This chapter presents the OECD mission governance framework. It then briefly reviews experiences and lessons for mission governance from mission-oriented innovation policies for net-zero, based on an OECD assessment of 101 different climate mitigation-related mission-oriented innovation policies. These initiatives are successfully directing research and innovation efforts towards meeting climate-related challenges but find themselves restrained to STI policy actors and instruments and lacking the range or influence necessary to enable more transformative changes.
Harnessing Mission Governance to Achieve National Climate Targets
Abstract
At the centre of the mission concept lies a search for new ways of governing that can proactively address wicked societal challenges and deliver public value where it matters most. A well-framed mission statement can inspire and galvanise, but it is only half the battle. Governments need to secure ways of working that can trigger and align effective action to meet these ambitious targets. This idea is incapsulated in the concept of mission governance. This is a complex term, which can both viewed from a narrow (as governance structures of missions) and a broader sense (as vehicles for novel forms of governance).
In a narrow sense, missions and mission-oriented policies have dedicated governance and institutional structures and mechanisms. These will depend on the level at which the mission efforts are anchored, ranging from the Centre of Government teams, cross-ministerial committees, agency-led missions, or ecosystem-driven platform-led missions.
The organisational structure typically includes several key components:
Co-ordination bodies at strategic and operational levels, such as steering boards or programme boards, often comprising high-level representatives.
Consultative or advisory bodies that engage stakeholders and experts, sometimes divided into subgroups for different mission components.
Mission teams or secretariats, led by mission managers, responsible for day-to-day implementation and portfolio management.
Central management teams or mission support offices, particularly in multi-mission initiatives, to support mission-specific secretariats and promote cross-mission learning.
Decentralised management teams, such as mission contact points in partner organizations.
Yet, in a wider sense, missions are in and of themselves novel forms of governance. For some, missions should really be understood as “vehicles for governing societal transformations” and “to challenge established ways of thinking, doing, and implementing governance” (Björk et al., 2022[1]). They see missions as “governance for rewiring public action at large: that is, as the toolbox steering multiple policies at once and consciously reorienting how governments envision their ways of working.”
By this token, mission governance is an innovative approach to governing which, in the service of realising mission objectives, relies on a mix of wide cross-sectoral mobilisation, and the orchestration and co-ordination of the public and private sector, relevant stakeholders, a range of policy instruments, and various activities. Or, in other words, it is governance that enables a mission-oriented approach to realising policy objectives, that serve to operationalise a mission statement into adequate government action. It is this conceptualisation that is referred to as mission governance in this report.
A set of mission governance principles
In an effort to pinpoint these numerous and somewhat intangible elements that enable a mission-oriented approach, the OECD Mission Action Lab has sought to capture the key principles of mission governance. These principles, listed in Table 3.1, relate to Structure, Orientation, Co-ordination, Execution, and Resources.
A mission-oriented approach to governance involves some combination of the below principles.
Source: OECD.
This framework does not purport to be authoritative or exhaustive but seeks to capture the wide set of enabling factors that set missions apart from traditional policy approaches to better leverage whole-of-society collaboration and innovation to tackle systemic challenges. It is developed to help support policy makers in their endeavour to design fit-for-purpose governance that is well-adapted to the specific features of the challenge their mission seeks to tackle, its underpinning institutional setting, as well as the various strategies and capabilities of the different partners needed for implementation. In other words, it aims to inform the governance design process so as to secure the “mission inputs” necessary to achieve sought-after “mission outcomes”, thereby avoiding mismatched expectations and ‘policy-as-usual'1.
The headings of orientation, co-ordination and implementation roughly correspond to the governance equivalents of the three key building blocks or stages of mission-oriented policies: strategic orientation, policy co-ordination and implementation. The mission governance framework expands on this frame and in order to secure missions that go beyond policy silos by taking a whole-of-government and whole-of-society view of missions.
The framework reflects governance principles that are often crucial for mission delivery, but it does not imply that they are all necessary nor sufficient for a successful mission – instead the underlying theory of change must guide the approach. While a combination of at least some of the above elements are needed to adopt a viable mission-oriented approach (and reasonably espouse the mission label), not every characteristic needs to be prioritised in every mission. Indeed, securing all the above governance elements currently lies outside the reach of most if not all existing missions. Instead, the relevance of each characteristic should be determined by the specific nature of the challenge at hand – such as the ambiguity of the problem (mission scope/breadth) and the stakeholders involved – as outlined in the mission’s theory of change.
Additionally, the respective principles’ importance do not carry equal weight. As illustrated in Figure 3.1, the structure of the mission in terms of the legal, institutional and organisational set-up (the ‘hard governance’ so to speak) have an outsized influence on the outer ring of mission governance principles. Simply put, the governance structure of mission-oriented policies plays a foundational role in enabling the wider transformative and innovative potential of missions as new forms of governance.
Source: (OECD, 2024[2])
In Chapter 4, these principles of mission governance, including that of Structure, are used as a basis to assess the extent to which the mission-oriented approach is being harnessed in the wider efforts to meet the national climate mitigation targets of 15 countries.
Learnings from mission-oriented innovation policies for net zero
The mission-oriented approach has both its origins and its most enthusiastic following in the field of STI policy. It has there been leveraged to direct research and innovation (R&I) funding towards addressing societal challenges, chief amongst them that of climate change. Thus, many mission-oriented innovation policies are specifically targeted on climate change mitigation and achieving net-zero emissions of GHG. In its non-exhaustive Net Zero Mission Database (see Figure 3.2), the OCED identified 148 net zero missions pertaining to 43 MOIP initiatives in 23 countries (OECD, 2024[3]). A recent report by the OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Directorate analyses 101 of these net zero missions related to 30 MOIP initiatives in 20 countries (see Table 3.2), including 17 in-depth case studies (OECD, 2024[3]).
Notes: This map includes net zero missions identified as of October 2024. MOIP: mission-oriented innovation policy.
Source: OECD net-zero mission database (OECD, 2024[3])
Most of these initiatives originate from European Union member countries, and a majority were launched in the period after 2018, and so are relatively recent and still in progress. Most belong are challenge-based programmes and schemes (inspired by the ‘DARPA model’, in which programme managers oversee portfolios of research projects with the aim of accelerating technological progress) or overarching mission-oriented strategic frameworks (more top-down efforts aiming for system-wide transformations). Almost all initiatives are focused on a specific sector of emissions or a potential technological solution. They typically have budgets in the EUR 1-200 million range, across diverse funding sources that remain under the control of the different mission partners (e.g., various ministries) (OECD, 2024[3]).
As are typical of MOIPs, these initiatives are generally led and championed by STI authorities, such as ministries or agencies, who engage various public and private sector stakeholders in objective-setting, co-ordination efforts, and management of mission-oriented actions. The resulting co-developed mission objectives that these coalition set vary, both in terms of breadth and specificity. Among the these, one of the biggest are the five missions initiated by the EU (see Box 3.1).
EU Missions were introduced in the Horizon Europe research and innovation programme for the years 2021-2027. With new forms of governance and collaboration, it aims to leverage the EU’s research and innovation efforts to support Europe’s transformation into a greener, healthier, more inclusive and resilient continent. Four of five Missions are linked to the green transition, with one tied to climate mitigation in cities and one themed on climate adaptation.
The 5 EU Missions are:
1. Adaptation to Climate Change: support at least 150 European regions and communities to become climate resilient by 2030
2. Cancer: working with Europe's Beating Cancer Plan to improve the lives of more than 3 million people by 2030 through prevention, cure and solutions to live longer and better
3. Restore our Ocean and Waters by 2030
4. 100 Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities by 2030
5. A Soil Deal for Europe: 100 living labs and lighthouses to lead the transition towards healthy soils by 2030
The Missions represent a coordinated effort by the European Commission to pool necessary resources in terms of policies and regulations, as well as other activities. They also aim to mobilise and activate public and private actors, such as EU Member States, regional and local authorities, research institutes, farmers and land managers, entrepreneurs, and investors to create lasting impact. Missions engage with citizens to boost societal uptake of new solutions and approaches. Each mission operates as a portfolio of actions – such as research projects, policy measures or even legislative initiatives – to achieve a measurable goal that could not be achieved through individual actions.
Comparing these net-zero MOIPs to traditional STI programs, the study finds that the mission-oriented approach has enabled clearer goal-setting and enhanced alignment of cross-sectoral, cross-disciplinary, and cross-administrative plans. Nearly all missions have strategic agendas developed through inclusive processes to guide implementation. These agendas are revised on a regular basis and often tied to budget, intervention, and co-ordination mechanisms. Net-zero missions also integrate a greater range of support instruments, from subsidies to initiatives, labs, and regulatory reforms. Mission leaders on occasion also use portfolio management to map these instruments along the innovation chain to provide continuous support and capture additional benefits from mission-oriented actions. The report emphasises that net-zero missions generally benefit from longer-term funding and invest in a broader range of activities compared to traditional R&I initiatives (OECD, 2024[3]).
However, the study also finds that net-zero missions "lack sufficient scale and reach to non-STI policy domains to have wide-ranging impact" (OECD, 2023[5]). The report identifies three main challenges or ‘traps’ hindering net-zero MOIPs:
The STI Trap: An over-reliance on science, technology, and innovation policy interventions and budgets, revealing an inability to attract large scale investments, leverage a broad policy mix, and affect wider policy changes, including the market shaping, social and behavioural efforts needed for significant GHG emissions reduction.
The Orientation Trap: Mission coalitions succeed in collectively setting shared goals and strategic agendas, but face challenges linked to follow-through as they struggle to influence budget allocation and policy implementation.
The Policy Trap: Missions focus too heavily on public sector co-ordination, failing to adequately mobilise private sector funding and capabilities.
Fundamentally, these initiatives’ efforts are mainly concentrated on “shared agendas, accelerated changes and avoided costly overlaps” and therefore “fall short from having the design, notably in terms of ambition, scope and resources, that would enable them to be transformative” (OECD, 2024[3]). The report thus envisions two potential pathways for these initiatives to overcome these limitations. Either they gradually manage to enlist new actors, build trust, and attract higher commitments from public authorities outside the STI realm and investments from private actors. Or alternatively, their leadership can be transferred from STI authorities towards more central institutions or cross-ministerial platforms with a broader remit and stronger mandate across the government structure.
In the context of climate mitigation, the disconnect between national emissions reduction targets and mission-oriented efforts offers an explanation for some of these limitations and an opportunity going forward. Namely, one key recommendation of the report lies in connecting the net-zero missions to the overarching national governance frameworks for the transition towards net-zero, “where the higher-level political choices and commitments are made” (OECD, 2024[3]). Addressing this disconnect would allow these missions to inform decisions taken at the level of the overarching climate mitigation efforts, and vice versa, help anchor and inform the missions’ objectives and strategic agendas based on the broader needs. Furthermore, this could help raise the stakes and ambition of the efforts, provide a higher level of legitimacy, political buy-in and citizen engagement, avoid capture by incumbents and ensure a high level of ambition, provide access to a broader range of policy instruments, signal clearer directionality towards non-governmental partners and stakeholders, secure better horizontal and vertical co-ordination, as well as support claims for additional resources and mandates for their efforts. In short, it could go a long way to provide a higher degree of mission governance, if the conditions of the efforts at the overarching climate target mission so allows.
In a sense, this would bridge mission theory and practice, by re-orientating these MOIPs towards the overarching mission of meeting the national climate mitigation targets to which they would be providing a distinct and consequential piece of the puzzle.
Learnings from city-level climate mitigation missions
While national MOIPs have generally found themselves constrained by the confines of the STI policy domain, there has been traction for the mission instrument at the local level. Cities especially have proven propitious ground for harnessing the mission-oriented approach to meet overarching GHG emission reduction targets, sometimes themselves linked to the NDCs. Indeed, with COP26 a wave of cities pledged to reduce their emissions and accelerate their own path to climate neutrality (United Nations, 2021[6]). These city-level climate commitments underscore a growing role of cities as innovation hubs and testing grounds for transformative climate solutions as well as spaces holding local knowledge that can drive tailored climate governance strategies.
To meet their climate targets European cities especially are turning to the mission-oriented approach, often following the lead of supranational or national actors. At the supranational level, the European Union launched the EU Mission “100 Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities by 2030" which aims to deliver at least 100 climate-neutral and smart cities by 2030 (see Box 3.1). 112 cities from European Union member countries and associated countries were selected from more than 350 cities who submitted an expression of interest. Through this effort, the European Commission hopes of "enabling all European cities to follow suit by 2050" (NetZeroCities, 2024[7]; European Commission, 2024[8]). Though it is too early for definitive results, Ulpiani et al. (2023[9]) suggests that approximately 650 MtCO2eq in GHG reductions could be achieved if all 362 cities who expressed interest in the EU Mission reach complete climate neutrality by 2030. However, varying levels of climate neutrality ambitions and insufficient emissions data make this figure uncertain, especially as several countries' lack the resources to adequately report emissions inventorying (Ulpiani et al., 2023[9])
There are also examples of such city-level MOPs being initiated at a national level. For example, the mission-oriented “Climate Neutral Cities 2030” initiative, which involves over twenty Swedish cities seeking to become mission climate-neutral cities by 2030, while ensuring its citizens “a good life for all within the planetary boundaries” (Viable Cities, 2024[10]). The initiative – which is being led by the strategic innovation program Viable Cities, funded by government agencies – was started in 2019 with 9 Swedish cities, but has since grown to over 23 cities, accounting for about 40% of Sweden’s population. Member cities, whose mayors sign so-called Climate City Contracts (see Box 3.2) on a yearly basis, receive funding for their innovation activities towards the mission, and are encouraged to form innovation teams with the capacity and mandate to lead the transition. The program also seeks to encourage collaboration and knowledge exchange between cities and beyond, such as by promoting new forms of cooperation between universities, cities, industry, research institutes and civil society.
Another prominent example is Greater Manchester, which is implementing a mission-oriented approach to achieving carbon neutrality by 2038, 12 years ahead of the UK Government’s 2050 target. The Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) developed a mission roadmap through public consultation and technical analysis, establishing five Challenge Groups focused on key areas including low carbon buildings, energy innovation, sustainable consumption/production, natural capital, and communications/behaviour change (Bellinson et al., 2021[11]). The GMCA deliberately reshaped its climate governance bodies and mechanism to align with the mission, creating a structure that brings together diverse stakeholders from academia, business, civil society, and local government to coordinate action across the city-region, moving beyond traditional sector-specific approaches. Bellinson et al. (2021[11]) identify a number of key success factors in the Manchester case, including securing robust governance frameworks to coordinate a wide set of stakeholders, developing diverse funding streams beyond grant funding, and effectively utilising both formal powers and informal influence to drive change. The Manchester case highlights how mission governance can be leveraged to target an overarching climate mitigation objective, albeit at city level, in turn enabling an effective mission approach to address sub-targets.
City Contracts
Cities have found value in developing Climate City Contracts. These contracts generally include comprehensive plans for climate neutrality across sectors like energy and transport and secure formal commitments from diverse sets of stakeholders. They are often regarded as ongoing processes and "living" documents that encourage co-creation of new ways of working together with local and national stakeholders and citizens (e.g., (Net Zero Cities, 2024[12])). The contracts also facilitate engagement with various authorities. For example, the Viable Cities Climate City Contract 2023 is an agreement among Swedish municipalities, authorities, and Viable Cities, where each party commits to actively accelerate the pace of the climate transition (Viable Cities, 2023[13]). For other Climate City Contracts developed in line with their respective programmes, approval of the contract by all parties and experts allows cities to access EU, national, and regional funding and financing resources, which are crucial for an adaptable but fast climate transition.
Transitions Teams
In the context of urban climate transitions, establishing dedicated transition teams has proven to be highly effective. For many cities already implementing urban action, some form of an organisational team already exists whereas in other cities it is lacking (Net Zero Cities, 2021[14]). These teams often serve as neutral intermediaries, orchestrating collaboration among various local actors and stakeholders. Their neutrality is key as it enables them to lead while maintaining trust among local actors in different sectors. Successful green transitions involve a shift from traditional governance approaches to more flexible and adaptive processes. Rather than focusing on the project itself, Transition Teams should focus on the process, building in flexibility and adaptation. The various actions and actors required to address systemic problems also require the dynamism of the portfolio approach. This approach enables the Team to capture the synergy and co-benefits from actions and the network of local stakeholders. The exact structure of the Transition Team varies based on the city context though all should be relatively close to the city government so that action can be fast and focused. The green transition is a continuous, reflexive process that requires constant collaboration, adaptation, and evaluation among all stakeholders to effectively address the evolving challenges of climate change and urban sustainability.
Lessons learned from city-level missions highlight the importance and value of knowledge exchange, stakeholder collaboration and engagement, and continuous orchestration and adaptation. Unsurprisingly, cities have found that effective urban climate action demands the breaking down of silos across municipal administrative institutions as well as cross-sectoral collaboration. Measures for this often involve climate contracts and transition teams (see Box 3.2). The participation and engagement of the public sector and the private sector are also crucial for the development of comprehensive and inclusive climate strategies and objectives. The Dublin City Council, in collaboration with the OECD, provides an illustration of efforts in this direction (Box 3.3). In addition, the experiences from cities underscore the importance of robust monitoring and evaluation frameworks to allow for progress monitoring and reflexivity.
The Dublin City Council (DCC) developed a Climate Action Plan – Climate Neutral Dublin 2030 – to contribute to the national target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 51% by 2030 (compared to 2018) and achieve emissions’ neutrality by 2050. Being part of the 100 Climate Neutral and Smart Cities EU Mission, the DCC strives to achieving climate neutrality already by 2030.
The DCC recognises that achieving such targets requires whole-of-society behaviour change towards more sustainable lifestyles. To spark and nurture change, systems need to be designed so that sustainable choices are the most convenient options. Triggering such systems change also requires an interdisciplinary and collaborative approach.
For this purpose, the OECD supports the DCC since October 2023 in combining a system and a mission approach into the implementation of its Climate Action Plan and the achievement of the EU mission target, with a focus on the transformation of the public realm for more sustainable mobility choices.
A first sub-mission – or challenge – has been defined, focused on allowing children’s autonomous and safe active movement in a selected neighbourhood in the city by the end of 2026. A transition team – referred to as the Challenge Delivery Team – was established, staffed from multiple DCC departments. Stakeholder workshops were organised throughout 2024, to engage DCC staff and a broader ecosystem of actors into the mission. This engagement strategy has been guided by the three steps of the OECD process on Systems Innovation for Net Zero, which invites stakeholders to:
envision Dublin once the challenge has been achieved;
understand the challenge from a systems perspective (see Box 2.4); and
identify transformative actions to redesign systems and reflect on barriers and opportunities, governance and monitoring mechanisms to enable the conditions for testing and, eventually, implementing those actions at scale.
Source: (OECD, 2024[15]).
Takeaways from mission-oriented policy for net zero practice
The rise of net zero MOPS represents a clear search, amongst policy makers at different levels of government, for new approaches to address and align their policy efforts around the complex challenge of climate change. Yet, these are relatively disconnected initiatives, rarely initiated from the Centre of Government or the entities leading the charge on realising the climate transition targets.
On the one hand, this bottom or middle-up approach can be seen as a promisingly polycentric or decentralised development, by which various efforts at different levels take shape serendipitously. However, such a scattershot approach also has clear limitations.
First, these MOP efforts are largely siloed and tied to specific policy domains and instruments. In particular, most MOIPs for net zero fall into the so-called STI trap. This is arguably the case for perhaps the most well-known of such initiatives, the five EU Missions, which have largely remained constrained to traditional R&I policy instruments, mainly research funding. This largely limit their transformative potential and ability to harness a truly mission-oriented approach, that goes beyond policy-as-usual and can realistically expect mission-oriented outcomes.
Further, these net zero MOIPs are largely disconnected from the national overarching climate targets. There is rarely a direct link between the two, where needs or opportunities emanating from the wider national efforts to meet targets, identify the need for specific and concrete innovation efforts. As evidenced from the analysis of 15 national climate assessments in Chapter 4, almost never do these MOPs have any formal or explicit responsibility to address key roadblocks or deliver on specific emission reductions. Especially in the case of the net zero MOIPs, given that the overarching mission these policies are ostensibly oriented towards is reaching the climate targets, this connection needs to be made much clearer and more distinct. Especially in the absence of any regulatory measures such as fines or bans if objectives are not met, the lack of clear responsibilities towards wider climate targets, and in extension the Paris Agreement, undercuts informal measures such a reputational gains or losses an act as what Sabel and Victor (2022[16]). Addressing this gap could go a long way to raise the priority level and ambition, signal clearer directionality towards non-governmental partners and stakeholders, as well as make claim for needed resources and mandates for these efforts.
By and large, the MOIPs appear constrained by the lack of an overarching mission context which can allow for clear directionality, legitimacy, and responsibility, as well as an enabling governance environment, which would allow them to take a more holistic approach to the challenges they seek to address. City-level MOPs, on the other hand, show promise in seeking to leverage the mission-oriented approach to translate their overarching climate mitigation targets into action. However, performance is fragmented and divergence between cities is great. Also lacking connections to other government levels and broader policies are holding these initiatives back.
References
[11] Bellinson, R. et al. (2021), Practice-based learning in cities for climate action: A case study of mission-oriented innovation in Greater Manchester, IIPP policy report (IIPP PR 21-03), https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/pr2021-03.
[1] Björk, A. et al. (2022), Missions for governance Unleashing missions beyond policy.
[8] European Commission (2024), EU Mission: Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities.
[4] European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (n.d.), EU Missions in Horizon Europe, https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe/eu-missions-horizon-europe_en (accessed on 12 October 2024).
[12] Net Zero Cities (2024), Climate City Contract.
[14] Net Zero Cities (2021), EU Cities Mission Transition Team Playbook, https://netzerocities.app/assets/files/Transition_Playbookv0.1.pdf.
[7] NetZeroCities (2024), Towards climate neutral European cities by 2030.
[15] OECD (2024), Brochure: Towards the Implementation of a Transformative Climate Action Plan in Dublin.
[2] OECD (2024), “Designing Effective Governance to Enable Mission Success”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 168, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/898bca89-en.
[3] 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.
[5] OECD (2023), OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2023: Enabling Transitions in Times of Disruption, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0b55736e-en.
[16] Sabel, C. and D. Victor (2022), Fixing the Climate, Princeton University Press, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv279500j.
[17] Tõnurist, P. (2023), 13 reasons why missions fail.
[9] Ulpiani, G. et al. (2023), “Towards the first cohort of climate-neutral cities: Expected impact, current gaps, and next steps to take to establish evidence-based zero-emission urban futures”, Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 95, p. 104572, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104572.
[6] United Nations (2021), COP26: Together for our planet.
[10] Viable Cities (2024), Mission Klimatneutrala städer 2030.
[13] Viable Cities (2023), Climate Transition in Cities – A Swedish Governance Model.
← 1. See the pitfalls of mission washing, mismatched mission conditions, one–tool missions, mission portfolio blindness, ill-equipped mission teams, under-resourced missions (amongst others) listed in the OECD Mission Action Lab blog post “13 reasons why missions fail” (Tõnurist, 2023[17]).