This chapter presents the current changing context of mission-oriented innovation policies and the collective process that drove the drafting of this publication. After several years of growing interest as a means to address complex challenges, missions are now increasingly pressed to show tangible results in the face of shifting government priorities towards competitiveness, strategic autonomy and defence. To contribute to this debate, this publication aims to provide a stocktake of practical lessons learnt and knowledge gaps on missions. It draws upon the results of a multi-stage process involving interactions between academic researchers in the mission policy field, mission practitioners and OECD analysts.
Forging New Frontiers in Mission‑Oriented Innovation Policies
Abstract
Mission-oriented innovation policies (MOIPs) drew increasing public attention and interest in the late 2010s as tools to tackle complex societal challenges.
The number and diversity of missions expanded rapidly, spanning national, regional and city levels, though the lack of a clear definition and the risk of “mission-washing” have diluted the concept.
Missions appeal to policymakers because, in principle, they send stable signals, concentrate investments, align public and private sector actors across silos, engage citizens, and enable systemic innovation through tailor-made mixes of policy instruments and new governance approaches.
While they have not yet had enough time to fully prove their effectiveness, by 2024-2025 their momentum was increasingly challenged by shifting political priorities, debt pressures and geopolitical tensions. High expectations, the numerous difficulties faced in implementing them and the slow pace of visible results have also generated criticism.
The OECD launched a stocktaking exercise to consolidate lessons and identify knowledge gaps. The process was structured around four key issues: 1) framing (setting it on the right course); 2) enlisting (mobilising actors and budgets, including beyond science, technology and innovation [STI]); 3) crowding in (attracting private sector resources); and 4) delivering (realising the objectives).
This effort built on a year-long structured dialogue between academics and practitioners, culminating in the 2024 Vienna Mission Forward Conference.
This publication synthesises these numerous insights to provide concrete guidance for future mission policy design and practice.
MOIPs have reached a pivotal moment. Having raised high expectations as a means to address some of the most pressing and complex societal challenges, a growing number of countries have developed and implemented MOIPs since the end of the 2010s and beginning of the 2020s. However, by 2024, government priorities in many of these countries had already started shifting in a new context of increasing geopolitical tensions, unsustainable public debts and pressure to support economic growth. These long‑term and complex policy initiatives have not had enough time to learn, improve and prove they can fulfil their many promises by bringing new solutions from research to large-scale deployment. Yet it seems their window of opportunity may have already passed.
The OECD has studied over 40 MOIPs from around the world, representing 241 active missions (Figure 1.1), down from 261 in 2024, reflecting the completion of some early missions.1 In the area of decarbonisation alone, the OECD identified 148 so-called “net zero missions” in 23 countries in 2023 (OECD, 2024[1]). Many missions are also run at the regional level and even more so at the city level. For instance, the European Union (EU) initiative “100 Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities by 2030” is one of the 5 EU missions, each of the selected 100 cities represents a mission on its own as they have strategic autonomy and are independently formulated, with their own goals, interventions and governance structure.
Source: OECD MOIP Online Toolkit (data retrieved on 2 September 2025).
Furthermore, there is no “mission label”, and many initiatives relevant to the mission approach do not claim to be missions nor are they recognised as such by analysts. There is growing interest in “mission orientation”, yet without necessarily using the word “missions”. Focused initiatives with relatively clear time horizons and goals, adopting a whole-of-government, if not whole-of-society, approach are being discussed in areas such as defence policy, industrial policy or emerging technology policy (e.g. for quantum or synthetic biology), thereby complementing the “societal challenge”-driven missions. Research and innovation play a key role in all these areas. To some extent, a mainstreaming of the mission approach can be observed in STI systems and programmes, possibly at the price of a certain “dilution” of the concept. The European Commission has referred to “directional initiatives” or “moonshots” rather than missions in some recent documents to prepare the future Framework Programme for Research and Innovation.2 Closer to industrial policy, the Competitiveness Coordination Framework recommended in the so-called 2025 Draghi Report – characterised by dedicated competitiveness action plans for each strategic priority, with well-defined objectives, governance, financing and a tailor-made combination of instruments – may owe something to the “mission spirit” (Draghi, 2025[2]).
There is also an observation bias, as most missions typically considered in the “mission community” are those that predominantly relate to STI solutions. Missions that focus on social change without recourse to technological innovation are less visible to mission academics and practitioners who, historically, originate from the STI communities.
Finally, the inflation of missions should also be considered in the context of a certain distortion of the concept in some instances. The notion of “mission-washing” is sometimes coined to refer to the misuse or over-application of the term “mission” to a range of policies and projects that do not align with the core principles of mission-oriented innovation but try to take advantage of the “mission policy hype”. Over time, such misuse could erode the credibility of mission-oriented policies, making it harder to differentiate between genuine missions and superficial applications of the concept.
Following this wave of experimentation with missions, and sometimes even preceding it, a growing number of scholars have started working on the conceptual basis of MOIPs. While the concept is not new – the term “mission-oriented” was used in the space and military sectors for decades and applied in economics since at least the late 1960s3 – there was a renewal of the concept in the 2010s. A bibliometric analysis shows that publications in this nascent field have grown from fewer than 10 annually to over 140 in recent years.4 The field has evolved structurally over time, starting around a small, cohesive pioneer group, joined since 2021 by many new teams that have formed their own collaboration circles.
The analysis of co-citations (Figure 1.2), which connects two authors who are often cited together, reveals a sophisticated intellectual architecture comprising four distinct but interconnected bodies of knowledge: 1) economics of innovation, with several heterodox economists stemming from the institutionalist and evolutionary theories of change formed the majority of the pioneers; 2) geography of innovation, which develops a more local and regional challenge-led approach; 3) socio-technical transitions, the source for the transformative innovation policy approach; and 4) what can be termed as transformative missions – a recently emerging cluster focused on contemporary mission-oriented approaches for systemic transformations. The analysis also identifies a distinct “Chinese perspective on missions” cluster at the periphery of the economics of innovation domain, reflecting the growing global engagement with mission-oriented approaches beyond their European and North American origins (Penna, forthcoming[3]).
Note: Based on a bibliometric analysis of 640 documents by the Center for Strategic Studies and Management examining mission-oriented and transformative innovation policy literature through 2025. Network visualization created using VOSviewer software.
Source: Penna (forthcoming[3]) and van Eck and Waltma (2014[4]).
Overall, the analysis of this growing research community demonstrates the interdisciplinary nature of mission-oriented research, drawing from established fields while developing its own distinct theoretical foundations and syntheses. The theoretical foundations of MOIPs are increasingly sophisticated, with the field evolving beyond its historical roots in defence research and development (R&D) to encompass broader perspectives from sustainability transitions, innovation systems and transformative change theories. While some of these publications remain conceptual, an increasing number are based on investigations on real MOIP cases as the number of missions to learn from expands and research-policy linkages are becoming stronger with time.
This research community provides the foundation for fruitful reflexive activities to develop both the conceptual and practical knowledge base on MOIPs.
The growing concurrent policy and academic interests around missions in recent years have been driven, at least partly, by their many appealing features as a new way to leverage STI to address problems where traditional policy frameworks – largely supply-push, linear and fragmented – have revealed their limitations. In a nutshell, missions are expected to enable collective action within systems whose institutional settings favour competition and compartmentalisation. While co-operation has now become commonplace within projects and consortia, it is far from the case at the upper level of systems where silos between disciplines, sectors or policy areas are the norm.
Missions operate at various levels, ranging from individual projects to portfolios of complementary projects and activities, specific ecosystems, and the upper level of whole challenge systems – the level at which transitions may or may not occur. At all these levels and across all silos, missions are expected to leverage several synergies through the exchange of information and knowledge, the co-ordination of plans, the intentional combination of policy tools and co-operation (Box 1.1). This is not the result of good intentions or authority, but of a tailor-made institutional space for collective action made of specific incentives, funding mechanisms, construction of shared interests and, gradually, trust, a common language and a “sense of community”.
While mission-oriented innovation policies (MOIPs) should not be viewed as a cure-all, several expected benefits are worth highlighting to clarify why different partners might opt for this demanding approach. This “wish list” is also helpful when designing missions, as the realisation of these positive outcomes cannot be taken for granted but hinges on specific design features of the missions (type of objectives, scope, governance, incentive structure, mobilised instruments, etc.). It should therefore be used as a map of potential benefits to orient the mission design process, and no mission should be held accountable for these promises.
MOIPs are often expected to enable the mission partners to:
send reliable and stable signals to businesses and other science, technology and innovation actors regarding government’s commitment to specific challenges and areas to increase the predictability of public support
create critical mass by focusing investment and funding on and gathering public and private sector actors around specific objectives across disciplinary, sectoral and administrative silos
align plans between public authorities in different policy areas to avoid duplication and conflicting signals
raise the visibility and engagement of stakeholders, including citizens and politicians, of a specific problem and potential innovative solutions by defining targets in terms of impacts, rather than just research results or innovations
leverage synergies and complementarities between various projects and activities that contribute to the development and implementation of a potential solution (“system innovation”)
distribute support to various options to a given problem until uncertainty is reduced to the point that choices can be made (i.e. “co-ordinated exploration of the problem-solution space”)
combine complementary policy and regulatory instruments across the innovation chain, including supply- and demand-side instruments (“tailor-made policy mix”)
experiment and learn from new modes of governance and policy approaches, which could then be mainstreamed into national innovation systems at large to help solve some of their long-standing problems (notably Weber and Rohracher’s transformative failures: “directionality failures”, “policy co-ordination failures”, “demand articulation failures” and “reflexivity failures” [2012]).
These benefits apply to all MOIPs, regardless of their type. Other potential benefits are specific to some types as described in previous OECD work (Larrue, 2021[5]). For instance, missions can support the emergence, strengthening and empowerment of specific ecosystems to tackle a particular challenge (ecosystem-based missions). Others can mobilise actors through competition to solve specific scientific or technological challenges (“challenge-based missions”).
Governments’ growing interest in missions was also driven by the academic community in STI policies, which has seen in missions the most institutionalised form of transformative innovation policies and a considerable space for experimenting with and learning about many issues that had been on their research agenda for decades. These include, for instance, citizen engagement, cross-government co-ordination, policy mixes and systemic evaluations. The most renowned of them, (Mazzucato, 2018[6]) developed a genuine “political economy” of missions and mobilised a wide-ranging community of supporters and critics. She has been highly instrumental in raising the public’s attention on this new policy approach, including at the highest level of policymaking across the world.
This growing interest can also be a double-edged sword, as high expectations have generated permanent pressure for missions to prove themselves and led to some disappointment in the face of what can be perceived by outsiders as a sluggish pace of results.
Many studies have emphasised the challenges of mission implementation, which are immediately apparent; however, their outcomes and impacts only become visible in the mid- to long-run. The aforementioned OECD missions in the climate change area, for instance, concluded that while most net zero missions produce many of their expected effects and represent a marked improvement over traditional STI policy mixes, their achievement to date falls short of what is needed to scale up and deploy solutions on the scale needed to fulfil national net zero targets (OECD, 2024[1]).
Missions face threats from both within and outside these initiatives. Internally, critics and doubts regarding their capacity to fulfil their promises have increased in recent years. This comes from the underestimation of the difficulties this policy approach represents, as well as from overpromises in some cases. Externally, political priorities have shifted back to competitiveness and defence, and budgets and political attention for societal challenges such as climate change are being increasingly debated (OECD, 2025[7]).
Missions are also criticised in the academic arena, however, often with traditional “pro-market” arguments (e.g. “missions pick winners”, “missions are too top-down, dirigiste”) that are hardly consistent with what missions truly are on the ground (Henrekson, Sandström and Stenkula, 2024[8]).5
In this challenging context for missions, the OECD decided to undertake a thorough stocktake of what is known and still left to know about MOIPs. The final aim of this exercise was to provide mission managers and policymakers with the key elements needed to guide them in their endeavours to design, govern, implement and evaluate missions. The objective was also to identify remaining challenges and outline a roadmap for future academic research on and practical experimentation with missions.
To achieve these objectives, one can draw on a considerable, yet fragmented, academic and practical knowledge base on missions. Although most have been there for only five to six years at most, this short period has been both intense and fruitful in terms of learning. This rapid learning process is mainly due to their novelty and the level of challenge that implementing missions presents in STI systems, whose foundations still rely more on the New Public Management doctrine than on Transformative Innovation Policies.
The stocktaking was structured around four key issues identified and scoped out by the OECD based on its past and current work on MOIPs under the aegis of the Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy. These key issues highlight challenging – but promising – areas of improvement of MOIPs:
1. Frame the mission to set it on the right course.
2. Enlist actors, programmes and budgets from STI and beyond.
3. Crowd-in private sector financial and human resources.
4. Deliver on co-developed strategic agendas.
These four key issues have been used throughout the process to structure reflections and sediment outcomes. They are also used as the backbone of this report, with a dedicated chapter for each issue.
Note: MOIP: mission-oriented innovation policies.
The current volume analyses and synthesises builds on an extensive process over a year involving a unique structured dialogue between policymakers directly involved in the implementation of missions, strengthened by systematic input from researchers (see Annex A for more details). It draws on the OECD’s past work on MOIPs, which began in 2019, and upon the considerable cumulative expertise of those whose main activities are to “think” and “do” missions. Their inputs were collected, shared and discussed through a variety of means, including:
Groups of policy makers and of researchers involved in missions (respectively the Policy Support Group [PSG] and the Mission Academic Board [MAB] - see Annex C for their membership)
Template-based consultations of various communities to solicit their thoughts and expertise regarding the key issues. Notably, a survey was sent to mission practitioners, representing 30 unique MOIPs from around the world.6 The results of the survey are presented in a box at the end of each corresponding “key issue” chapter.
Thematic online seminars: Three online seminars were held in October 2024, led by voluntary members of the MAB to discuss transversal issues: capacity and capability needs of public administrations for MOIP; the potential gains and challenges in taking a mission-oriented approach; and mission-oriented and industrial innovation ‑policy.7
An update of the OECD MOIP toolkit: This online knowledge platform on MOIPs, created in 2020, provides systematic and in-depth information on MOIPs based on frequent interactions with mission policymakers, managers and experts in the context of OECD mission thematic and country studies. The toolkit underwent a significant overhaul in 2024, including an update of the MOIP initiatives already on the platform, and the addition of a series of new ones.
A bibliometric analysis of academic and grey literatures on MOIPs performed by the Center for Strategic Management and Studies (Brazil).
The Mission Forward Conference: The process culminated with the first-ever conference of mission practitioners, held in Vienna in October 2024. The Conference brought together over 130 participants, representing 40 unique mission-oriented initiatives/organisations in 23 countries, and 41 unique missions in a wide range of challenge areas.
While the OECD “held the pen”, this volume is the result of a collective drafting endeavour. It benefited in particular from numerous inputs from MAB members, including the template-based consultation, MAB meetings, syntheses of key issue sessions from the Mission Forward conference and thorough comments on the first draft of this report.
Following this introductory chapter, the report comprises four main chapters, each corresponding to one of the four key issues. Each chapter is structured around the guiding questions that were used throughout the process, in templates and during the conference’s key issues sessions. Throughout the book, boxes on “practical insights for mission implementation” aim to extract the lessons learnt that gather consensus among researchers and policymakers.
References
[9] A. M. Weinberg (1967), Reflections on Big Science, The MIT Press, https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262230247/reflections-on-big-science/.
[2] Draghi, M. (2025), The Future of European Competitiveness: Part A – A Competitiveness Strategy for Europe, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/97e481fd-2dc3-412d-be4c-f152a8232961_en.
[10] Ergas, H. (1987), Technology and Global Industry, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., https://doi.org/10.17226/1671.
[8] Henrekson, M., C. Sandström and M. Stenkula (eds.) (2024), Moonshots and the New Industrial Policy, Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49196-2.
[5] Larrue, P. (2021), “Mission-oriented innovation policy in Norway: Challenges, opportunities and future options”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 104, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2e7c30ff-en.
[6] Mazzucato, M. (2018), “Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 27/5, pp. 803-815, https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty034.
[7] OECD (2025), OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2025: Driving Change in a Shifting Landscape, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5fe57b90-en.
[1] OECD (2024), Mission-Oriented Innovation Policies for Net Zero: How Can Countries Implement Missions to Achieve Climate Targets?, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5efdbc5c-en.
[3] Penna, C. (forthcoming), The Academic Landscape: A Bibliometric Analysis of Mission-Oriented and Transformative Innovation Policy Literature, Centre for Strategic Studies and Management, Brazil.
[4] van Eck, N. and L. Waltman (2014), “Visualizing Bibliometric Networks”, in Measuring Scholarly Impact, Springer International Publishing, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_13.
← 1. See the OECD MOIP Online Toolkit for detailed information on these MOIPs, at both the initiative and mission level: https://stip.oecd.org/moip.
← 2. See, for example, the European Commission’s “Expert Group on the Design and Selection of Directional Initiatives under the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation” at: https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/expert-groups-register/screen/expert-groups/consult?lang=en&groupID=3996&fromCallsApplication=true.
← 3. A. M. Weinberg (1967[9]) argued in favour of “Mission-oriented R&D”, defined as “big science deployed to meet big problems”. (Ergas, 1987[10]) refers to “mission-oriented technology countries” which aim to achieve national sovereignty and technological leadership, notably through military R&D. See: https://stip.oecd.org/moip/the-definition-of-moips/old-concept.
← 4. This analysis is based on a comprehensive bibliometric study of 640 documents examining mission‑oriented and transformative innovation policy literature through 2025. It was performed by the Center for Strategic Studies and Management (Brazil) as an in-kind contribution to this project (see Annex G).
← 5. As part of the preparation of this book, a thematic workshop was dedicated to “mission critics”.
← 6. In total, the responses yielded 720 unique data points of strengths, weaknesses and good practices. 202 under “Framing”, 196 under “Enlisting”, 165 under “Delivering” and 157 under “Crowding in”.
← 7. The papers resulting from each of these sessions have been developed by MAB members and published by the Austrian Mission Facility, an entity formed by the Austrian Institute of Technology, Joanneum Research Policies and ZSI, with support by Fraunhofer ISI to support Austrian missions.