Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
INNOVATION-CHAIN+ APPROACH TO PROSPECTING
TECHNOLOGY EMBEDMENT IN SOCIETY: AN ILLUSTRATION FOR
POTENTIAL NANO-ENABLED AGRIFOOD SECTOR
TRANSFORMATIONS
Douglas K. R. Robinson (1) (2) and Tilo Propp (3)
1. Managing Director
teQnode SARL
282 rue Saint Jacques, 75005 Paris, FRANCE
douglas.robinson@teqnode.com
2. Associated Researcher
Centre de Gestion Scientifique (C.G.S.), Ecole des Mines, MINES-ParisTech
60 Boulevard Saint-Michel 75272 PARIS cedex 06 FRANCE
3. Independent Researcher
Kerksteeg1, 2801 JZ Gouda, THE NETHERLANDS
tilo.propp@gmail.com
Summary
For those currently seeking to augment agrifood sectoral transformations by directing technology
investments, future-oriented analyses need to be tailored, not only to project technology
trajectories, but to speculate (in a controlled way) how the socio-technical landscape (the various
environments and framing conditions that will shape future innovation journeys) will evolve. The
coupling of socio-technical landscapes and emerging technological innovations is an essential
element of innovation governance and policy. The potential co-evolutions are important to
explore, placing high requirements on the FTA practitioner.
This first draft paper presents insights into emerging nanotechnology supply chains and the
potential co-evolution of nano supply chains, and the agrifood sector. The material has been
gathered qualitatively from publicly available data sources through document analysis, from
more than 50 expert surveys and 30 interviews, and in three multi-stakeholder workshops.
Moreover, the paper presents the beginnings of a more robust approach which those seeking to
make policy decisions on technology and agrifood systems.
The approach presented here is built on a heterogeneous body of work in the broader social
sciences, combining the sociology of expectations with (co) evolutionary theories of technical
change and techno-economic networks. It emphasizes the entanglements of emerging
innovation chains in nanotechnology and how they are shaping (and being shaped by) the
incumbent socio-technical landscape of the agrifood sector. The paper argues that capturing
these entanglements through multiple methods provides strategic intelligence that can be fed
into scenario approaches and provide the backdrop to open-ended forms of roadmapping.
This paper presents a first round approach based on deep case research and on a real societal
challenge. The approach can be further developed to incorporate quantitative analyses, and
can be tailored, arguably, to other areas and global challenges.
This paper is the very first draft and thus is not complete. We take the 4th FTA conference as an
opportunity to discuss with our peers and move forward with turning this into a full publishable paper
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
-1-
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
1 Introduction
New and emerging science and technologies, such as proteomics, bioelectronics or
nanotechnologies, may impact many sectors with a variety of industrial structures. For those
wishing to enable beneficial technology applications stemming from potentially breakthrough
areas of science and technology, such as nanotechnology, this complexity increases as one
deals with prospective or potential paths to innovation and the journeys that will be taken from
idea to technical application well embedded in society. These challenges are compounded due
to the early stage of developments, where promises proliferate around the benefits and risks that
may become reality only as the technology matures. For example, it is uncertain what sort of
sectors will be impacted (or created) by nanotechnology innovations and how the regulatory,
economic and societal landscapes will co-evolve. In this respect the labelling of nano-technology
as an ‘enabling’ technology represents a view that suppresses the enabling (and constraining)
impact of conditions outside technology development.
In this theme, Orienting innovation systems towards global challenges, the emphasis is shifted
from promising technologies stemming from hype & hope in technoscience, a technocentric view
where projections stem from a key enabling technology1, towards a system, challenge or
societal need (a multi-actor view) in which many technology options (and non-technological
options) may provide solutions and can (in theory) be selected as the most suitable option.
This places a real challenge on the FTA practitioner. On the one hand, trustworthy futureoriented technology analysis is our trade, projecting futures from the present, like trajectories
that can be mapped and followed or avoided. On the other, we are now faced with
understanding current and potential socio-technical landscapes where the technology options
are part of entanglements in a multi-actor and multi-level arrangement.
Thus there is a need for scouting the socio-technical landscapes of sectors or systems
for potential technology enabled transformations. This calls for a model that can connect
the technocentric view with the multi-actor view in a way that can capture the current situation
and can then be used to “colonise the future” as part of scenario, roadmapping exercises.
Drawing on the Innovation-Chain+ model (used to assist open-ended roadmapping in the 2nd
Seville conference2 and to inform complexity scenarios in the 3rd Seville conference3) we explore
how to get to grips with bridging the techno-centric and multi-actor view approaches through an
exploration of how nanotechnology may influence and contribute to a key grand-challenge: a
sustainable agrifood sector. Touted as a trigger of the next industrial revolution much FTA in the
area of nanotechnology area focuses on what Michal Roco calls Active Nanotechnology (Roco
1
Many technologies are a priori considered as “enabling” which is of course related to hype dynamics
(Fenn and Raskino 2008) and the resource mobilizing force of umbrella terms (Rip and Voss
forthcoming) and should be considered as such. Examples can be seen in COM 2009 512 from the
European Commission entitled ”Preparing for our future: Developing a common strategy for key
enabling technologies in the EU." Acknowledging national differences, five key enabling technologies
are identified: Nanotechnology, Micro- and Nanoelectronics, Photonics, Advanced Materials and
Biotechnology.
2
http://foresight.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/papers/Robinson%20and%20Propp%20FTA%20Semi
nar%20-%20Session%20Assumptions%202006.pdf
3
http://foresight.jrc.ec.europa.eu/fta_2008/papers_parallel/theme_1/1-1%20Robinson-Paper.pdf
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
-2-
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
and Bainbridge 2004) Elsewhere in nanotechnology (particularly in advanced materials) we see
activity not only in laboratories but all along the value chain of certain industries.
In agrifood the food and beverage packaging sector faces a specific societal challenge in the
form of waste disposal. The volume of waste generated by the European agrifood sector is of
increasing concern; in fact Europe's fruit and vegetable industries generate around 30 million
tonnes of waste a year. Food packaging waste is predicted to increase as a result of an ever
increasing demand for convenience food, and individual wrapping of fresh produce (such as
fruit).Plastic packaging (useful for its water-tightness and rigidity) has been designed with little
consideration for disposability or recyclability, resulting in concerns over the environmental
impacts when they enter the waste stream (Robinson and Salejova 2010). Numerous initiatives
aimed at reducing agricultural waste (or finding novel uses for it) have been launched. For
example the UK Government recently stated that within 10 years, 75% of all UK household
waste should be recycled or composted (Freedonia 2009). Nanotechnologies for application in
the food and beverage packaging sectors have been described as offering potential relief
(Sorrentino et al. 2007) however it is far from certain that these technology promises can indeed
be realized (and in the ways prospected) as they need to be inserted into innovation chains
adapted to both incumbent technologies and regulatory and consumer preferences contexts.
Therefore an opportunity arises to scout the sociotechnical landscape of the agrifood sector to
see how or where nanotechnology may trigger change.
The paper will first provide an insight into the literature and toolset around value chains and
networks, with a view to application for FTA. We present the Innovation-Chain+ approach as a
means to characterise the various arenas of innovation activity that are involved in shaping
innovation journeys and which are therefore important for plausible FTA. We follow the
theoretical section 2 by further articulation the grand societal challenge we will explore in this
study. We follow this with a map of potential technology options, presenting this in the usual
technocentric perspective. This is follow by a reduced section 5, where we use the InnovationChain+ approach to help is explore nanotechnology and the food packaging sector. We close
with some first round conclusions about the need for investment into IC+ type approaches.
.
2 Theoretical background
2.1 Models of actor ecologies in innovation
Innovation in technology-based sectors is rarely done by a single company alone; these fields
are characterized by complex organizational networks which address different aspects of
innovation. The complex division of labour has been modelled in terms of innovation chains
(sometimes called value chains), networks and systems. While some of these concepts build on
each other, they have their relative merits and limitations.
Value chains and networks
The concept of the value chain is used in strategic analysis: as a tool it has been used for three
decades now to analyse the firm, its major competitors, and their respective performances, in
order to identify and address performance gaps (Peppard & Rylander 2006, Porter 2001). A
value chain is ‘the series of activities required to produce and deliver a product or service’
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
-3-
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
(Porter 2001:11). The chain is constituted around the activities required to produce it, from raw
materials to the ultimate consumption of the finished product. Layers in a value chain have been
described in terms of a sequence comprising suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and
consumers. For example, one of the more well-researched chains - the wireless communication
(mobile phone) chain, includes equipment companies; infrastructure companies/network
operators; Steinbock 2003), which interact with a multitude of specialized companies (software
intermediaries; financial intermediaries; content providers; resellers; cf Peppard & Rylander
2006); which in turn engage with the end customer (Li & Whalley 2002). Scanlon (2009) includes
a ‘reverse supply chain’, which re-connects the user with the original equipment manufacturer
whenever phones are returned for repair or disposal. In semiconductor manufacturing, the main
engineering and manufacturing tasks that involve integrated circuit (IC) design, (physical)
manufacturing, and systems integration of these ICs (cf Lee & von Tunzelmann 2005), have
over the past three decades become organizationally separated; different companies address
different parts of the chain (design houses; mask houses; wafer companies; pure-play foundries;
and back-end processing and electronic packaging.
Within innovation chains we observe interactions both within the same layer (‘horizontal’
transactions) but also between layers (‘vertical’ ties), such as logistics management and
contractual arrangements between buyers and suppliers (Lazzarini et al 2001, cf also Saliola &
Zanfei 2009, Omta et al 2001). Both in terms of the actors (organizations and their relationships)
and technologies, chains can be seen as dynamic: they undergo changes related to co-evolution
of innovation, relationships between actors in the value network, services offered (cf the
adoption of new functionalities), and customer relationships (Peppard & Rylander 2006).
The concept of value chains has come under scrutiny for certain limitations (cf Fransman 2002),
and alternatives have been proposed in various bodies of literature, such as network concepts
which highlight cooperative rather than hierarchical behaviours in inter-firm relationships (cf
Peppard & Rylander 2006, Funk 2009, Li & Whalley 2002).
Innovation systems
Another strand of research on innovation actor ecologies, innovation systems research,
integrates (extensive) quantitative analysis with testing of the impact of particular actors or
instruments on the innovation process within the system and relative to other (national systems)
(Lee & von Tunzelmann 2005). Distinctions are made between ia national, local, and sectoral
innovation systems (Malerba 2002). Lee & von Tunzelmann (2005) describe a model of a
national innovation system that comprises five actors (government, industry (firms), research
institutes (public and private), foreign companies, and universities) (Lee & von Tunzelmann
2005). Malerba (2002) distinguishes in his definition of a sectoral system of innovation and
production, firm type organizations (users, producers and input suppliers) and non-firm
organizations (e.g. universities, financial institutions, government agencies, trade-unions, or
technical associations). A ‘sectoral’ innovation system would focus on an industry sector - such
as telecom equipment and services (for case studies of each sector, cf Malerba 2003). Such an
industry sector perspective broadens the firm- or supplier/assembler network-centric view of
value chains to include development- and market-external actors, such as institutions assumed
to be impacting on the dynamics of innovation. The assumption is that the factors impacting the
diffusion of innovations are located both in innovation chains/networks, the market place, and
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
-4-
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
the regulatory regime (including industrial, national, or international authorities that can influence
activities in the innovation system, the marketplace, and/or the regulatory regime; Tilson &
Lyytinen 2004, Ansari & Garud 2009).
The most obvious implication of an organizational network (value chain) perspective on technical
knowledge uptake and innovation is that value creation is cumulative: it necessitates inputs from
many different sources. Further, given market uncertainties, industry’s attitude to research
provided by actors in, for example, the public domain (academic research), is one of selection.
Within a certain risk spectrum it is only some research that is selected for uptake.
The most important question then is how actors come to interact: what are the reasons behind
certain research results being taken up, or certain innovation trajectories being followed? As
most actors do not have perfect knowledge of neither the future nor developments around them,
their uptake behaviour can be described as iterative and tentative: responses and solutions are
being sought. Decisions spring forth from these processes; in order to understand the decisions,
these processes must be studied. The above models, while being able to capture and map
relevant actors and their relationships, do not necessarily provide methodologies to understand
how and upon what decision making at the level of single actors or their networks is based. This
requires further insights from other bodies of literature, such as sociological studies of
expectations.
Innovation Chain+: A mosaic of arenas for innovation and selection
The emergence of an innovation is not pre-determined, it is more reactive and responsive and
‘journey’-like, hence the van de Ven metaphor is very useful here.4 Whilst every innovation can
be likened to a more or less uncertain ‘journey’, it is dependent on the techno-institutional
landscape. This landscape will have different characteristics at different stages of
technology/product emergence and is shaped by broader framing conditions and by anticipatory
coordination on the part of technology developers and promoters, as well as those who seek to
control and select options. The notion of ‘innovation chain+’ is used here as a way of presenting
this situation. It is complementary to the widely used value chain approach, which focuses on
stabilised chains of product development and the horizontal and vertical relationships between
organizations within that chain. The Innovation-Chain+ adds the dimension of ‘lateral’
relationships between organizations that link up in existing/can link up in prospective innovation
chains and their broader ‘societal’ (including governance, regulation) environment. It is designed
to understand the non-linear (journey-like) dynamics of new product creation and thus is useful
for locating and framing shifts within certain areas of the chain, in the framing conditions (see
coordinating mechanisms) or the whole system, the latter being typical for potentially radical and
breakthrough innovations.
Its merits are two-fold:
4
van de Ven A. H., D.E. Polley, R. Garud & S.Venkataraman (1999), The innovation journey.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
-5-
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011

(a) it allows for the positioning of the complexities inherent to the reality of innovations,
paths and landscapes; and

(b) enables the link to sequential models of innovation (reducing complexity to achieve
outcomes).
The ‘innovation-chain+’ visualizes, in Figure 1 below, an innovation as ‘traversing’ a complex
mosaic of arenas of innovation and selection which are affected by broader aspects. Within this
mosaic certain technology options are enabled whilst others are constrained. The arenas for
innovation and selection are shown as bubbles where each arena represents a particular sociotechnical configuration carrying and being carried by the technical option traversing it. These
configurations are entanglements (sometimes regular networks) of many actors, interacting
based on regimes of activities.
Thus any technology has to go on an ‘innovation journey’ (represented in figure 1 as a branching
line) which relates to a broad pathway to innovation represented by the interlocking bubbles in
the centre of figure 1, which are general challenges in research, product development, societal
embedment, etc. As the technology itself journeys through these ‘bubbles’, it encounters
different challenges from which it has to emerge successfully.5 This however can be done in
many more ways than envisioned in purely techno-centric forecasts. The technology (and its
socio-technical network) shifts and reconfigures based on the arenas it encounters, which
themselves are influenced. The IC+ provides a framework for locating data about the present
(dynamic) configuration. It can also be used for future-oriented technology analyses, for
example in for structuring scenario narratives. The IC+ provides a “game board” for locating
emerging technologies and evolving arenas and thus a way of framing scenarios.
For FTA we are interested in what potential configurations are going to stabilize. This requires
an additional step of introducing insights into how the IC+ elements evolve over time: how does
eventual stabilization occur? For controlling our speculations of actions and co-evolutions of
technologies and the IC+ we need some indications of how paths-to-innovation may emerge and
how the IC+ may evolve. Paths to the future do not fall out of the sky; they are based on the
dynamics of the present: there are endogenous futures embedded in the present which can give
indications and insights into the transition from present into future.
5
This is a point which deserves some critical reflection on the notion of ‘emerging’. It is often unclear how
long technologies have been ‘emerging’. Emergence can be better characterised with some notion of
stages of emergence, the IC+ provides successive arenas of action, and innovations can emerge from
specific points in the sequence. Going one step further, linking the arenas (bubbles) and the branching
points (in the innovation journey) to this reflection of characterising emergence would be a useful tool
for technology assessment (and is an exercise currently being explored by the authors).
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
-6-
Figure 1: Innovation-Chain+ as a mosaic of co-evolving arenas of innovation and selection with innovation journeys showing coupling,
shifting, dead-ends
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
-7-
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
2.2 Theory explaining the dynamics of entanglements
The approach presented in this paper has been enabled by research in quasi-evolutionary
studies of technology emergence (Van den Belt and Rip 1987), the role of expectations, Van
Lente 1993), studies of technology dynamics (Van de Poel 1998, Deuten 2003) and
technological transitions (Geels 2002), and path dependence and path creation (Robinson 2006,
Rip, Robinson and Te Kulve 2007). For an in-depth discussion of the relative merits of this
literature (which is not necessary here) we refer the reader to Robinson (2010).
While new (emerging) science and technology introduce novelties, and thus are potentially
breaking up existing orders to some extent, subsequent developments create new patterns that
may lead to stable situations. These developments have been conceptualized in various ways.
So-called ‘emerging irreversibilities’ facilitate specific technological paths – making it easier to
act and interact – whilst constraining others – making it more difficult to do something else.
Emerging irreversibilities can manifest in a number of forms. Entanglements such as sunk
investments (and the anticipations on which investments are based) and industry standards are
some examples. The sociological concept of ‘institutionalization’ captures a large part of what
happens when irreversibilities emerge
When technology is involved, irreversibilities are further solidified in ‘configurations that work’
(Rip & Kemp 1998) - a concept that applies to artefacts and systems, and includes (in principle)
social linkages and alignments as well.
Expectations can give indications of directions and can transform into agendas which shape
action. Van Merkerk and Robinson (2006) show examples from the field of lab-on-a-chip
technology and how expectations have an effect on selection choices of pathways to follow,
enabling some options and constraining others. This can occur also at through anticipatory
coordination.6 Studies also show how expectations can pre-structure actions through
prospective structures (van Lente & Rip 1998).
Paths and other stable patterns in the present enabling and constraining actions and views will
shape further development (not in a deterministic way: there are always choices and
contingencies). Thus, they span up an “endogenous future”. The idea of “endogenous future” is
midway between attempts at prediction (which are always precarious) and the suggestion that
everything is still possible (and it is just a matter of actors deciding on what they want to work
towards).
It is here that analysis comes in: of evolving patterns, of dynamics extending into the future,
including irreversibilities that arise. This is the task of scenario builder.
Already in an early stage, actors use diffuse scenarios characterized by assumptions about
users, markets, regulation, technical progress etc. to anticipate on future worlds (Callon 1986).
When translated into field agendas and search heuristics, such expectations provide guidance to
6
For example coordination efforts of the nanoelectronics industry which would be located in the
coordinating body’s box of the IC+ diagram. Nanodistricts and technology platforms have come about
through institutional entrepreneurship between the framing conditions, the bubbles and the
coordinating bodies.
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
-8-
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
R&D activities. Furthermore, expectations and scenarios are used strategically by product
champions in order to attract attention and resources from other actors (Geels and Schot 2007).
In the (protracted) course of the emergence of a possible new research field, at one stage
networks will emerge: actors connected through various ways and forms, including shared
beliefs, expectations, visions, agendas etc. (Garud & Rappa 1994).These networks – when
stabilized - are both enabling with respect to certain options and constraining with respect to
others. The actors get ‘entangled’ – they cannot move completely independently anymore (Rip
2010).
For technological innovation, other dynamics are important, but once again similar
entanglements to the above have been described based on the notion of alignment, in particular
across contexts and levels (cf Abernathy and Clark 1985, Fujimura 1987). When a novelty is
recognized and introduced in an existing order, this requires (in the same movement) dealignment (of existing linkages and competencies) and re-alignment (cf. Abernathy and Clark
1985, and our extension of their approach by including societal embedment, Rip, Robinson and
Te Kulve 2007).
Alignment across contexts is important for the innovation chains from laboratory to products and
applications, and eventual societal embedding. What has to be done to achieve alignment is
easier to recognize when the actors are known, their relationships functioning, regulation is
largely unambiguous and the technology field is well understood. For new and emerging fields of
science and technology where architectural (radical) innovations might occur (terminology from
Abernathy & Clark 1985), conditions of high technology and market (and societal) uncertainty
are typical. In practice, actors address this situation by ‘muddling through’ and capitalising on
fortuitous events.
Alignment is possible can emerge because actors and activities accommodate to the same
environmental constraints, facing the same “obligatory passage points” (Latour 1987). It can also
be actively pursued, and institutional entrepreneurs will then play an important role (Garud et al.
2007). So-called linking-pin entrepreneurs - actors who can work at two (or more) levels (Rip,
Robinson and Te Kulve 2007) - play a key role in multi-level alignment.7 In an age of strategic
science and high-investment projects scientists and decision makers need to identify possible
and promising directions and options at an early stage. This then leads to attempt of actors and
(not just the formal decision makers) to reduce uncertainty through anticipatory alignment.8
The combination of emerging irreversibilities and stabilising shared expectations (related to
formal and informal future-oriented technology analysis) can be thought of in terms of entangled
activities9, directions to go, emerging but precarious patterns, all of which can be conceived, in
turn, as actual or possible paths. A ‘path’ then becomes an actor’s claim about actual and
7
David Reinhoudt, a Dutch nanoscientist and driving force of the NanoNed consortium, is an interesting
example (see Robinson, Rip and Mangematin 2007).
8
The literature on evolutionary economics of technical change usually takes variation/selection as the
basic mechanism, demonstrating less complexity (in terms of number of levels and actors) than we
consider here (cf Metcalfe 1998, Nelson and Winter 1977).
Entanglements are “associations that last longer than the interactions that formed them” (Callon and
Latour 1981: 283) emphasizing that actors and activities can become mutually dependent: they cannot
move independently anymore. These associations can be related to the ways of handling risk, or of
ELSA, foresight, public engagement and agenda building.
9
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
-9-
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
possible order of the socio-technical world, a claim to which other actors may well respond,
reinforcing or undermining it. The claim may turn into provisional reality. This is how Moore’s
Law (for semiconductor development) started in the 1960s – to become a reference point in
strategic games, and (later) the backbone of the International Semiconductor Technology
Roadmapping exercises, thus reproducing itself.
Looking at emerging and stabilising paths in this way, as ingredients of a complex,
heterogeneous, and multi-level socio-technical world, shifts the attention to the socio-technical
entanglements as the entrance point to study the emergence and co-evolution of new and
emerging technology developments – and nanotechnology developments in relation to the
agrifood sector in particular.
One sees an important element of the dynamics of emergence and stabilization, and one which
can also be an entrance point for consideration of future-oriented technology analysis, because
it puts methodologies like scenario building and roadmapping in their social contexts. It is here
that analysis comes in: of evolving patterns, of dynamics extending into the future, including
irreversibilities that arise. This is the task of scenario builder.
The following section describes the Grand Societal Challenge of food packaging in more detail.
We then, in Section 4, describe the promising technologies in the world of nanotechnology that
may influence the food packaging sector. Through scouting the various R&D activities, a
technocentric map of potential “sector-transforming” nanotechnology options can be given.
3 The Grand Societal Challenge
Historically, packaging has been developed to protect food from heat, light, moisture, oxygen,
microorganisms, insects and dirt. Food preservation has also been a key requirement. In the
past few decades we see an increase in required functionalities of prolonging the shelf life of
foods by controlling microbial, enzymatic and biochemical reactions of the internal environment
of the packaging via a number of strategies such as oxygen removal, controlled release of salts,
carbon dioxide etc.
Plastic packaging (useful for its water-tightness and rigidity) has been designed with little
consideration for disposability or recyclability, resulting in concerns over the environmental
impacts when they enter the waste stream (Robinson and Salejova 2010). Numerous initiatives
aimed at reducing agricultural waste (or finding novel uses for it) have been launched. For
example the UK Government recently stated that within 10 years, 75% of all UK household
waste should be recycled or composted (Freedonia 2009).
The use of packaging is predicted to increase due to

(a)higher standards of living in western countries which has led to the transportation of
exotic foods over large distances leading to a need for more packaging to maintain
freshness;

(b) a general trend towards urbanisation which has created a greater distance between
food producers (rural areas) and the consumer (urban areas); and
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
- 10 -
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011

(c) the increase in working families (both partners in work) coupled with the availability of
refrigerators which has led to a higher demand for convenience food, which increases
packaging.
With these in mind, many national policies are focusing, not on reduction of packaging, but the
management of it via sustainable sourcing of materials and increasing pressure to recycle or
compost packaging waste, leading to a vision depicted in figure 2 below. The effects so to date
have been limited. This is because most sustainable bio-based plastics have poor
characteristics.
Figure 2 The vision of a circular process of material production and waste management is
the thing here.
The area of bioplastics is receiving ever increasing interest because of the rise in the price of
crude oil and natural gas is driving an economic based assessment of bio-based polymers,
rather than environmental or sustainable reasons. Waste Management encompasses new
initiatives for the decrease in agricultural waste (or finding novel uses for it), for example
Europe's fruit and vegetable industries generate about 30 million tonnes of waste a year.
Another example is the recent move in the UK where the Government stated that that in 10
year’s time, 75 per cent of all household waste should be recycled, “Early next year we will
consult on what recyclable and compostable items should be banned from landfill and how a
ban will work,” said a statement from for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).
Another driver is the grand societal challenge of Environmental Sustainability and Agricultural
management: As with all industries, there is pressure needs to be environmentally sustainable to
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
- 11 -
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
be able to be economically sustainable in the long term, thus there is a drive to create renewable
materials, and agricultural based materials show promise here.
Thus high fuel price, plus waste management needs and the grand societal challenge of
environmental sustainability may provide the impetus needed to make a transition to bio-based
plastics.
Thus, the grand societal challenges of limiting packaging waste and sustainable sourcing of
packaging materials has been translated into technological needs:
 Advanced food contact materials (FCMs) incorporating nanomaterials to improve
packaging properties such as temperature and moisture stability, flexibility, barrier
properties etc.;
 Biodegradable10 packaging materials.11
Nanotechnologies offer promising innovations for these broad functional requirements. In
particular, nanocomposites promise enormous potential for a number of these, and we are
seeing the first products on the market. Examples of products include Imperm® for CO2 release
reduction (Nanocor® Inc), Aegis® OX a barrier nylon resin for oxygen scavenging (Honeywell)
and Durethan® KU2-2601 (Bayer AG) for enhanced barrier properties. Examples of biopolymer
based nanocomposites include NanoBioTer® and Degradal® (in development) which
incorporate nanoscale additives for controlled or accelerated compostability and
biodegradability.
The following section outlines the types of “promising nanotechnologies” that are visible in R&D.
10
Biodegradable plastics are defined as biopolymers in which at least one step in the degradation process
is done via metabolism by naturally occurring organisms.
11
There are other packaging innovation drivers which have led to the articulation of other packaging
needs such as active packaging (internal environment control including interacting with food contained
within); and smart packaging (including functionalities such as trace & track and indication of
authenticity).
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
- 12 -
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
4 The technocentric perspective: technologically promising
solutions in food packaging
Here, by way of a disclaimer, we report on the promises of nanotechnology whilst not
necessarily endorsing these promises.
4.1 Nanocomposites
Nanocomposites are the most mature of three nanomaterial options for the food sector.
Nanocomposite materials employed or being developed for use in the food packaging industry
contain a polymer and a nano-additive. Mostly nanoclay particulates are used12, however, other
composites containing nanoparticles, nanotubes or nanofibres are also being developed. We
can broadly divide the types of polymers into petrochemical based and bio-based polymers in
the following way. Most polymer composite materials are based on fossil fuel derivatives.
Polyamides, nylons, polyolefins, polystyrene, ethylene-vinylacetate copolymer, epoxy resins,
polyurethane, polyimides and polyethylene terephthalate. Examples of petrochemical based
nanocomposites already on the market include Imperm® for CO2 release reduction (Nanocor®
Inc), Aegis® OX a barrier nylon resin for oxygen scavenging (Honeywell) and Durethan® KU22601 (Bayer AG).
Research into bioplastics (sourced from wood and crop waste) is offering biodegradable
alternatives. Such biopolymers include: Polysaccharides (such as cellulose and chitosan),
proteins, lipids and their composites. They have other advantages since biopolymers are
excellent vehicles for incorporating a wide variety of additives. On their own biopolymers have
poor mechanical properties (e.g. lipids) or poor water vapour barrier properties (e.g.
polysaccharides), which explains the little uptake in industry. However, addition of nano may
help here. These are emerging, NanoBioTer® (gained regulatory approval) and Degradal® (in
development).
DuPont are marketing a titanium dioxide nanoparticulate (Light Stabilizer 210) to block UV light
and provide a longer shelf-life for food (this is currently before the US regulatory authorities for
use in non-contact food packaging materials); and Rohm and Haas are marketing acrylic
nanoparticles (Paraloid BPM-500) to increase the strength of polylactic acid, a biodegradable
polymer.
The promise of nanocomposites is that they offer improved functionality over traditional
composites and polymers in terms of barrier properties, strength, elasticity and optical clarity.
Nanocomposites may be functionalised to include other characteristics, for example,
antimicrobial activities, visual indicators of food freshness, means of identification and
possibilities which augment the ease of tracking. Another desirable property is sustainability.
Most polymer composite materials are based on fossil fuel derivatives; however research into
biopolymers (sourced from wood and crop waste) is offering biodegradable alternatives. The
inherent drawbacks of pure biopolymers (dependent on type, can include poor barrier properties
or poor mechanical properties) can be mitigated by the inclusion of nanotechnology to form
12
Clay based nanocomposites were developed at the end of 1980s, first placed on the market by Toyota.
During the following decade, researchers began to explore the potential of clay nanocomposites as
food packaging materials (Alexandre and Dubois 2000, Collister 2002, Ray et al. 2006).
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
- 13 -
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
nano-enabled biocomposites (bionanocomposites). Most nanocomposite materials employed,
or being developed for use, in the food packaging industry contain nanoclay particulates,
however other composites containing nanoparticles, nanotubes or nanofibres of metals, metal
oxides, biopolymers (Kriegel et al. 2008, Torres-Giner et al. 2008, Matthews et al. 2002) other
carbon-based materials are also being developed.
Virtually all polymers used in food packaging can be melted after use and re-moulded into
another product. Issues arise when different polymers are included in one product, requiring
mechanical separation before re-use.
For the grand societal challenge, three overlapping of families will be described in the remainder
of this section: (1) bionanocomposites, (2) bio-based nanofibres and (3) edible films
There is technological overlap between these three sub-groups; however, there are clear
distinctions between the three when you begin to look at applications, the manufacturing
process and the environmental, health and safety aspects.
4.2 Bionanocomposites
For many plastics recycling is made difficult as a result of the different components involved,
which means that the item cannot be processed in a single step, but needs to be dismantled and
component plastics separated. A promising approach would be to biodegrade (or compost) the
plastic rather than recycle. Such biodegradable plastics would come from proteins or sugars
which could be derived from animal or plant origin (Robinson and Morrison 2010). Fat (lipid)
films are also potentially applicable too and could lend themselves to directly coat and protect
foodstuffs.
Polylactic Acid (PLA) is widely expected to be the biopolymer with the highest potential for
commercialisation, mainly due to its ease of production from carbohydrate feedstock such as
maize, whey, wheat or molasses (Zhao et al. 2008). Polyhydroxybutyrate is another interesting
biopolymer for industrial applications; it is highly crystalline and low water permeability.
However, in its pure form is has an unfavourable ageing process. Both of these promising
biopolymers have limitations due to some deficient functional properties. When biopolymers
(such as cellulose) are mixed with nanoclay particles, the resultant nanocomposites exhibit
improved barrier properties compared with the pure polymer, and after their useful life can be
composted and returned to the soil(Zhao et al. 2008). Other nanomaterials can be used
including metal oxide nanoparticles, and carbon nanofibres and nanotubes. Other biopolymers
that have been combined with nanoclays include chitosan, starch, casein, whey, and gelatine
(Marsh and Bugusu 2007). Soy protein also has been of garnering interest because of its
biodegradability characteristics and its thermoplastic properties. Limitations include brittleness
and poor moisture barrier properties and thus plasticizers and reinforcements need to be added.
The potential applications vary from stand-alone barrier films to coatings on other polymers and
paper based packaging, to direct coating of foodstuffs.
Such biodegradable nanocomposites could be of great use in other agrifood application areas,
such as the plastics used in agriculture (polytunnels, wrapping for feed, wrapping for hay, etc)
that are either disposed of into landfill or burned by farmers (estimated to be on the order of 6.5
million tonnesper annum, Robertson 2006). Instead of incineration, they could be composted
and returned to the soil.
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
- 14 -
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
The main considerations when using natural polymers are that they often have poor mechanical
strength, and are permeable to water. As with other nanocomposites, significant research still
needs to be undertaken to determine how properties can be best enhanced for specific
applications through the use of different nanoparticulates, plasticisers (some biopolymers, such
as starch, are not thermoplastic) and melt conditions. More will be described regarding
bionanocomposites in the section on edible films.
4.3 Bio-based nanofibres
The following section describes another way of forming biobased nanomaterials, electrospun
nanofibres, which promise improved functional properties compared to bulk biopolymers.
A number of biopolymers including chitosan, cellulose, collagen and zein (derived from corn)
have been synthesised as nanofibres using high electrostatic potentials from various
biopolymers via the electrospinning technique (Frenot and Chronakis 2003, Ramakrishna et al.
2006, Li and Xia 2004). In some cases these have superior properties to the traditionally cast
polymer, including increased heat resistance (Huang et al. 2003), and in addition, mats of such
nanofibres possess a highly nanoporous structure and can be used as support matrixes for
additional functionality.
Zein is a promising biopolymer for packaging purposes due to its strong hydrophobic
characteristics, or in other terms water resistance. In addition zein has good mechanical
properties in nanofibre form via electrospinning of zein (Torres-Giner et al. 2008, Yao et al.
2007).Zein has also been widely studied for toxicity, and its non-toxic characteristics have
enabled its uptake as a coating material in the pharmaceutical industry (Corradini et al. 2006)
An interesting approach of electrospinning blends of zein and chitosan has been reported in
2009. These blends are reported to have great potential for application in active and bioactive
packaging, antimicrobial and antimycotic food coatings and in the biomedical and
pharmaceutical areas. However, one issue at the time of writing is that chitosan still has to have
regulatory approval as a food contact material13, and thus as chitosan processing and research
is expanding, commercial development remains in the production area of the material, mainly for
R&D purposes.
4.4 Edible films and coatings
Novel properties of bio-based materials are being harnessed to create edible and biodegradable
films in a move to prolong shelf life, provide beneficial properties via advanced packaging
solutions and to create a more sustainable industrialised society through reducing packaging
waste. However, harnessing these advantageous functionalities is complicated because of a
number of limitations such as poor barrier properties (gas and moisture permeability), brittleness
and cost (Tharanathan 2003, Azizi Samir et al. 2005, Dalmas et al. 2007). Edible films are layers
of digestible material used to coat food (edible coatings) or as a barrier between food and other
materials or environments (edible films). Food can be coated by dipping into solution, by
spraying or by application with brushes or sponges. Films are created separately and then
applied to the food packaging system.
13
In European regulation, No. 1935/2004, EFSA must grant its approval before a substance is authorised for use in
food contact materials.
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
- 15 -
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
Polysaccharides, such as chitosan, starch and cellulose, proteins such a zein and collagen, and
lipids such as triglycerides and fatty acids, can be used as edible film-forming materials. The
table below shows some of the possible benefits of using bio-based polymers for packaging
purposes. Bionanocomposites created from vegetable and fruit puree and cellulose
nanowhiskers have been described in a recent review by de Azeredo (2009) Proteins that can
be used include casein, whey, collagen, egg white and fish derived protein. Soya bean, corn
and wheat protein also are candidates for edible films producing proteins.
– Edible
– Biodegradable
– Supplement the nutritional value of foods
– Enhanced organoleptic characteristics of food, such as appearance, odor, and flavor
– Reduced packaging volume, weight and waste
– Incorporated antimicrobial agents and antioxidants
– Extended shelf-life and improved quality of usually non-packaged items
– Control over inter-component migration of moisture, gases, lipids, and solutes
– Individual packaging of small particulate foods, such as nuts and raisins
– Function as carriers for antimicrobial and antioxidant agents
– Microencapsulation and controlled release of active ingredients
– Possible use in multilayer food packaging materials together with non-edible films
– Low cost and abundant
– Annually renewable resources
Table 1: Promised benefits of and possible uses for bio-based polymers for food packaging (Rhim 2007)
However, there are considerable differences between the types of biopolymer that can actually
be used. For instance polysaccharide films are low cost but exhibit low moisture barrier
properties. Protein films have advantageous functional properties such as plasticity and elasticity
and good oxygen barrier properties (similar to polysaccharide) and poor water barrier properties
(similar to polysaccharides). Lipid films have good moisture barrier properties but poor oxygen
barrier properties and poor mechanical properties.
Research and development of bionanocomposites for edible film applications is expected to
grow in the next 10 years (de Moura et al. 2009) and the application of bionanocomposites
promises to expand the use of edible and biodegradable films in the agrifood sector (Lagaron et
al. 2005, Ray and Bousmina 2005, Bourlieu et al. 2009).
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
- 16 -
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
5 An Innovation-Chain+ perspective on the enabling conditions and
technology futures of nanocomposites in the food and beverage
packaging sector
Section 4 showed reasonably well articulated technoscientific promises of nanotechnology
stemming from the world of R&D. There are a number of families of nano-enhanced packaging
material options, and many options within each family. Reading section 4, there is an obvious
positive outlook on all options. This is not surprising, by its very nature research is open-ended
and unknown, thus a technocentric view, where a technology option is explored and potential
uses projected from it, prevails.
Moreover, the reasonably well articulated future applications, of these nano-enhanced
packaging material options, align with the diffuse grand societal challenge of packaging waste4
management and sustainable sourcing.
Contrary to many FTA studies on the NANOTECHNOLOGY14 umbrella term, zooming into
actual specific nanotechnologies, we can see that some have already entered markets. As
reported in the above, some petro-chemical based plastics have been reinforced with nanoclays to create nanocomposites, and these have been used in beer bottles.15 It is clear that the
NANOTECHNOLOGY umbrella term needs to be disentangled to identify the different types of
nanotechnologies, their level of development etc. at the level of R&D. In the main,
nanotechnologies (will) form part of microscale and macroscale technologies, the reason it is
often touted as an enabling technology. The enabling character promises to augment
innovations in a wide variety of industrial sectors (agrifood), and sub-sectors (food packaging)
but creates difficulties in the development of regulations because it is generally part of a
system of elements in a product. There are other elements too, how will the material be
processed? Which production method, and what standards will be followed? Will new standards
be created? If biodegradable packaging is to be provided, will there be sufficient infrastructure to
harness the added value of biodegradable packaging “down stream”?
This is why the IC+ approach was developed. To locate the arenas of innovation activity where
choices are made, and value created, connecting technoscientific promises with mult-actor
persepctives. This can be used to both map expectations, and create scenarios and roadmaps,
as has been demonstrated in Robinson and Propp 2008, Robinson 2009, Huang et al 2011,
Elwyn et al. 2011.
14
NANOTECHNOLOGY in capital letters representing the nanotechnology hype,/umbrella term which has
encompassed a whole range of nanotechnology visions from advanced materials and advanced
micro/nanoscopes, to NBIC to nanobots and transhumanism. For an interesting account of visions
and images (and their circulation) see Ruivenkamp 2011.
15
Imperm® technology is currently used by Miller Brewing (specifically Miller Lite, Miller Genuine Draft
and Ice House brands) in plastic beer bottles (Robinson and Salejova 2010)
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
- 17 -
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
- 18 -
Moving from left to reight, emerging innovation in packaging materials pass through different arenas of action being (represented by
the bubbles and annotated brifely in the boxes above) being influenced by a variety of selection forces from within this arena, as well as
coming from the framing conditions (see box at the bottom of the diagram).
Figure 3: The Innovation-Chain+ perspective
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
The IC+ diagram given in figure 3 (a reduced version) illustrates the point that there is more at
play than the “supply-side visions” of technology developers and the “demand-side visions” that
are in circulation about grand societal challenges. There are interlinked arenas of innovation and
selection which we have called the innovation-chain+ (which an innovation has to navigate
through sequentially, although not necessarily linearly). The model of the IC+ is based on a
combination of existing research into the organization of innovation along value chains in
different fields, studies of the relationships between these actors and those in the broader
environment which create external framing conditions which influence the activities in the
innovation arenas, and extensive interview research done by DKR Robinson..
In the figure 3 we have placed six numbers (1) – (6), at positions in the IC+ to illustrate the need
for using (and further developing) the IC+_perspective.
(1) The packaging R&D arena. Here there are many nanotechnology possibilities from
nanofibres, to nanofilms and nanocomposites etc. The driver here is to understand material
properties and develop production technologies. A key challenge at this point of the IC+ is the
choice of R&D lines, which are vast, and how to connect them with needs further down the line.
Historically there have been a few attempts at such coordination, for example the EC funded
SUSTAINPACK and NAFISPACK projects where large consortia of European research institutes
collaborated with the food packaging industry to develop applications based on nanofibres and
natural antimicrobial packaging respectively. A particular challenge is agenda setting in this
arena to provide directly transferable knowledge to the next arena is.
(2) Here, up-valuing promising techno-scientific knowledge relies on financial and managerial
support, whether resource provision in a large firm for a new development line, or supporting a
technostarter/spin-off. A key challenge observed here from interviews and workshops in the
nanomaterials sector is venture capital related to scale up. Still techno-centric, actors here
attempt to chart multiple pathways from their enabling technology into a diverse array of sectors,
to try to mobilise resources. One success story here is Nanobiomatters. a medium sized firm
based in Valencia and the greater Valencia region. Over the past six years Nanobiomatters has
developed R&D and production capabilities for nanoclay powder (Commercial Additive Plant of
2500t/year) and polymer‐clay nanocomposite production (Commercial Extrusion Plant of
4000t/year). Commercial products are currently available, and with €4 million invested in the
development of its manufacturing facilities, and a diverse portfolio of nanobioplastics (including
antimicrobial and gas scavenging functionalities), Nanobiomatters is rapidly becoming a major
player in the field of biodegradable packaging. So there are activities in this arena, though the
strategy is to have a diverse portfolio, such as that of Nanobiomatters which aims at food,
medical and pharmaceutical sectors.
(3) Nanomaterial standards, regulations and occupational health issues are still in flux. It is an
extremely complex issue because of the wide variety of materials and properties at the
nanoscale, the limited knowledge of toxicity of nanomaterials on living systems and their
transport in living and environmental systems, the lack of harmonised standards or guidance for
nanomaterial production. In Europe, where the precautionary principle is prominent, this
unclarity is currently seen as the biggest bottleneck to nano-enabled solutions to the Grand
Societal Challenge of food packaging management. Our findings regarding the anticipations of
actors in this arena show that without a clearer regulatory landscape calibrated to standards
there will be limited incentive to invest, partially because of liability issues, but also due to being
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
- 19 -
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
seen as less than cautious by a consumer group which is already suspicious of food
technologies (cf Genetically Modified Organisms).
There are some indications emerging for nano regulation and food packaging which is making
the situation a little less nebulous.
For example, the Plastic Implementation Measure (PIM) - 14262/10, a regulation on plastic
materials and articles intended to come into contact with food, comes into force May 2011. It will
affect the use of nano-based food packaging in the EU as it states clearly that plastics that use
nanomaterials should be assessed on a case-by-case basis until more information is known
about potential risks they present. Also the regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on materials and articles intended to come
into contact with food. Another element of this is the Active and Intelligent Packaging
amendment that came into force in August 2009 and provides a much anticipated platform for
active and intelligent packaging (both with nano and more broadly; see Regulation (EC) No
596/2009).
However, in Europe, a review of the Novel Foods Regulation collapsed recently (29 March
2011).16 The aim of the collapsed amendment to the current Novel Foods Regulation that dates
back from May 1997 was to ‘allow for safe and innovative foods to reach the European market
faster’ and to ‘encourage the development of new types of foods and food production techniques
(such as nanotechnologies)’. While the collapse of this amendment is not related to the
provisions for nanotechnologies (it was related to genetically modified livestock), the impact of
this recent development is that nano-foods remain unregulated and are not subject to European
labelling requirements for the time being. Food manufacturers are left with no clarity on what is
allowed and not allowed in Europe. Since there is a general move towards the precautionary
principle in European Legislation on foodstuffs, the question asked by food packaging material
developers is how precautionary should we be?
(4) This is where new materials meet incumbent material processing technological infrastructure
and embedded practices. There are key questions such as: How to (and who should) select the
new material option which on the one hand provides novel and desirable material properties and
which on the other hand can fit the current packaging regime (a view of most incumbent
packaging manufacturers) or can provide a substantial return on sunk investments into new
processing technologies. Issues such as machinability make a considerable difference in the
material selection; however this is less of a priority in the R&D arena.
(5) This is where packaging combined with what is packaged (food, drink, nutritional
supplement) meets the retail sector. Here there is already interest in greener forms of
packaging, there is a market for it and recyclable/recycled cardboard and cellophane can
already be seen in high street supermarkets (for example in sandwich packaging). However, the
issue of labelling and standards for food packaging is a big question here. Without clear
guidelines, retailers will be risking garnering mistrust or rejection of their products by consumers.
There is a trade-off and with little clarity on alignment earlier in the IC+ there is little or no
incentive for retailers to accept nano-based packaging materials.
16
http://www.euractiv.com/en/cap/novel-foods-review-stumbles-cloning-news-503610
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
- 20 -
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
(6) This final stage gets to the crux of the grand societal challenge itself. The IC+ positioned
around biodegradable or edible food packaging for reducing waste and using sustainable source
materials leads to an end point...: the waste that needs to be managed! Using figures just for the
UK: Approximately 10.5 million tonnes of packaging enters the UK waste system every year
(DEFRA) more than half of this is related to food and drink. The cost of the raw materials for this
is about 4.5 billion Euros per year and this cost does not include disposal and recovery costs or
wider social and environmental costs such as the accumulation of plasticizers in underground
water, or the production of dioxins by, for example, PVC and paper based packaging materials.
This not only mentions a real incentive behind the diffuse grand challenge (a specific economic
one, emphasised in the framing conditions in figure 3) but also the size of the waste
management problem. The waste management solution (or portfolio of solutions) should be
aligned with the food packaging material options (and vice versa). But each waste management
option requires a large socio-technical infrastructure requiring perhaps a transition in sociotechnical regime (Geels 2002). Incineration and landfill are the major waste management
regimes in place to -date. Concerns are raised whether biodegradable packaging options are
viable if the composting infrastructure at national levels is not in place, not matched, or not
available at the time a biodegradable packaging option is available. In short, these are
misaligned windows of opportunity.
Moving forward with the IC+ - What now?
This section is very much still work in progress. We have reduced the section to be able to give
an indication of the types of analysis we will be making.
We can make some claims about the concrete implications of this analysis. One claim we can
make is that nanotechnology for the agrifood sector (illustrated in the packaging sub-sector) can
go off into all sorts of directions. For example, biodegradable and/or edible films as a coating on
meats or fruit (an alternative to conventional closed atmosphere plastic packaging. This option
would remove the issue of waste management outlined in bullet 6 above, but would requitre a
consumer culture shift away from conventional packaging. Traditional beverage containers
could potentially be replaced by nano-enabled bioplastics, but will the manufacturing
infrastructure be able to handle it? What scenarios can be envisaged to manage the collection
and composting of the packaging? What role will retailers play in the waste management
process?
Selecting these two from a large array of possibilities illustrates that these types of isnights can
me made explicit in the IC+ framework and FTA can be developed based on that. Neither
technical or demand centred forces shape the actual course of potential innovation journeys
from laboratory into society, but forces at play in the many interlocked arenas outlined in the IC+,
plus the framing conditions.
So the first-round implications for the 4th Seville FTA conference? Grand Societal Challenges as
the entrance point to analyse forces influencing the development and societal embedment of
new technologies is ok, but they are just part of a larger system where particular interests,
innovation activities and selection mechanisms (which are located in sequential arenas,
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
- 21 -
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
although we do not claim they are linear) add up to actually shape the emergence and
embedment of the technological innovation.
6 Discussion
Grand societal challenges are vague and diffuse, common to many umbrella terms (Rip and
Voss forthcoming) and constitute only a very abstract pull-force of technology development.
What actually happens, how technologies are applied and how the technology-base of solutions
to challenges emerges, is a matter of more actors and factors than are commonly explicated or
implied in techno-centric visions and forecasts of research and R&D practitioners. Failing to
acknowledge this disconnection between techno-centric visions and the dynamics of their
environment can have negative consequences for future-oriented/prospective technology
analysis. It is the possibilities of connecting technology dynamics and broader societal dynamics
in the context of grand societal challenges - the topic of the Fourth International Seville
Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA) – that we have addressed in the
present paper.
Combining research in a number of social science fields – innovation, expectations, technology
dynamics and path creation – we have presented for a community of FTA practitioners rather
than an academic audience a first round approach labelled ‘innovation chain+ perspective’ (IC+)
on the enabling conditions and technology futures of nano-composites in the food and beverage
packaging sector. The actual shape of the technology embedded in society is contingent upon a
number of factors along the innovation which act ‘laterally’ on some or all elements of the chainto-be. This perspective, which is broader than the original innovation/value chain perspective yet
stays closer to technology dynamics than an innovation systems perspective, is denominated by
the’+’.
The advantage of the IC+ is that it combines different levels of analysis which represent different
bodies of research. It is this combination that has added value, also as it shows to a community
of practitioners how the more esoteric literature of specialized social science fields can be
accessed and integrated into an FTA toolbox. Note that this is a ‘toolbox’ – there is no ultimate
form. The levels of analysis are summarized in table 2 below.
In section 2 we discussed the relative merits of models and methodologies of technoorganizational mapping, ranging from value chains to networks and innovation system. As such
these models do not say anything about their internal dynamics, which in new and emerging
fields of science and technology are often driven by expectations (and shaped by failed
expectations). In sections 3 - 5 we have discussed the rationales and expectations of actors in
the different arenas in the innovation-chain+ diagram. The techno-centrism of these
expectations cannot be trusted for, as section 5 shows, there are other agendas in other arenas
that will shape paths.
While activities at these two layers of analysis provide descriptive results, a third layer extends
this analysis into prospection (level C i. This prospects what different paths into the future could
evolve; the possible entanglements and potential innovation journeys that could emerge. We
have not applied this here as it we have done so in the past, using the notion of co-evolutionary
scenarios (cf Robinson 2008 in the Third International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented
Technology Analysis (FTA) and in the further write up presented in Robinson 2009).
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
- 22 -
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
Whilst levels A and B inform C, we argue that the futures-related intelligence (expectations,
prospective paths, actor-centred or problem centred scenarios) present at level C is more robust
than those at level A and B. This is because level C applies social science knowledge from
expectations studies and also innovation studies (as concerns relationships between emerging
and incumbent technologies) etc. This adds value to the mapping exercises at levels A and B,
and has been demonstrated through scenario exercises (Robinson 2010), in foresight exercises
in telemedicine (Elwyn et al. 2011), and in biosensors and deep-brain implants (Robinson et al.
2011 forthcoming).
Methodologies
Objects
Outcomes
Nature
A
Techno-organizational
mapping
Actors, activities
‘Innovation chain’:
actual horizontal and
vertical links and
emerging chains being
linked, as supply
chains, into the X, Y, Z
chain
Descriptive
B
Rationales/
Endogenous
futures (technocentric;
governancecentric) and
enabling conditions
‘+’: Ongoing
interactions in ‘arenas
of concern’
Descriptive
C
Social
Functions of
expectations;
relationships
between emerging
and incumbent
technologies
‘+’: Connections
between technologies
and grand challenges
are mediated: they
emerge from
interactions between
technically and
socially enabling
factors per future path
Prospective
expectations mapping
science
analysis
Table 2: Levels of an Innovation-Chain+analysis
7 References
Abernathy W. J. & Clark K. B (1985) Innovation: Mapping the Winds of Creative Destruction,
Research Policy.
Alexandre, M., & Dubois, P. (2000) Polymer-layered silicate nanocomposites: preparation,
properties and uses of a new class of materials. Materials Science and Engineering, 28, 1–
63.
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
- 23 -
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
Ansari, Shahzad; Garud, Raghu. 2009. Inter-generational transitions in socio-technical
systems: The case of mobile communications. Research Policy 38 (2009) 382–392.
Azizi Samir M. A. S., Alloin F., & Dufresne A. (2005). Review of recent research into
cellulosic whiskers, their properties and their application in nanocomposites field.
Biomacromolecules, 6, 612–626.
Callon M. & Latour B. (1981) Unscrewing the big Leviathan or how do actors macrostructure
reality and how sociologists help them to do so, in K. Knorr-Cetina and A.V. Cicourel,
Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Micro and Macro
Sociologies, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 277-303
Callon M. (1992) "The Dynamics of Techno-economic Networks", in R. Coombs, P. Saviotti
and V. Walsh (eds) Technological Change and Company Strategies, pp. 72-102. London:
Academic Press
Callon M., Law, J. & Rip, A. (1986) Mapping the dynamics of science and technology,
London: The Macmillan Press Ltd.
Collister J. (2002) Commercialisation of polymer nanocomposites. In R. Krishnamoorti & R.
A. Vaia (Eds.), Polymer nanocomposites: Synthesis, characterisation and modelling.
Washington: American Chemical Society.
COM(2009) 512 "Preparing for our future: Developing a common strategy for key enabling
technologies in the EU". COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, Brussels, 30.09.2009
Corradini, E. A., Souto de Medeiros, E., Carvalho, A. J. F., Curvelo, A. A. S., & Mattoso, L.
H. C. (2006). Mechanical and morphological characterization of starch/zein blends
plasticized with glycerol. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 101, 4133–4139.
Dalmas F., Cavaillé J. Y., Gauthier C., Chazeau L., & Dendievel, R. (2007) Viscoelastic
behavior and electrical properties of flexible nanofiber filled polymer nanocomposites.
Influence of processing conditions. Composites Science and Technology, 67, 829–839
de Azeredo H.M.C. (2009) Nanocomposites for food packaging applications. Food Research
International 42 (2009) 1240–1253
Deuten, J. J. (2003) Cosmpolitanising Technologies: A study of four emerging technological
regimes. PhD Thesis, University of Twente Press.
Dosi G. (1982) Technical paradigms and technological trajectories – a suggested
interpretation of the determinants and directions of technological change, Research Policy,
11 (3), 147-162.
Elwyn G., Alex R. Hardisty, Susan C. Peirce, Carl May, Robert Evans, Douglas K. R.
Robinson, Charlotte E. Bolton, Zaheer Yousef, Omnia Allam, Edward C. Conley, Omer F.
Rana, W. Alex Gray, Alun D. Preece (2011). Detecting deterioration in patients with chronic
disease using telemonitoring: navigating the 'trough of disillusionment' Journal of Evaluation
in Clinical Practice.
Fenn, J. and M. Raskino. 2008. Mastering the hype cycle: How to choose the right
innovation at the right time: Harvard Business Press.
Fransman, Martin. 2002. Mapping the evolving telecoms industry: the uses and
shortcomings of the layer model. Concept Paper. University of Edinburgh: School of
Economics. 2002.
Freedonia (2009) World Bioplastics to 2013.
Frenot, A., & Chronakis, I. S. (2003). Polymer nanofibers assembled by electrospinning.
Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science, 8, 64–75.
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
- 24 -
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
Fujimura J. H. (1987) Constructing 'Do-Able' Problems in Cancer Research: Articulating
Alignment. Social Studies of Science 17(2): 257-293
Funk, Jeffrey L. 2009. The emerging value network in the mobile phone industry: The case
of Japan and its implications for the rest of the world. Telecommunications Policy, 33, 4-18.
Garud R. & Rappa M. A. (1994) A Socio-cognitive Model of Technology Evolution: The Case
of Cochlear Implants, Organization Science, Vol. 5, No. 3.
Garud R., Hardy C. & Maguire S. (2007) Institutional Entrepreneurship as Embedded
Agency: An Introduction to the Special Issue, Organization Studies 28 957-969
Geels F. and Schot J. (2007) Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research
Policy 36 399–417
Geels F.W. (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A
multi-level perspective and a case-study Research Policy, Vol. 31, No. 8/9, pp. 1257-1274
Huang, Z. M., Zhang, Y. Z., Kotaki, M. & Ramakrishna, S. (2003) A review on polymer
nanofibers by electrospinning and their applications in nanocomposites. Composites Science
and Technology, 63, 2223-2253.
Huang L., Guo Y. and Porter A. (2011) Characterising a technology development at the
stage of early emerging applications: nanomaterial-enhanced biosensors. Technology
Analysis & Strategic Management. Volume 23, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 527 - 544
Kriegel C., Arrechi A., Nitt K., McClements D.J., Weiss J. (2008) Fabrication,
Functionalization, and Application of Electrospun Biopolymer Nanofibers. Critical Reviews in
Food Science and Nutrition, 48:775–797
Latour B. (1987) Science in Action, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Lazzarini, Sergio G.; Chaddad, Fabio R.; Cook, Michael L. 2001. Integrating supply chain
and network analyses: The study of netchains. Journal on Chain and Network Science 2001,
1(1), 7-22
Lee, Ting-Lin; von Tunzelmann, Nick. A dynamic analytic approach to national innovation
systems: The IC industry in Taiwan. Research Policy 34 (2005) 425–440
Li, D., & Xia, Y. (2004). Electrospinning of nanofibers: Reinventing the wheel? Advanced
Materials, 16, 1151–1170.
Li, Feng & Whalley, Jason. 2002. Deconstruction Of The Telecommunications Industry:
From Value Chains to Value Networks. Strathclyde Business School: Research Paper No
2002/2.
Malerba, Franco. 2002. Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy 31
(2002) 247–264.
Malerba, Franco. 2003. Sectoral Systems and Innovation and Technology Policy. Revista
Brasileira de Inovação, 2(2), July-December 2003, 329-375
Marsh K. & Bugusu B. (2007) Food Packaging—Roles, Materials, and Environmental Issues.
Journal of Food Science, 72, R39-R55.
Matthews J.A., Wnek G.E., Simpson D.G. and Bowlin G.L. (2002) Electrospinning of
Collagen Nanofibers. Biomacromolecules 2002, 3, 232-238
Nelson R. R. & Winter S. G. (1977) In search of useful theory of innovation, Research Policy,
vol. 6, nr.1
Omta, S.W.F.; Trienekens, Jacques H.; Beers, George. 2001. Chain and network science: A
research framework. Journal on Chain and Network Science 2001, 1(1), 1-6
Peppard, Joe; Rylander, Anne. 2006. From Value Chain to Value Network: Insights for
Mobile Operators. European Management Journal 24 (2-3), April-June 2006, 128-141.
Porter, Michael E. 2001. Strategy and the Internet. Harvard Business Review. March 2001,
1-19.
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
- 25 -
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
Ramakrishna, S., Fujihara, K., Teo, W.-E., Yong, T., Ma, Z., & Ramakrishna, R. (2006).
Electrospun nanofibers: Solving global issues. Materials Today, 9, 40–50.
Ray S., Easteal A., Quek S. Y. & Chen, X. D. (2006). The potential use of polymer–clay
nanocomposites in food packaging. International Journal of Food Engineering, 2(4).
Rhim JW (2007) Natural biopolymer-based nanocomposite films for packaging applications.
Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 2007
Rip A. (2010) Processes of Entanglement, Chapter in Mélanges, offered to Michel Callon,
December.
Rip A., Robinson D. K. R. & te Kulve H. (2007) Multi-level emergence and stabilization of
paths of nanotechnology in different industries/sectors, Workshop Paths of Developing
Complex Technologies, Free University of Berlin, 17-18 September.
Rip, A. and J-P. Voss. Forthcoming. Umbrella terms in the governance of emerging science
and technology: A nexus between science and society? to be published in a special issue of
Social Studies of Science.
Robertson G. L. (2006) Food Packaging: Principles and Practice, Second Edition.
Robinson D. K. R. (2006). The use of the path concept and emerging irreversibilities in the
analysis and modulation of nanotechnologies. Douglas K. R. Robinson. EIASM Workshop
on “organising paths – paths of organising”, Berlin, Germany, 3-4 November.
Robinson D. K. R. (2010) Constructive Technology Assessment of Emerging
Nanotechnologies: Experiments in Interactions. PhD Manuscript, University of Twente, The
Netherlands (forthcoming November 2010).
Robinson D. K. R. And Morrison M. J. (2010) Nanotechnologies for food packaging:
Reporting the science and technology research trends: Report for the ObservatoryNANO.
August 2010. www.observatorynano.eu
Robinson D. K. R. and Salejova G. (2010) Nanotechnology for Biodegradable and Edible
Food Packaging. FOCUS REPORT for the FP7 project ObservatoryNANO, April 2010.
Robinson D. K. R., Huang L., Guo Y. and Porter A. L. (forthcoming) Forecasting Innovation
Pathways (FIP) for New & Emerging Science & Technologies. Under 2nd review for special
issue of the journal of Technology Forecasting and Social Change.
Robinson D. K. R., Rip A. & Mangematin V. (2007) Technological agglomeration and the
emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology. Special issue of Research Policy on
nanoscale research. Research Policy 36 871–879
Ruivenkamp M. 2011 Circulating Images of Nanotechnology. PhD Thesis. University of
Twente
Saliola, Federica; Zanfei; Antonello. 2009. Multinational firms, global value chains and the
organization of knowledge transfer. Research Policy 38 (2009) 369–381.
Scanlon, Robert. 2009. Aligning product and supply chain strategies in the mobile phone
industry. Ithaca/Cambridge: Cornell University/MIT, June 2009.
Sorrentino A., Gorrasi G. and Vittoria V. (2007) Potential perspectives of bionanocomposites for food packaging applications Trends in Food Science & Technology 18
Steinbock, Dan. 2003. Globalization of wireless value system: from geographic to strategic
advantages. Telecommunications Policy 27 (2003) 207–235.
Tharanathan R. N. (2003) Biodegradable films and composite coatings: past, present and
future. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 14(3), 71–78
Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K. (2004). The 3G Transition: Changes in the U.S. Wireless Industry.
Case Western Reserve University, USA. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems,
4(8).
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
- 26 -
Fourth International Seville Conference on Future-Oriented Technology Analysis (FTA)
FTA and Grand Societal Challenges – Shaping and Driving Structural and Systemic Transformations
SEVILLE, 12-13 MAY 2011
Torres-Giner S., Ocio M.J., Lagaron J.M. (2008) Development of Active Antimicrobial FiberBased Chitosan Polysaccharide Nanostructures using Electrospinning. Engineering in Life
Sciences Volume 8 Issue 3, Pages 303 - 314
van de Poel I. R. (1998) Changing Technology. A comparative Study of Eight Processes of
Transformation of Technological Regimes, University of Twente, 02-04van den Belt, H. & Rip, A. (1987) The Nelson-Winter-Dosi model and synthetic dye
chemistry, in: W. E. Bijker, T.P Hughes, T. Pinch (Eds.), The Social Construction of
Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology,
Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
van Lente H. (1993) Promising Technology - The Dynamics of Expectations in Technological
Developments. Ph.D Thesis, University of Twente. Delft: Eburon Press.
Yao, C., Li, X., & Song, T. (2007). Electrospinning and crosslinking of zein nanofiber mats.
Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 103, 380–385
Zhao R. X., Torley, P. & Halley, P. J. (2008) Emerging biodegradable materials: starch- and
protein-based bio-nanocomposites. Journal of Materials Science, 43, 3058-3071
THEME: ORIENTING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TOWARDS GLOBAL CHALLENGES
- 27 -