcomes improve the effec
tiveness and desirability of mission governance. For instance, backwards-looking forms of responsibility, like transparency, may
arguably lead to more accountable and trustworthy decision-making and could therefore be an interesting point of departure.
Follow-up research could also consider the need for certain capabilities and institutions in promoting responsible mission governance.
Authors have argued that the effectiveness of missions largely dependent on the government’s ability to develop certain capabilities, e.
g., bottom-up engagement to “leave enough space for contestation and adaptability” in developing, implementing, and evaluating
missions (Kattel and Mazzucato, 2018, p. 797). To what extent these capabilities can be developed requires more insights in, for
instance, the possibilities and constraints found in the policy system in which policymakers operate (Braams et al., 2021).
7. Concluding remarks
In this paper, we have discussed how the uptake of MOIP, as a procedural means to address wicked problems, calls for an explicit
scrutiny of governance responsibilities and governance modes that are needed to better cope with the complexity, uncertainty,
contestation, and the subsequent intractability associated with these wicked problems. Although we used wickedness as our entry
point, we coupled insights from various other traditions, notably sustainability transitions, innovation policy, and responsible inno
vation for the conceptualization of our framework. This framework was primarily designed to promote more desirable transitions. In
addition to developing and briefly illustrating this provisional and integrative framework, we have provided a research agenda with
the aim of opening up the debate on responsible mission governance. We advocate future research on the validity and usefulness of our
work because this may prevent the common pitfall of assuming that novel approaches like ours can meaningfully address wicked
problems (Termeer et al., 2019). We also draw attention to the non-exclusive and non-exhaustive nature of our framework, as other
dimensions may be of importance as well. For example, the role of backward-looking forms of responsibility like transparency could be
a promising point of departure. In addition, developing appropriate capabilities and institutions could support responsible mission
governance. To conclude, we call for a better understanding of responsible mission governance, in particular of the governance
challenges, responsibilities, modes, and outcomes that are relevant for promoting more effective and desirable missions.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Martijn Wiarda: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation,
Conceptualization. Matthijs J. Janssen: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization. Tom B.J. Coenen:
Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation. Neelke Doorn: Writing – review & editing, Funding
acquisition, Conceptualization.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Erik Fisher, Caetano Penna, Leentje Volker, and Klaasjan Visscher for inspiring and/or advancing
the paper. This work was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme Pro-Ethics [grant
number 872441]. The opinions expressed in this article reflect only the authors’ view and in no way reflect the European Commission’s
opinions.
References
Anderson, E., 1993. Value in Ethics and Economics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Ansell, C., Gash, A., 2008. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 18, 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032.
Arnstein, S.R., 1969. A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 35, 216–224.
Arthur, B., 1989. Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Econ. J. 99, 116–131.
Balanzó, A., Mónica, G., Mejía, R., 2023. Towards epistemic diversity in sustainability transitions : an exploration of hybrid socio ‑ technical systems. Sustain. Sci. 18,
2511–2531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01370-9.
10
Bali, A.S., Howlett, M., Lewis, J.M., Ramesh, M., 2021. Procedural policy tools in theory and practice. Policy Soc. 40, 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14494035.2021.1965379.
Beck, U., 1992. Towards a new modernity. Risk Society. SAGE Publications, Londen. https://doi.org/10.2307/143601.
Blythe, J., Silver, J., Evans, L., Armitage, D., Bennett, N.J., Moore, M.L., Morrison, T.H., Brown, K., 2018. The dark side of transformation: latent risks in contemporary
sustainability discourse. Antipode 50, 1206–1223. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12405.
Bommel, S.Van, Aarts, N., Turnhout, E., 2009. Social learning for solving complex problems: a promising solution or wishful thinking? A case study of multi-actor
negotiation for the integrated management and sustainable use of the Drentsche AA area in the Netherlands. Environ. Policy Gov. 19, 400–412. https://doi.org/
10.1002/eet.526.
Börjesona, L., Höjer, M., Dreborg, K.-H., Ekvall, T., Finnveden, G., 2006. Scenario types and techniques: towards a user’s guide. Futures 38, 723–739. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.futures.2005.12.002.
Bours, S., Swartjes, J., Hekkert, M., 2022. Transitie naar een circulaire grond-, weg- en waterbouw - Een missie-gedreven innovatie systeem analyse.
Bours, S.A.M.J.V, Wanzenböck, I., Frenken, K., 2021. Small wins for grand challenges . A bottom-up governance approach to regional innovation policy. Eur. Plan.
Stud. 0, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1980502.
Braams, R.B., Wesseling, J.H., Meijer, A.J., Hekkert, M.P., 2021. Legitimizing transformative government: aligning essential government tasks from transition
literature with normative arguments about legitimacy from Public Administration traditions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 39, 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eist.2021.04.004.
Brett, N., Magnusson, T., Andersson, H., 2023. From global climate goals to local practice—mission-oriented policy enactment in three Swedish regions. Sci. Public
Policy. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad010.
Buur, J., Matthews, B., 2008. Participatory innovation. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 12, 255–273. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919608001996.
Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., Barthe, Y., 2009. Acting in an Uncertain World: research methods. An essay on technical democracy.The. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Cameron, E., Mearns, R., McGrath, J.T., 2015. Translating climate change: adaptation, resilience, and climate politics in Nunavut, Canada. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.
105, 274–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.973006.
Chesbrough, H., 2003. Open Innovation. Harvard business school press, Boston.
Chilvers, J., Pallett, H., Hargreaves, T., 2018. Ecologies of participation in socio-technical change: the case of energy system transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 42,
199–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.03.020.
Churchman, C.W., 1967. Wicked problems. Manag. Sci. 14, 141–146.
Coenen, L., Hansen, T., Rekers, J.V., 2015. Innovation policy for grand challenges. An economic geography perspective. Geogr. Compass 9, 483–496. https://doi.org/
10.1111/gec3.12231.
Coenen, T.B.J., Visscher, K., Volker, L., 2022. A systemic perspective on transition barriers to a circular infrastructure sector. Constr. Manag. Econ. 41, 22–43. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2022.2151024.
Coenen, T.B.J., Wiarda, M., Visscher, K., Penna, C., Volker, L., 2023. Mission-Oriented Transition Assessment.
Collingridge, D., 1980. The Social Control of Technology. St. Martin’s Press, New York.
Conklin, J., 2012. Wicked problems and social complexity. Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. John Wiley & Sons Inc, pp. 1–25.
https://doi.org/10.1201/b13086-7.
Cuppen, E., 2012. Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods. Policy Sci. 45, 23–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11077-011-9141-7.
David, P., 1995. Clio and the economics of QWERTY. In: Ninety-Seventh Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, pp. 332–337.
Dery, D., 1984. Problem Definition in Policy Analysis. University Press of Kansas.
Elzinga, R., Janssen, M.J., Wesseling, J., Negro, S.O., Hekkert, M.P., 2023. Assessing mission-specific innovation systems: towards an analytical framework. Environ.
Innov. Soc. Trans. 48, 100745 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2023.100745.
Eriksen, S., Schipper, E.L.F., Scoville-Simonds, M., Vincent, K., Adam, H.N., Brooks, N., Harding, B., Khatri, D., Lenaerts, L., Liverman, D., Mills-Novoa, M.,
Mosberg, M., Movik, S., Muok, B., Nightingale, A., Ojha, H., Sygna, L., Taylor, M., Vogel, C., West, J.J., 2021. Adaptation interventions and their effect on
vulnerability in developing countries: help, hindrance or irrelevance? World Dev. 141, 105383 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105383.
European Commission, 2022. European missions. Climate-neutral and Smart Cities by 2030. Implementation Planing, Research and Innovation, Brussels.
Farrell, R., Hooker, C., 2013. Design, science and wicked problems. Des. Stud. 34, 681–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2013.05.001.
Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., Gehman, J., 2015. Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: robust action revisited. Organ. Stud. 36, 363–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0170840614563742.
Fisher, E., 2019. Governing with ambivalence: the tentative origins of socio-technical integration. Res. Policy 48, 1138–1149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
respol.2019.01.010.
Fisher, E., Rip, A., 2013. Responsible Innovation: Multi-Level Dynamics and Soft Intervention Practices. In: Owen, R., Bessant, J., Heintz, M. (Eds.), Responsible
Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 165–183.
Flanagan, K., Uyarra, E., Wanzenböck, I., 2021. Towards a problem-oriented regional industrial policy: possibilities for public intervention in framing, valuation and
market creation. Reg. Stud.
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Norberg, J., 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30, 441–473. https://doi.org/
10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511.
Friedman, B., Kahn Jr., P.H., Borning, A., 2006. Value sensitive design and information systems: three case studies. In: Zhang, P., Galetta, D. (Eds.), Human-Computer
Interaction and Management Information Systems: Foundations. M.E. Sharpe, Inc, New York.
Garud, R., Gehman, J., 2012. Metatheoretical perspectives on sustainability journeys: evolutionary, relational and durational. Res. Policy 41, 980–995. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.07.009.
Geels, F.W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy 31, 1257–1274.
Geels, F.W., Schot, J., 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res. Policy 36, 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003.
Genus, A., Stirling, A., 2018. Collingridge and the dilemma of control: towards responsible and accountable innovation. Res. Policy 47, 61–69. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.012.
Gilmore, W.S., Camillus, J.C., 1996. Do your planning processes meet the reality test? Long Range Plann. 29, 869–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(97)
82824-5.
Grillitsch, M., Hansen, T., Coenen, L., Miörner, J., Moodysson, J., 2019. Innovation policy for system-wide transformation: the case of strategic innovation
programmes (SIPs) in Sweden. Res. Policy 48, 1048–1061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.004.
Grin, J., Grunwald, A., 2000. Vision Assessment: Shaping Technology in 21st Century Society. Springer.
Guston, D.H., 2014. Understanding “anticipatory governance. Soc. Stud. Sci. 44, 218–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312713508669.
Guston, D.H., Sarewitz, D., 2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technol. Soc. 24, 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1.
Hajer, M., 2003. Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sci. 36, 175–195. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024834510939.
Hansson, S.O., 2009. From the casino to the jungle: dealing with uncertainty in technological risk management. Synthese 168, 423–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11229-008-9444-1.
Head, B.W., 2022. Wicked Problems in Public policy: Understanding and Responding to Complex Challenges. Wicked Problems in Public Policy.
Head, B.W., 2019. Forty years of wicked problems literature : forging closer links to policy studies. Policy Soc. 38, 180–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14494035.2018.1488797.
Head, B.W., 2008. Wicked problems in public policy. Public Policy 3, 101–118.
Head, B.W., Xiang, W., 2016. Landscape and Urban Planning Why is an APT approach to wicked problems important? Landsc. Urban Plan. 154, 4–7. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.03.018.
11
Hekkert, M.P., Janssen, M.J., Wesseling, J.H., Negro, S.O., 2020. Mission-oriented innovation systems. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 34, 76–79. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eist.2019.11.011.
Hoffmann-Riem, H., Wynne, B., 2002. In risk assessment, one has to admit ignorance. Nature 416, 123. https://doi.org/10.1038/416123a.
Hooghe, L., Marks, G., 2003. Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 97, 61–71. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9781315254234-12.
Hoppe, R., 2011. The Governance of Problems: Puzzling, Powering and Participation. Policy Press, Bristol.
Inghelbrecht, L., Dessein, J., Van Huylenbroeck, G., 2014. The non-GM crop regime in the EU: how do Industries deal with this wicked problem? NJAS - Wageningen
J. Life Sci. 70, 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2014.02.002.
Janssen, M.J., Torrens, J., Wesseling, J.H., 2021. The promises and premises of mission-oriented innovation policy - a reflection and ways forward. Sci. Public Policy.
https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa072.
Janssen, M.J., Wesseling, J., Torrens, J., Weber, M., Penna, C., Klerkx, L., 2023a. Missions as boundary objects for transformative change: understanding coordination
across policy, research and stakeholder communities. Sci. Public Policy 00, 1–18.
Janssen, M.J., Wesseling, J.H., Torrens, J., Weber, K.M., Penna, C., Klerkx, L., 2023b. Mission as a boundary objects for transformative change: understanding
coordination across policy, research, and stakeholder communities. Sci. Public Policy scac080.
Jentoft, S., Chuenpagdee, R., 2009. Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem. Mar. Policy 33, 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.12.002.
Kaplan, L.R., Farooque, M., Sarewitz, D., Tomblin, D., 2021. Designing participatory technology assessments: a reflexive method for advancing the public role in
science policy decision-making. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 171, 120974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120974.
Karnøe, P., Garud, R., 2001. Path creation as a process of mindful deviation. In: Garud, R., Karnøe, P. (Eds.), Path Dependence and Creation. Lawrence Earlbaum
Associates.
Kattel, R., Mazzucato, M., 2018. Mission-oriented innovation policy and dynamic capabilities in the public sector. Ind. Corp. Chang. 27, 787–801. https://doi.org/
10.1093/icc/dty032.
Kemp, R., Schot, J., Hoogma, R., 1998. Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation : the approach of strategic niche management. Technol.
Anal. Strateg. Manag. 10, 175–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329808524310.
Kirchherr, J., Hartley, K., Tukker, A., 2023. Missions and mission-oriented innovation policy for sustainability : a review and critical reflection. Environ. Innov. Soc.
Trans. 47, 100721 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2023.100721.
Kivimaa, P., 2022. Transforming innovation policy in the context of global security. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 43, 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eist.2022.03.005.
Klerkx, L., Rose, D., 2020. Dealing with the game-changing technologies of Agriculture 4.0: how do we manage diversity and responsibility in food system transition
pathways? Glob. Food Sec. 24, 100347 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.100347.
Köhler, J., Geels, F.W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F., Avelino, F., Bergek, A., Boons, F., Fünfschilling, L., Hess, D., Holtz, G.,
Hyysalo, S., Jenkins, K., Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., McMeekin, A., Mühlemeier, M.S., Nykvist, B., Pel, B., Raven, R., Rohracher, H., Sandén, B., Schot, J.,
Sovacool, B., Turnheim, B., Welch, D., Wells, P., 2019. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: state of the art and future directions. Environ. Innov. Soc.
Trans. 31, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004.
Kok, K.P.W., Klerkx, L., 2023. Addressing the politics of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems. Agric. Syst. 211, 103747 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agsy.2023.103747.
Kostoff, R.N., Schaller, R.R., 2001. Science and technology roadmaps. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 48, 132–143. https://doi.org/10.1109/17.922473.
Kuhlmann, S., Stegmaier, P., Konrad, K., 2019. The tentative governance of emerging science and technology—a conceptual introduction. Res. Policy 48, 1091–1097.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.006.
Kuk, G., Faik, I., Janssen, M., 2023. Editorial technology assessment for addressing grand societal challenges. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 70, 1055–1060. https://doi.
org/10.1109/TEM.2022.3233460.
Larrue, P., 2021. The design and implementation of mission-oriented innovation policies: a systemic policy approach to address societal challenges. OECD Sci.
Technol. Ind. Policy Pap. 1–22.
Lazarus, R.J., 2009. Super wicked problems and climate change: restraining the present to liberate the future. Cornell Law Rev. 94, 1153–1233.
Lennon, M., 2017. Decolonizing energy: black lives matter and technoscientific expertise amid solar transitions. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 30, 18–27. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.erss.2017.06.002.
Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., Auld, G., 2012. Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate
change. Policy Sci. 45, 123–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9151-0.
Ligtvoet, A., Cuppen, E., Di Ruggero, O., Hemmes, K., Pesch, U., Quist, J., Mehos, D., 2016. New future perspectives through constructive conflict: exploring the future
of gas in the Netherlands. Futures 78–79, 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.03.008.
Macnaghten, P., Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Wynne, B., Azevedo, A., de Campos, A., Chilvers, J., Dagnino, R., di Giulio, G., Frow, E., Garvey, B., Groves, C., Hartley, S.,
Knobel, M., Kobayashi, E., Lehtonen, M., Lezaun, J., Mello, L., Monteiro, M., Pamplona da Costa, J., Rigolin, C., Rondani, B., Staykova, M., Taddei, R., Till, C.,
Tyfield, D., Wilford, S., Velho, L., 2014. Responsible innovation across borders: tensions, paradoxes and possibilities. J. Responsible Innov. 1, 191–199. https://
doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2014.922249.
Magnan, A.K., Schipper, E.L.F., Burkett, M., Bharwani, S., Burton, I., Eriksen, S., Gemenne, F., Schaar, J., Ziervogel, G., 2016. Addressing the risk of maladaptation to
climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 7, 646–665. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.409.
Mazzucato, M., 2018. Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities. Ind. Corp. Chang. 27, 803–815. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty034.
Mena, S., Palazzo, G., 2012. Input and output legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives. Bus. Ethics Q. 22, 527–556. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201222333.
Metze, T.A.P., van den Broek, J., van Est, R., Cuppen, E.H.W.J., 2023. Participatory repertoires for aligning policy and society: an analysis of Dutch stakeholder views
on deep geothermal energy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 98, 103019 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103019.
Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat, 2016. A Circular Economy in the Netherlands by 2050. Den Haag.
Moglia, M., Frantzeskaki, N., Newton, P., Pineda-Pinto, M., Witheridge, J., Cook, S., Glackin, S., 2021. Accelerating a green recovery of cities: lessons from a scoping
review and a proposal for mission-oriented recovery towards post-pandemic urban resilience. Dev. Built Environ. 7, 100052 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
dibe.2021.100052.
Morrison, T.H., Adger, W.N., Brown, K., Lemos, M.C., Huitema, D., Hughes, T.P., 2017. Mitigation and adaptation in polycentric systems: sources of power in the
pursuit of collective goals. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 8, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.479.
Mueller, M., Schlaile, M.P., Lang, S., Janssen, M.J., Bogner, K., Wanzenböck, I., Schramm, M., Pyka, A., Mueller, M., Schlaile, M.P., 2023. Developing adequate
innovation policy heuristics for addressing grand societal challenges : making sense of wickedness.
Muttitt, G., Kartha, S., 2020. Equity, climate justice and fossil fuel extraction: principles for a managed phase out. Clim. Policy 1024–1042. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14693062.2020.1763900.
Nelson, J.P., Selin, C.L., Scott, C.T., 2021. Toward anticipatory governance of human genome editing: a critical review of scholarly governance discourse.
J. Responsible Innov. 0, 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2021.1957579.
Newig, J., Fritsch, O., 2009. Participatory governance and sustainability. Findings of a meta-analysis of stakeholder involvement in environmental decision-making.
Reflexive Governance in the Public Interest. MIT Press, pp. 1–28.
Norgrove, D.J., 2021. Drug Development During COVID-19: A proximity Approach to Tackling the World’s Most Wicked Problem. The University of Auckland.
Nowotny, H., 2003. Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Sci. Public Policy 30, 151–156. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780461.
Olsson, R., 2007. In search of opportunity management: is the risk management process enough? Int. J. Proj. Manag. 25, 745–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijproman.2007.03.005.
Patterson, J., Schulz, K., Vervoort, J., van der Hel, S., Widerberg, O., Adler, C., Hurlbert, M., Anderton, K., Sethi, M., Barau, A., 2017. Exploring the governance and
politics of transformations towards sustainability. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 24, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.001.
12
Pellizzoni, L., 2004. Responsibility and environmental governance. Env. Polit. 13, 541–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/0964401042000229034.
Penna, C.C.R., Romero Goyeneche, O.Y., Matti, C., 2023. Exploring indicators for monitoring sociotechnical system transitions through portfolio networks. Sci. Public
Policy 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad015.
Pesch, U., Vermaas, P.E., 2020. The wickedness of Rittel and Webber’s dilemmas. Adm. Soc. 52, 960–979. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399720934010.
Pfotenhauer, S., Laurent, B., Papageorgiou, K., Stilgoe, J., 2022. The politics of scaling. Soc. Stud. Sci. 52, 3–34.
Pidgeon, N., Parkhill, K., Corner, A., Vaughan, N., 2013. Deliberating stratospheric aerosols for climate geoengineering and the SPICE project. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3,
451–457. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1807.
Popa, E.O., Blok, V., Wesselink, R., 2021. An agonistic approach to technological conflict. Philos. Technol. 34, 717–737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00430-
7.
Rabadjieva, M., Terstriep, J., 2021. Ambition meets reality: mission-oriented innovation policy as a driver for participative governance. Sustainability 13, 1–23.
Reid, A., Steward, F., Miedzinski, M., 2023. Aligning smart specialisation with transformative innovation policy. Luxembourg. 10.2760/359295.
Renn, O., Klinke, A., Van Asselt, M., 2011. Coping with complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity in risk governance: a synthesis. Ambio 40, 231–246. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13280-010-0134-0.
Ritala, P., 2023. Grand challenges and platform ecosystems : scaling solutions for wicked ecological and societal problems. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 1–16. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jpim.12682.
Rittel, H., Webber, M., 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4, 155–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/01636609209550084.
Robinson, D.K.R., 2009. Co-evolutionary scenarios: an application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change 76, 1222–1239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.07.015.
Roßmann, M., 2021. Vision as make-believe: how narratives and models represent sociotechnical futures. J. Responsible Innov. 8, 70–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/
23299460.2020.1853395.
Rowe, G., Frewer, L.J., 2005. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 30, 251–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724.
Rowe, G., Frewer, L.J., 2000. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 25, 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/
016224390002500101.
Schot, J., Rip, A., 1997. The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 54, 251–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0040-1625
(96)00180-1.
Schot, J., Steinmueller, W.E., 2018. Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Res. Policy 47, 1554–1567. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011.
Schumpeter, J., 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Springer, Boston.
Schuurbiers, D., 2011. What happens in the Lab: applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Sci. Eng. Ethics 17, 769–788. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9317-8.
Scoones, I., Leach, M., Newell, P., 2015. The Politics of Green Transformations, The Politics of Green Transformations. Routledge.
Scott, D., 2021. Diversifying the deliberative turn: toward an agonistic RRI. Sci. Technol. Hum. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439211067268. Values
016224392110672.
Selin, C., 2011. Negotiating plausibility: intervening in the future of nanotechnology. Sci. Eng. Ethics 17, 723–737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9315-x.
Seyfang, G., Smith, A., 2007. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: towards a new research and policy agenda. Environ. Polit. 16, 584–603. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09644010701419121.
Sharma, A., Banerjee, R., 2021. Framework to analyze the spatial distribution of the labor impacts of clean energy transitions. Energy Policy 150, 112158. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112158.
Simons, L., Nijhof, A., Janssen, M., 2023. TransMission: the mission-driven transition approach to managing complex change processes.
Smink, M.M., Hekkert, M.P., Negro, S.O., 2015. Keeping sustainable innovation on a leash? Exploring incumbents institutional strategies. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 24,
86–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1808.
Smith, A., Stirling, A., 2010. The politics of social-ecological resilience and sustainable socio-technical transitions. Ecol. Soc. 15.
Snowden, D., Rancati, A., 2021. Managing complexity (and chaos) in times of crisis. Luxembourg.
Sørensen, E., Torfing, J., 2009. Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public Adm. 87, 234–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1467-9299.2009.01753.x.
Stahl, B.C., McBride, N., Wakunuma, K., Flick, C., 2014. The empathic care robot: a prototype of responsible research and innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change
84, 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.001.
Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.R., 1989. Institutional ecology, “translation” and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkely’s museum of vertebrate zoology,
1907-39. Soc. Sci. Inf. 19, 387–420.
Steen, M., 2021. Slow innovation: the need for reflexivity in responsible innovation (RI). J. Responsible Innov. 0, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/
23299460.2021.1904346.
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res. Policy 42, 1568–1580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
respol.2013.05.008.
Stirling, A., 2010. Keep it complex. Nature 468.
Stirling, A., 2008. Opening up” and “closing down”: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 33, 262–294.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907311265.
Taebi, B., Kwakkel, J.H., Kermisch, C., 2020. Governing climate risks in the face of normative uncertainties. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 11, 1–11. https://
doi.org/10.1002/wcc.666.
te Kulve, H., Rip, A., 2011. Constructing productive engagement: pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies. Sci. Eng. Ethics 17, 699–714. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11948-011-9304-0.
Termeer, C.J.A.M., Dewulf, A., 2019. A small wins framework to overcome the evaluation paradox of governing wicked problems. Policy Soc. 38, 298–314. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1497933.
Termeer, C.J.A.M., Dewulf, A., Biesbroek, R., 2019. A critical assessment of the wicked problem concept: relevance and usefulness for policy science and practice.
Policy Soc. 38, 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2019.1617971.
Transitieteam Bouw, 2018. Transitie-agenda circulaire bouweconomie.
Truffer, B., Voß, J., Konrad, K., 2008. Mapping expectations for system transformations lessons from sustainability foresight in German utility sectors. Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Change 75, 1360–1372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.04.001.
Turnheim, B., Sovacool, B.K., 2020. Exploring the role of failure in socio-technical transitions research. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 37, 267–289. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eist.2020.09.005.
Turnhout, E., Metze, T., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N., Louder, E., 2020. The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.
42, 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.009.
Unruh, G.C., 2000. Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 28, 817–813.
Uyarra, E., 2024. Creating national governance structures for the implementation of EU missions mutual learning exercise on EU missions implementation at national
level. Brussels. https://doi.org/10.2777/724815.
Uyarra, E., Flanagan, K., Wanzenböck, I., 2023. The Spatial and Scalar Implications of missions: Challenges and Opportunities for Policy. Manchester Institute of
Innovation Research working paper series.
Van de Poel, I., de Wildt, T., van Kooten Passaro, D., 2022. Values for a no-growth future. In: Dennis, M.J., Ishmaev, G., Umbrello, S., van den Hoven, J. (Eds.), Values
for a Post-Pandemic Future. Springer Nature Switzerland AG, pp. 23–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6385.1976.tb00713.x.
13
Van de Poel, I., Fahlquist, J.N., Doorn, N., Zwart, S., Royakkers, L., 2012. The problem of many hands: climate change as an example. Sci. Eng. Ethics 18, 49–67.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9276-0.
Van de Poel, I., Zwart, S.D., 2010. Reflective equilibrium in R&D networks. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 35, 174–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243909340272.
van der Burg, S., 2009. Taking the “soft impacts” of technology into account: broadening the discourse in research practice. Soc. Epistemol. 23, 301–316. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02691720903364191.
van Mierlo, B., Beers, P.J., 2020. Understanding and governing learning in sustainability transitions: a review. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 34, 255–269. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.08.002.
Vaughan, N.E., Lenton, T.M., 2011. A review of climate geoengineering proposals. Clim. Change 109, 745–790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0027-7.
von Hippel, E., 2005. Democratizing Innovation. MIT Pres.
Von Schomberg, R., 2013. A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation, Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation
in Society. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118551424.ch3.
Voß, J.P., Bornemann, B., 2011. The politics of reflexive governance: challenges for designing adaptive management and transition management. Ecol. Soc. 16
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04051-160209.
Voß, J., Truffer, B., Konrad, K., 2006. Sustainability foresight: reflexive governance in the transformation of utility systems. In: Voß, J., Bauknecht, D., Kemp, R. (Eds.),
Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development. Edward Elgar, pp. 162–188.
Wang, X., Lo, K., 2021. Just transition: a conceptual review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 82, 102291 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102291.
Wanzenböck, I., Frenken, K., 2020. The subsidiarity principle in innovation policy for societal challenges. Glob. Trans. 2, 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
glt.2020.02.002.
Wanzenböck, I., Wesseling, J.H., Frenken, K., Hekkert, M.P., Weber, K.M., 2020. A framework for mission-oriented innovation policy: alternative pathways through
the problem–solution space. Sci. Public Policy 47, 474–489. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa027.
Weber, K.M., Rohracher, H., 2012. Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change: combining insights from innovation systems
and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive “failures” framework. Res. Policy 41, 1037–1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.015.
Wesseling, J.H., Meijerhof, N., 2023. Towards a mission-oriented innovation systems (MIS) approach, application for Dutch sustainable maritime shipping. PLOS
Sustain. Transform. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000075.
Wiarda, M., Coenen, T.B.J., Doorn, N., 2023a. Operationalizing contested problem-solution spaces : the case of Dutch circular construction. Environ. Innov. Soc.
Trans. 48, 100752 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2023.100752.
Wiarda, M., Doorn, N., 2023. Responsible innovation and societal challenges: the multi-scalarity dilemma. J. Respon. Technol. 16 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrt.2023.100072.
Wiarda, M., Sobota, V.C.M., Janssen, M.J., Kaa, G.Van De, Yaghmaei, E., Doorn, N., 2023b. Public participation in mission-oriented innovation projects. Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Chang. 191, 122538 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122538.
Wittmann, F., Hufnagl, M., Lindner, R., Roth, F., Edler, J., 2021. Governing varieties of mission-oriented innovation policies: a new typology. Sci. Public Policy 48,
727–738. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scab044.
Xiang, W.N., 2013. Working with wicked problems in socio-ecological systems: awareness, acceptance, and adaptation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 110, 1–4. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.11.006.
Yalew, S.G., Kwakkel, J., Doorn, N., 2021. Distributive justice and sustainability goals in transboundary rivers: case of the Nile Basin. Front. Environ. Sci. 8 https://
doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.590954.
Young, I.M., 2002. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford University Press.
Zehner, O., 2012. Green illusions: the Dirty Secrets of Clean Energy and the Future of Environmentalism. University of Nebraska Press.
14

1-s2.0-S221042242400011X-main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1-s2.0-S221042242400011X-main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1-s2.0-S221042242400011X-main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 50 (2024) 100820

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions

Responsible mission governance: An integrative framework and

2. Procedural approaches to coping with wickedness: governance responsibilities and modes

2.1. Managing complexity with participatory governance

2.2. Exploring uncertainty through anticipatory governance

2.3. Embracing contestation with reflexive governance

2.4. Responding to intractability with tentative governance

3. Towards responsible mission governance: an integrative framework

4. Responsible mission governance in a multi-level context

Challenges Responsibilities Modes Outcomes

Complexity Inclusion Participatory governance Social robustness

Intractability Responsiveness Tentative governance Alignment

Participatory governance Anticipatory governance Reflexive governance Tentative governance

5. Applying the responsible mission governance framework: a vignette

5.1. The mission ‘Circular construction by 2050′

5.2. Implementing the framework with a mission-oriented transition assessment

5.3. A brief reflection

6. Proposing a research agenda for responsible mission governance

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Declaration of competing interest

The data that has been used is confidential.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.