Mission‑Oriented Innovation Policies for Net Zero

Annex D. Results of five mission-oriented innovation policy evaluations against three types of expected systemic effects

Table D.1. Mission-driven Top Sectors and Innovation Policy

Focusing	Alignment	Integration
The missions themselves are relatively uncontested societal goals and serve as a reference point for all mission actors. Confusion due to the high number of missions sometimes being interrelated. The strategic agendas (MMIPs) are structured according to coherent solution paths also addressing commercialisation and societal acceptance but are criticised for lacking selectivity. The influence of the MMIPs on the activities remain difficult to assess. The sectoral (technology/supply-push) directions still appear to be very strong.	The mission teams are not always operational and some of them can struggle to assert their mandate relative to sectoral bodies. The sectoral ministries are increasingly committed to incorporate innovation into their interventions and co‑ordinate them with other policies. There is still significant variation in the level of commitment and in general these ministries are primarily partners and facilitators in the mission, without exerting leadership. The missions remain more technology-push than demand-pull. The governance structure is too complex, with too many advising and guiding bodies, and overlaps between the mission- and sector-specific teams.	The missions mainly co‑ordinate existing instruments, but the mission approach led the leading ministry to implement many additional policy initiatives for ensuring the actual uptake of promising innovations. One (unique) new integrated instrument in the Carbon-free Built Environment Mission stretched across the whole innovation chain (including high TRLs). It was assessed positively for avoiding discrepancies between instruments within the mission portfolio. Financial commitments announced by public and private actors in missions are higher than in previous periods. However, it is unclear how much of these will materialise and the extent to which they are “new money”.

Source: Adapted from Janssen (2020[1]).

Table D.2. Pilot-E

Focusing	Alignment	Integration
The mission orientation is ensured by the emphasis put during project selection on the relationship between the suppliers and the potential (pilot) buyers and users. However, in most cases the users are not sufficiently involved and several projects stopped before the deployment stage due to the lack of a user.	There is strong alignment in the MOIP since the three agencies jointly select the annual themes and assess the project applications. The joined-up approach of the three agencies resulted in more ambitious and larger consortia being funded and more predictable funding for the projects at different stages of development. The additional co-ordination costs of Pilot-E is estimated at 15%.	The MOIP offers a relevant solution to better integrate the different support measures along the innovation chain, which increase the likelihood that new solutions reach the market faster. The collaboration between the three agencies is effective and results in synergies between their respective interventions. However, the monitoring of projects still relies on each agency’s system (e.g. several reporting channels), which creates complexity and transaction costs for beneficiaries.

Source: Adapted from Menon Economics (2020[2]).

Table D.3. UKRI Challenge Funds

Focusing	Alignment	Integration
The 24 challenges (missions) are clearly linked to the 4 grand challenges set out in the national Industrial Strategy. The multi-stage process for selecting the challenges has been too long (72 weeks from ideas Challenges) and resulted in delays that had detrimental effects on partners motivations. The increasing number of challenges supported by the fund, each with its own objectives, and range of different objectives at fund level risk diluting priorities. Each challenge has developed benefit maps that include what is intended to be delivered as well as how the different projects supported by the challenge will contribute to these challenge objectives.	No specific attention to the co-ordination aspects in the audit (focused on management issues). The fund objectives focus on who receives support from the fund, such as business and academic bodies, rather than on the impacts that projects may deliver (set at a challenge level).	UKRI has faced difficulty recruiting staff to help manage the MOIP (up to 60% under capacity in the most recent years). It proved particularly difficult to hire the challenge directors who co-ordinate the whole portfolio of activities, a key position that demands a rare mix of science and industry experience.

Source: Adapted from National Audit Office, United Kingdom (2021[3]).

Table D.4. Strategic Innovation Programmes

Focusing	Alignment	Integration
Strategic innovation programmes (SIPs) are required to document their theory of change in the form of a logic diagram and to keep this up to date. This has been unevenly used and useful among the different SIPs. The agendas of the SIPs were informed by significant strategic intelligence through market studies and state-of-the-art reviews. This foundational and wide-scoping work provided the opportunity to take a more systemic perspective. The initiative has led to a stronger integration of sustainability goals in the SIPs’ agendas (although it is less clear what effects it had in activities). The initiative allowed SIPs to have a longer term horizon (12-year funding horizon).	The SIPs have had a broader scope composed of diverse groups of actors, value chains and branches of industry. The SIPs provided a platform for strategic dialogue among system actors.	The innovations produced have been limited and incremental rather than radical or system-changing in nature. Most of the effects of the SIPs have been at the level of individual projects rather than at the mission level. Increased integration of research, innovation and higher education. The fragmented nature of the SIP project portfolios and the often-short-term character of the project ambitions limit the SIPs’ ability to effect systemic change.

Source: Adapted from Technopolis (2023[4]).

Table D.5. Horizon Europe missions

Focusing	Alignment	Integration
Missions are timely and inspirational initiatives that provide new impetus to important European Union (EU) policy priorities and help direct EU, national, regional and local policy efforts towards shared goals. The mission development process enabled the co-creation of missions by leading experts and a wide range of stakeholders EU missions have managed to gather large stakeholder communities, including by building and engaging communities at the regional and local levels. Lack of high-level political discussions on progress and for re-orientation where needed.	The mission governance is breaking organisational silos and bringing different organisations closer together in pursuit of the shared, timebound goals. Dedicated cross-sectoral steering and co-ordination bodies enabled new forms of collaboration across European Commission services and levels of government. Several member states such as Austria established interministerial taskforces and national mirror groups to better liaise with the European Commission on national implementation. Many stakeholders perceive the governance system as being cumbersome, complex and lacking transparency. No coherent, consistent monitoring system at initiative and individual mission levels.	All missions have managed to gain some level of interest and commitments from sources of funding beyond Horizon Europe, including the private sector. However, missions benefit from rather limited leverage so far of funding beyond Horizon Europe, and synergies with other EU instruments are too modest. The portfolio of instruments mobilised is too narrow. The involvement of the private sector is low.

Source: Adapted from Angelis et al. (2023[5]).

References

[1] Janssen, M. (2020), Post-commencement Analysis of the Dutch ’Mission-oriented Topsector and Innovation Policy’ Strategy, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands, https://www.uu.nl/sites/default/files/Post-commencement%20analysis%20of%20the%20Dutch%20Mission-oriented%20Topsector%20and%20Innovation%20Policy.pdf.

[2] Menon Economics (2020), Evaluation of Pilot-E, Menon Publication 147 [in Norwegian], Menon Economics, https://www.menon.no/wp-content/uploads/2020-147-Evaluering-av-PILOT-E.pdf.

[3] National Audit Office, United Kingdom (2021), UK Research and Innovation’s Management of the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, National Audit Office, London, https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/UK-Research-and-Innovations-management-of-the-Industrial-Strategy-Challenge-Fund.pdf.

[5] Reid, A. (ed.) (2023), Study Supporting the Assessment of EU Missions and the Review of Mission Areas: Mission Areas Review Report, Publications Office of the European Union, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/61143.

[4] Technopolis (2023), Meta-evaluation of the Swedish Strategic Innovation Programmes, Technopolis, https://www.vinnova.se/globalassets/publikationer/2024/meta-evaluation-of-sip---long-summary.pdf.