Understanding Eco-Innovation Evolution: A Patent Analysis in the

advertisement
Paper to be presented at the
35th DRUID Celebration Conference 2013, Barcelona, Spain, June 17-19
Understanding Eco-Innovation Evolution: A Patent Analysis in the Energy
Field
Vito Albino
Politecnico di Bari
Department of Mechanics, Mathematics and Management
v.albino@poliba.it
Lorenzo Ardito
Politecnico di Bari
Department of Mechanics, Mathematics and Management
l.ardito@poliba.it
Rosa Maria Dangelico
"Sapienza" Università di Roma
Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering
rosamaria.dangelico@uniroma1.it
Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli
Politecnico di Bari
Department of Mechanics, Mathematics and Management
a.messeni.petruzzelli@poliba.it
Abstract
Eco-innovations are being recognized as fundamental means to foster sustainable development, as well as to create
new business opportunities. Nowadays, the eco-innovation concept is gaining ground within both academic and
practitioner studies, with the attempt to better understand the main dynamics underlying its nature and guide policy
makers and companies in supporting their development. This paper contributes to extant literature on eco-innovation by
providing a comprehensive and unique overview of the evolution of a specific type of eco-innovations that are playing a
crucial role in the current socio-economic agenda, namely low-carbon energy technologies. Specifically, we focus our
attention on the patenting activity of different countries and organizations over time, as well as on related policy
initiatives. Accordingly, we collected 131,801 patents granted at the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(U.S.PTO) from 1946 to 2010, and belonging to the ?Nuclear power generation?, ?Alternative energy production?, and
?Energy conservation? technological classes, as indicated by the International Patent Classification (IPC) Green
Inventory. Our findings report patterns of distribution of low-carbon energy technologies? evolution, as well as major
related environmental programs explaining the evolutionary trends, hence revealing how different events and needs
have influenced these eco-innovations? development.
Jelcodes:O33,-
Understanding Eco-Innovation Evolution: A Patent Analysis in the Energy Field
Abstract: Eco-innovations are being recognized as fundamental means to foster sustainable development, as
well as to create new business opportunities. Nowadays, the eco-innovation concept is gaining ground within
both academic and practitioner studies, with the attempt to better understand the main dynamics underlying
their nature and guide policy makers and companies in supporting their development. This paper contributes
to extant literature on eco-innovation by providing a comprehensive and unique overview of the evolution of
a specific type of eco-innovations that are playing a crucial role in the current socio-economic agenda,
namely low-carbon energy technologies. Specifically, we focus our attention on the patenting activity of
different countries and organizations over time, as well as on related policy initiatives. Accordingly, we
collected 131.801 patents granted at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (U.S.PTO) from 1946 to
2010, and belonging to the “Nuclear power generation”, “Alternative energy production”, and “Energy
conservation” technological areas, as indicated by the International Patent Classification (IPC) Green
Inventory. Our findings report patterns of distribution of low-carbon energy technologies’ evolution, as well
as major related environmental programs explaining the evolutionary trends, hence revealing how different
events and needs have influenced these eco-innovations’ development.
Keywords: Eco-innovation; patents; low-carbon energy technologies; environmental sustainability;
environmental programs.
1. Introduction
During the last years, the concept of eco-innovation has attracted an increasing attention across many
countries all over the World as a means to address both economic and environmental priorities. Since the
Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987), where the concept of sustainable development was first presented, an
increasingly demand for a new vision on innovation was claimed (Rennings, 2000; OECD, 2012). In
addition, following the Brundtland Report, environmental protection should not be considered as a limit to
the economic growth, but rather as a necessary condition for a long term development. Furthermore,
technology is deemed as the basis of the economic growth, providing the means to act smarter and more
sustainably (WCED, 1987; European Commission, 2009; McJeon, 2011). Thereby, technology seems to play
a strategic role by influencing environmental impacts, risks, and costs (Kotha and Orne, 1989; Shrivastava,
1995; UNEP, 2003). Accordingly, international organizations, such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations, have recently introduced programs to deeply
study the eco-innovations’ development. For instance, in 2008 the OECD launched the “Green Growth and
Eco-innovation” project, with the aim to better understand how innovation can result into new technological
and systemic solutions for facing global challenges and leading the industrial system towards a sustainable
growth (OECD, 2008, 2009b, 2012).
In this paper, we aim at studying the evolutionary trend of a specific type of eco-innovation, which has been
demonstrated to play a key role in fostering sustainable development and business innovation (Sun et al.,
2008), namely low-carbon energy technologies. Nowadays, these technologies are recognized as a
fundamental means to reduce the cost of stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and lower the
final cost of meeting environmental policy objectives (McJeon, 2011; IEA, 2012), as well as to improve
energy security, emission reduction, environmental protection, and economic growth (Nuttall and Manz,
2008; Harmon and Cowan, 2009; Palma and Coletta, 2011). In this context, while several scholars have
devoted their attention to define, classify, and measure eco-innovations (e.g., Demirel and Kesidou,
2011; Kesidou and Demirel, 2012; Horbach et al., 2012), to our knowledge, a complete picture of
the eco-innovative efforts undertaken by both companies and countries over time is still lacking.
Thereby, this paper aims at developing a comprehensive overview of the low-carbon energy
technologies’ evolution. To this aim, we contribute to the extant literature by building a unique database of
131,801 patents granted at the U.S.PTO from 1946 to 2010 and belonging to the green technological areas
“Nuclear power generation”, “Alternative energy production”, and “Energy conservation”, as described by
the IPC Green Inventory classification. For each patent, we retrieve several data, such as assignees and
inventors details, technological classes, backward citations, scientific references, and forward citations.
Then, we present an overview of patents’ development trend and identify the countries and organizations
mainly engaged in these innovative activities, as well as describe the most relevant actions undertaken by
both private and public organizations in the eco-innovation evolution process. Finally, we provide some
insights on the most valuable patented inventions in the field.
The paper is structured as follows. In the next section, we discuss the use of patents data as proxy for
analyzing technology development and present a brief literature review on eco-innovation. Then, the third
section presents the data collection methodology and the sample. The fourth section contains descriptive
analyses on the patenting activity, and possible explanations for these results. Finally, discussion,
implications, and conclusion are presented.
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Patents as measure of innovation
Innovation indicators can be divided into two categories, namely input-based indicators and output-based
indicators (Rogers, 1998; Hagerdoon and Cloodt, 2003; Dangelico et al. 2010). The former refers to those
measures that look at the inputs of innovation processes, such as research and development (R&D)
expenditures. They have been widely used as a valuable proxy to assess innovation activity efforts.
Nevertheless, these data are available only for specific industries or general applications, and have not a
direct relationship with the innovation outcomes (Evangelista et al., 1998). Consequently, output-based
indicators, which take into account the results of innovation activities, such as patents and new product
introductions, have emerged as a valuable source of information for studying innovative dynamics.
Particularly, patent data have much attracted both researchers and practitioners (Griliches, 1990). Patents
gained much consensus due to a close (if not perfect) link to economic relevant inventions (Dernis and Kahn
2004), as well as have been recognized as strongly correlated with other indicators of innovative activity,
such as R&D expenditures and new product introductions (e.g., Comanor and Scherer, 1969; Griliches,
1990; Hagedoorn and Cloodt, 2003). Furthermore, patent data are publicly available for a long time series
and provide a number of valuable information on the technological content, geographical location of
assignees and inventors, and citations made and received by the patent. Thereby, academics and
policymakers have made an increasing use of patent data as source of information for analyzing innovations
development over time, countries’ technological capabilities, relationship between polices and technological
innovation, and pace of technological development and diffusion (e.g., Griliches, 1990; Jaffe et al., 1993;
Jaffe and Stavin, 1995; Archibugi and Pianta, 1996; Meyer, 2002; Popp, 2006; Abraham and Morita, 2009;
Kayal, 2009; OECD, 2009b; Oltra et al., 2010). In addition, citations received by a patent have been widely
adopted to account for innovation value, hence allowing scholars to recognize breakthrough or radical
innovations (Trajtenberg, 1990; Harhoff et al., 1999; Hall et al., 2001; 2005; Gambardella et al., 2008),
which represent the basis of new technological trajectories and paradigms, as well the main sources of
nations and firms’ competitive advantage (Trajtenberg, 1990; Harhoff et al., 1999). Nevertheless, the use of
patents is not straightforward. In fact, not all inventions are patented or patentable, companies in different
countries or sectors may put different value in patenting activity, and patents do not account for the overall
impact of the inventions (Pavitt, 1985; Archibugi and Pianta, 1996; Hall et al., 2001). However, despite these
drawbacks, patents are still considered the best available source of data to study innovation dynamics
(Griliches, 1990; Hirschey and Richardson, 2001; Abraham and Morita, 2009).
2.2. Defining eco-innovation
The big global challenges posed by the growth rate of the human-induced climate change, as well as the
sustainability goals recently set, such as Europa2020 targets (European Commission, 2010), have led to the
need to redefine the concept of innovation (Rennings, 2000; OECD, 2012). In fact, the term “innovation” is
generally referred to the implementation of a wide range of new products, processes, or organizational
methods (OECD, 2005) without focusing on the related environmental impacts. Differently, sustainability
issues aim at boosting innovative activities towards sustainability objectives (Rennings, 2000; OECD, 2011).
Indeed, despite it has been widely recognized that innovation is the central issue in economic prosperity
(Hargroves, 2005), nowadays innovation is considered as the key factor to pursue sustainable development
targets while continuing to promote competitiveness as well (Nidumolu et al., 2009; OECD, 2010, 2011).
Accordingly, the concept of eco-innovation has rapidly gained much attention across both policy makers and
researchers.
In the literature, different definitions of eco-innovation have been proposed and different terms have been
adopted interchangeably (e.g., eco, green, environmental, or eco-friendly innovation). Nevertheless, despite a
wide range of different definitions, some common features emerge, highlighting that an eco-innovation is an
innovation that primarily contributes to reduce environmental impacts and opens new sustainable pathways
in the market (Fussler and James, 1996; Klemmer, 1999; Andersen, 2008; Arundel and Kemp, 2009; OECD,
2009a; European Commission and EACI, 2011). In particular, several debates on eco-innovation have
focused on topics that directly address environmental technologies (European Commission, 2004; Stern,
2007), recognized as the keys to guarantee the co-existence of economic growth and environmental progress
(Shrivastava, 1995; OECD, 2000). Specifically, technologies aimed at reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
emissions
and
energy
consumption,
as
well
as
technologies
devoted
to
restructure
the
global energy system (e.g., solar cells, electric engines) have been deemed to play a crucial role in fostering
sustainable development and business innovation (e.g., Sun et al., 2008; Messeni Petruzzelli et al., 2011).
Accordingly, in this paper we analyze a specific type of eco-innovation, namely low-carbon energy
technologies.
2.3. Patents as measure of eco-innovation
In the literature, there are many examples of using patent data to study eco-innovation due to the opportunity
of identifying technologies developed in a specific technological field (OECD, 2008; Oltra et al., 2010). For
instance, Pilkington et al. (2002) used a sample of 268 U.S. patents in the IPC class “Electric propulsion with
power supplied within the vehicle” (IPC code B60L/11) in order to analyze the development of the electric
vehicle. Brunnermeier and Cohen (2003) provided evidences on the increased development of ecoinnovations by U.S. manufacturing firms, as reflected by patent count, in response to the increment in
pollution abatement expenditures, especially in internationally competitive industries. Sun et al. (2008)
analyzed the temporal and spatial distribution of eco-patents in China. In particular, the authors found that
the development of environmental technologies is particularly relevant in the East of China, where they have
shown an increasing application of new patents, although still lagging in a global perspective. In addition,
Oltra and Saint Jean (2009) used patent applications in order to understand the competition among
companies in the development of engine technologies for low emission vehicles. The OECD (2011) included
patent data in its study to analyze environmental technologies’ diffusion and transfer. Finally, Leu et al.
(2012) studied the patenting activity in the field of bio-fuel and bio-hydrogen energy from 2000 to 2011
through the use of patent bibliometric analysis. These studies, however, offer a partial scenario to policy
makers and companies in explaining the dynamics underlying eco-innovation evolution. Principally, they
relate to a small sample of patents, which could be not so relevant to bring out significant results.
Furthermore, they refer to a bounded geographic area or a limited time period, which cannot allow to depict
a complete scenario of innovative efforts in eco-innovations’ development. Finally, most studies focus their
attention to a specific sector or technological class, so limiting the generalizability of their outcomes.
Our paper extends previous studies through the creation of a wide and unique database that collects all
patents related to eco-innovation activities in the energy field, by including all the main technological
energy-related categories and their subclasses. Hence, this allows us to more deeply analyze the differences
across various types of eco-innovation. In addition, our database collects patents filed from 1946 to 2010,
hence giving us the possibility to trace the entire history of eco-innovation’s development in the energy field
starting from its origin. Furthermore, the considered patents are granted to organizations spread all over the
World, hence making us able to capture differences among countries and organizations’ eco-innovative
capabilities. Finally, we also offer a nuanced picture of breakthrough eco-innovations in the energy field.
3. Data and Methodology
We employ patent data to investigate the main dynamics characterizing the development of eco-innovations,
as well as their breakthrough nature. Differently from previous studies, we refer to the IPC Green Inventory
in order to collect patented technologies providing environmental benefits, rather than other less rigorous
approaches such as those based on keywords (Oltra and Saint James, 2009; Leu et al., 2012), which suffer
from the drawbacks that the main concept may be unrelated to the selected keywords or that
a particularly relevant text may not contain the key words being searched, and those based on the choice of
some selected technological classes (Pilkington et al., 2002) instead of a common accepted classification.
The IPC Green Inventory was launched in 2008 by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to
create a concordance between the IPC classification and Environmentally Sound Technologies (ESTs), as
defined in Chapter 34 of Agenda 21. Accordingly, the IPC Green Inventory takes into account seven
different technological classes, in turn divided into hierarchical sets of subclasses. Each subclass is linked
with the most relevant IPC code(s), as identified by a panel of experts 1. In particular, we focused on the
categories related to the energy field, namely, “Nuclear power generation”, “Alternative energy production”,
and “Energy conservation”. This approach allows us to rely upon consistent and rigorous criteria to identify
low-carbon energy patents and provides a large sample upon which conducting our analyses.
Then, we searched for patents granted at the U.S.PTO. and belonging to the selected technological classes.
Thus, we identified 131,809 patents granted from 1946 to 2010. For each patent, we collected relevant data,
such as title, filing date, issue date, number of claims, number of backward, forward and scientific citations,
inventors and assignees’ details (name, city, state, and country), and technological fields. To identify
breakthrough eco-innovations we used patent forward citations, which have been widely adopted in the
literature to assess innovation value and impact (e.g., Trajtenberg, 1990; Harhoff et al., 1999; Hall and
Trajenberg, 2000; Hall et al., 2005; Gambardella et al., 2008). Indeed, patent citations are largely employed
to evaluate differences in patent quality, especially in large datasets where in-depth qualitative evaluations of
individual patents are very hardly (NREL, 2011). Nevertheless, the literature has questioned the use of
forward citations, by noticing that older patents are more likely to be cited than younger ones (e.g., Hall et
al., 2001), hence calling for solutions to avoid such a bias. Accordingly, we calculated the citation rate per
year in order to remove the effects of respectively patent age. Furthermore, comparing the samples sorted by
citation rate and number of forward citations (top 1, 3, and 5 percent of our sample), we found at least in the
90% of cases the same patents for each category, hence increasing our confidence in the selection criteria.
1
See http://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/en/est/
Hence, we considered highly cited patents as breakthrough technological innovations (e.g.,Ahuja and
Lampert, 2001; Phene et al., 2006; Singh and Fleming, 2010).
4. Analysis and Results
In this section, we provide a comprehensive overview of eco-innovation evolution in each technological
category, by focusing on the development trends of patented low-carbon energy technologies. Specifically,
we used patent count as a measure of the innovative effort (Zoltan et al., 2002; Singh, 2008), the average
number of scientific citations to approximate the willingness of inventors to build upon science (e.g., Narin
et al., 1997; Meyer, 2000; Callaert et al., 2006; Czarnitzki et al., 2011), the number of forward citations as a
proxy of the quality and subsequent impact of an invention (e.g., Trajtenberg, 1990; Harhoff et al., 1999;
Hall and Trajenberg, 2000; Hall et al., 2005; Gambardella et al., 2008), the main assignee information to
analyze development trends at organization level, and, finally, the main inventor state in order to proxy the
geographical origin of an invention (Sharif, 1986; Deyle and Grupp, 2005). As time scale, we used the filing
year, since it captures the invention development period better than the issue year (Verspagen and Loo,
1999). However, the time lag between application and issue may be even large. Hence, patents filed more
recently generally have less likelihood to be granted at the time of data retrieval. Thus, the last ten year
analysis is used more for comparison than for an actual trend evolution analysis. Finally, we also referred to
major environmental programs and geopolitical circumstances in order to better understand evolutionary
trends of low-carbon energy technologies as a result of national and international policies, as well as to
highlight historical events and private sector initiatives that may have fostered such innovations.
4.1. Nuclear power generation
This main class is divided into two different subclasses, namely “Nuclear engineering” and “Gas turbine
power plants using heat source of nuclear origin”. However, the latter has only a negligible contribution in
explaining the nuclear energy eco-innovations’ evolution, as revealed by the low share of patents (0.3% of
the total amount in the field). Thereby, we will analyze “Nuclear power generation” technologies without
differentiating the two subclasses.
Figure 1 presents the patenting application activity since 1946, as measured by patent count per year, both
globally and per different geographical regions (U.S., Europe, Japan, and BRIC - Brazil, Russia, India, and
China). The global trend (indicated by “ALL”) shows a sharp growth of the number of patents in the 1970s.
Furthermore, almost all the analyzed countries contribute in the “Nuclear power generation” technological
development in its first coming, except for BRIC. This trend could be explained by examining geopolitical
issues occurred in those years. In fact, while nuclear energy and nuclear weapons technologies were closely
related to military aspirations during World War II, since mid-1950s some governments started to reorient
countries’ resources towards the development of nuclear power plants for commercial purposes. Thus, such
commercialization efforts pushed organizations in protecting their inventions to gain greater profits. In
addition, in 1967 the Arab-Israeli War (also known as Kippur War) caused a serious petrol crisis, when the
Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) proclaimed an oil embargo. Thereby,
Western countries increased their investments in nuclear power, in order to face such a energy crisis
(Anadòn, 2012). A number of reactors, in fact, became operational all over the World. To name few
examples, in 1971 diverse commercial nuclear power plants were in full operation in the U.S.. In
Kazakhstan, the world’s first commercial prototype fast neutron reactor (the BN-350) started up in 1972.
Also European countries, such as France, Italy, Germany, and UK saw the birth of many reactors in those
years. Particularly relevant was the action took in place by the French Prime Minister Pierre Messmer in
1974, when he declared the so named “Messmer Plan”' with the aim of generating from nuclear power the
whole France’s electricity need (Sovacool et al., 2012).
Figure 1 Trend of “Nuclear power generation” patent applications.
Furthermore, the graph depicts an alternate patenting activity trend across the countries during the period
from 1976 to the mid-1990s. Particularly, it reflects that patenting activity in Europe fell down immediately
after 1988, whereas it grows in the U.S. and especially in Japan, which assumed a predominant innovative
role in this field. Explanations may be identified in a number of different reasons that caused some concerns
in the use of nuclear power, such as the reduction of the oil price in the early 1980s and some nuclear
accidents, like the Three Mile Island incident in Pennsylvania in 1979 and the well-known Cernobyl disaster
in 1986. Nevertheless, at global level the effects produced were not the same. In fact, while some countries
drastically reduced their attention towards nuclear power and R&D efforts in the field, others continued to
invest. For instance, despite Italy accounted for several reactors, nuclear energy was totally abolished by a
public referendum in 1987. Moreover, at the end of 1989 the UK government stopped the build of nuclear
stations, and in August 1986 Germany approved a resolution to abandon nuclear power within ten years.
Differently, other nations still promoted nuclear energy. Indeed, the project International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor (ITER) represents an important signal in that direction. ITER was a research and
engineering project signed in 1985 by Soviet Union, the U.S., Japan, and the European Union and launched
in 1988 with the aim to have a full scale production of electricity from power plants.
Finally, Figure 1 depicts another increase in patenting activity starting from 1996, which seems to highlight a
renewed interest in the nuclear power in Europe, Japan, and some other countries (e.g., South Korea and
Israel). This probably finds its roots in the rise of developing economies that started investments in that
direction. Indeed, that period is recognized as “nuclear renaissance” just because of a new interest in the
nuclear power industry driven by the rising of fossil fuel prices and environmental concerns (Nuttall, 2005).
Thereby, despite some incidents happened around the World, a third generation of reactor was developed
during these years. The first of such reactors was commissioned in Japan (World Nuclear Association, 2009).
In addition, in 1999, in the U.S. the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) was established in order to
foster collaborative researches in high technological nuclear solutions. More recently, other countries started
nuclear energy programs, such as China, South Korea, and India that, joined the ITER project. Finally,
several states, particularly from Africa, are currently carrying on nuclear power programs in this “nuclear
renaissance” scenario, mainly pushed by the abundant uranium resources IAEA (2005).
In Figure 2, we examined the global patent share across countries by trying to highlight the other relevant
contributors. As noted in the previous graph, the three main actors are the U.S., Japan, and European
countries. Within European countries, France and Germany are the most innovative. Looking for other
contributors, we checked for the BRIC innovative efforts, due to their significance in the current and future
economic scenario. However, the analysis points out that they are still not so relevant in R&D activities in
this specific field. Finally, we highlighted two other important actors, namely Korea and Israel. While it is
reasonable that South Korea may be involved in developing nuclear technologies due to its entry in the ITER
project, Israel has no nuclear power plants, hence making these technologies originating from researches
conducted in the military field.
Figure 2 “Nuclear power generation” eco-innovation patent
share by geographical area.
Figure 3 “Nuclear power generation” scientific citations analysis.
By analyzing the citations’ rate of scientific documents made by all patents, it turned out an interesting
aspect of the innovation activity. Specifically, by looking at the graph shown in Figure 3, where the y-axis
reports the average number of scientific citations made by all patents in a specific year, it is possible to note
that, before 2002, inventors tend to cite only patent documents. Differently, in recent years, references made
to scientific literature have grown. Thus, it is possible to observe how from 2002 organizations have changed
their approach in research activities, shifting to a closer relationship between theoretical and applied research
than in the past. In turn, this may depends on the strengthening of the link occurring between science and
technology. This is in according to previous studies that highlight the positive influence of basic science for
economic growth (Jaffe 1989; Adams, 1990) and new technologies’ development (Narin et al., 1997). Main
reasons have been recognized in the key role of science in fostering technological advances by providing
new technological ideas (Brooks, 1994), and by expanding firms’ absorptive capacity (Cockburn and
Henderson, 1998). In particular, looking at nuclear technologies, this linkage could be referred to the need of
new materials and chemical processes that can meet safety and efficiency goals. Thus, basic research on
materials science, chemistry and physics provides significant opportunities that may have broad impacts on
nuclear power future (U.S. Department of Energy, 2006).
Figure 4 reveals the top 10 organizations in terms of number of granted patents, operating both in public and
into private sectors. Each bubble identifies an organization and its dimension represents the number of
patents successfully filed by the organization. Moreover, in each bubble is inserted the flag of the country
where the organization is located. In addition, other two measures were employed to enrich the analyses. In
particular, the first one (x-axis) aims at indicating in which period an organization has undertaken the major
efforts in developing nuclear technologies. Thus, we calculated the average year in which each company has
filed its patents. The second one (y-axis), instead represents the quality of the inventive efforts as measured
through the average number of forward citations in order to estimate the impact of organizations’
innovations. Results point out two main aspects. First, as we mentioned earlier in the paragraph, public
sector, mainly represented by the U.S. government and the Commissariat à l'énergie atomique, has a
significant role in supporting and pushing these types of power generation method. The effort devoted by
public organizations is largely focused in the first period of nuclear power commercial use, whereas later in
time private companies have assumed a major role. This trend confirms the importance of public research in
exploring innovative technological solutions, hence opening the doors towards their subsequent exploitation
by the private industrial sector (e.g., Griliches, 1979; Adams, 1990; Mansfiled, 1991; Rosenberg and
Nelson, 1994; Cohen et al., 2002; OECD, 2007). Second, high valuable patents are mainly owned by actors
located in the U.S. and their innovative activity is concentrated before the 1990s, whereas after this cut-off
point (maybe related to the Cernobyl accident) the development of nuclear solutions is quite homogeneous
across Europe, U.S., and Japan, while the innovative quality and impact seem to decrease.
Figure 4 Top 10 organizations in “Nuclear power generation” class with the highest patent intensity, as represented by
the bubbles, and related period of the highest patenting activity (x-axis) and outcome quality (y-axis).
Then, we also showed the temporal period when breakthrough eco-innovations in the “Nuclear power
generation” class were filed, and their geographical distribution. Specifically, Figures 5a shows that high
valuable innovations are owned almost totally by the U.S. and European countries, being these pioneers in
the adoption nuclear plants for commercial purposes. Furthermore, Figure 5b reveals that breakthrough ecoinnovations were mainly filed between 1970 and 1976, hence showing a reduction of the innovation value
after this period. A possible explanation may be related on the necessity to make previous solutions safer
rather than develop really new ones. Indeed, organizations tended to be more focused on the exploitation of
existing technological solutions in order to extend life and reliability of current reactors, enable nuclear
energy to meet climate change goals, develop sustainable nuclear fuel cycles, and manage nuclear waste (INERI, 2011).
Figure 5a “Nuclear power generation” breakthrough
eco-innovation patent share by geographical area.
Figure 5b “Nuclear power generation” breakthrough ecoinnovation’s development trend.
4.2. Alternative energy production
“Alternative energy production” class comprehends 13 subclasses. Firstly, we present the patenting activity
as a whole without discerning the different categories. Then, we provide a brief analysis for each subclass.
As shown in Figure 6, the global patenting activity (indicated by “ALL”) in the alternative energy field
presents three clear different trends. It grew in the early 1970s. Then, it shows a slow decrease till the end of
1980s, after which a still growing trend is visible. As we noted in paragraph 4.1, the initial growing trend
could be explained by considering the oil price shock triggered by OAPEC oil embargo that contributed to
create awareness about the limits of global resources in respect of energy. Indeed, this concern attracted
funds and concerted efforts for the development of new solutions through which untapped renewable
resources may be harnessed on a large scale to partially replace the use of fossil fuels. The R&D
expenditures for renewable resources were, in fact, equal to $65 million in 1974, while they reached a peak
of about $2 billion in 1980 (Sellers, 2004). In addition, Figure 6 depicts a common trend for each country
under analysis.
Figure 6 Trend of “Alternative energy production” patent applications.
Nevertheless, the enthusiasm towards renewable energy went on through the mid-1980s, but after the oil
prices fall, a season of stagnation lasted for almost two decades. As a result, R&D efforts collapsed to less
than a third by 1987 (Sellers, 2004). Furthermore, as we also showed in paragraph 4.1, the period from the
mid-1980s to mid-1990s saw the pursuit of the investments made in nuclear power (Jacobson and Johnson,
2000). Thereby, especially in the U.S., which more than other countries suffered from the oil embargo, after
the Kippur war (1973), the innovative efforts towards alternative energy solutions drastically decreases.
Finally, the increasing trend characterizing the last two decades can be reasonable explained by the perceived
growing economic opportunities and the rising attention on climate change, as well as the scarcity of crude
oil in the West countries. Indeed, several actions were made by different countries and organizations. For
example, in 1988, the United Nations established the International Panel on Climate Change in order to
assess the scientific, technical, and socio-economic information for understanding the risk of human-induced
climate change. Moreover, following what emerged during the United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment (1972) about global environmental problems, several conferences took place in order to address
the problem of sustainable development and foster new innovative efforts regarding the improvement and
renewal of national energy systems as well. To name some examples, the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (1992)addressed issues related to environmental, social and economic
sustainability. Particularly, as an outcome of the conference, it was signed the Agenda 21, which highlighted
the relevance of conservation and management of resources, as well as the importance of using and diffusing
technologies with good environmental performances in several sectors, especially referring to energy issues.
More recently, the Johannesburg Declaration on Health and Sustainable Development (2002) stressed over
the concept of sustainable development and particularly aimed at triggering actions to access “[…] to
reliable, affordable, economically viable, socially acceptable and environmentally sound energy services and
resources, taking into account national specificities and
circumstances” (UN, 2002 p. 11). Other
international treaties, such as the Maastricht Treaty (signed in 1992), with the attempt to promote stable
growth while protecting the environment, the Amsterdam Treaty signed (in 1997), and the ratification of the
well-known Kyoto Protocol in 1997, further set the basis for a change in the energy system.
Figure 7 “Alternative energy production” patent share by
geographical area.
Figure 8 “Alternative energy production” scientific
citations analysis.
Figure 7 shows the leading countries in patenting alternative energy technologies. It emerges that the U.S.,
Europe, and Japan represent the most innovative countries. Differently, BRIC are not among the top
patenting countries, despite they strongly rely on clean energy (Lewis, 2007; Levi, 2010). This may suggest
that those countries mainly adopt technology transfer systems, such as the Clean Development Mechanism
defined in the Kyoto Protocol, and knowledge spillovers from developed countries to adopt alternative
energy technological solutions, rather than being directly engaged in their creation (Koefoed and Buckley,
2008; Schneider et al., 2008).
As made before, Figure 8 aims at showing the linkage between basic and applied research. The graph depicts
that, before 1991, patent references are mostly directed to patent documents. Differently, later on a high
propensity in citing also scientific publications emerges. This is in according to some actions taken place
starting from that period. For instance, since the early 1990s the Department of Energy fostered basic
research in the energy field in order to enhance technological development (EIA, 1998). Moreover, starting
from the same years, the Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development, created by
the European Union, funded projects in order to support and encourage research and technological
development in the energy field. More recently, the International Science Panel on Renewable Energies and
the Energy Innovation Hubs were established in order to integrate research centers that combine basic and
applied research and provide analysis and strategic guidance for renewable energy R&D efforts worldwide.
Figure 9 Top 10 organizations in “Alternative energy production” class with the highest patent intensity, as represented
by the bubble dimension, and related period of the highest patenting activity (x-axis) and outcome quality (y-axis).
Following the same criteria used in the previous paragraph, we examined the top 10 assignees by looking at
the number of granted patents (see Figure 9). Firstly, the chart shows that, despite governments foster ecoinnovative actions, no national institution seems to strongly affect the patenting activity in this class.
Secondly, companies have mainly produced high cited patents at the beginning of the development phase,
despite later a greater amount of technological solutions has been patented. Explanations may depend on the
fact that nowadays companies are exploiting established technologies instead of developing new ones.
Finally, the figure also reveals that the University of California appears among the top ten organizations,
hence confirming the importance of relationships between universities and companies (e.g., Saxenian, 1994;
Audretsch et al., 2005; Messeni Petruzzelli, 2011).
Figures 10a and 10b present where and when breakthrough eco-innovations have been developed,
respectively. The former highlights that innovative efforts made in the U.S. figured out as the most relevant.
The latter confirms that the most valuable patents were filed between 1973 and 1979, which is the first stage
of the technology’s development.
Figure 10a “Alternative energy” breakthrough ecoinnovation patent share.
Figure 10b “Alternative energy” breakthrough
innovation’s development trend.
We extended the analysis of “Alternative energy production” technologies by considering their specific
subclasses. Specifically, we divided them into two different categories by distinguishing the term
“renewable” from the wider “alternative”. Accordingly, we referred to renewable energy innovations as
those that rely on resources that can be totally replaced or are always naturally available, as well as are
practically inexhaustible (Gicquel, 2011), as sunlight, wind, water, and geothermal heat. Differently, we
considered non-renewable energy innovations as those solutions that allow the production of energy without
the undesirable consequences of the burning of fossil fuels, but still require physical and chemical processes.
Tables 4a and 4b show the different subclasses of renewable and non-renewable energy technologies,
respectively, and the related innovative activity for each of them, both globally and within different
geographic areas. Looking at Table 1a, it is worthy of note that renewable energy technologies only account
for the 26,14% of all inventions and that the 18% of them is related to solar energy technologies.
Furthermore, analyses depict that each country contributes in a similar way to the development of these
innovations. Indeed, for each subclass, the U.S., Europe, and Japan are the leading innovative countries,
while a scant contribution is provided by BRIC, Taiwan, Australia, and South Korea. Table 1b points out the
relevance in the “Alternative energy production” technology portfolio of bio-fuel technologies, which
represent almost the 46,73% of the overall eco-innovations. Probably, this is due to the need of replacing
fossil fuels with solutions that do not suffer from the number of limitations linked to the production of
energy by renewable sources, such as the variability of energy supply (Masini and Menichetti, 2012) and the
high level of investments required (Painuly, 2001). In addition, innovative efforts’ distribution across
countries is similar to that seen in Table 1a except for “OPoUH”, “Fuel cells”, and “Geothermal energy”
classes, where Japan is more innovative than Europe. This could be explained by comparing the geological
conditions of the two regions. In fact, most active geothermal resources are usually found along major plate
boundaries where earthquakes and volcanoes are concentrated. Usually, this area encircles the Pacific Ocean
(Glassley, 2010). Thus, Japan is actually a better candidate for this solution. Moreover, the high development
of fuel cells technologies was triggered by a government funded demonstration project together with
multiple manufacturers, such as Panasonic, Toshiba, and Eneos, which dedicated to supply the commercial
market installing over 5000 residential fuel cell systems to provide heat and power in homes. Nowadays, in
fact, thousands of residential fuel cell systems are being sold in Japan (IPHE, 2010).
Table 1a Total patent share and percentage of patents owned by country for “renewable” technologies.
RENEWABLE
TECHNOLOGIES
Patent
share
US
JP
EU
BRIC
TAIWAN
AUS
KOR
OTHERS
Total by
geographical
area
Hydro energy
4,23
55,38
14,09
23,53
0,42
1,44
0,73
1,65
2,75
100
Ocean Thermal
Energy Conversion
(OTEC)
0,09
82,93
2,44
13,41
0
0
0
0
1,22
100
Wind energy
2,23
62,16
4,72
26,51
0,7
2,28
0,84
0,89
1,89
100
Solar energy
18,26
63,68
14,49
15,04
0,23
1,92
0,95
1,6
2,08
100
Geothermal energy
1,33
72,7
11,04
8,26
0,35
2,35
1,74
0,87
2,70
100
Total
26,14
Table 1b Total patent share and percentage of patents owned by country for “non-renewable” technologies.
NONRENEWABLETECHNOLOGI
ES
Paten
t
share
Bio-fuels
46,73
Integrated Gasification
Combined Cycle (IGCC)
0,23
Fuel cells
9,61
Pyrolysis or gasification of
biomass
Harnessing energy from
manmade waste
Other Production or Use of
Heat (OPoUH)
2,37
11,13
0,58
US
57,2
3
62,0
9
55,2
7
60,2
8
65,7
7
52,3
8
JP
EU
BRIC
TAIWAN
AU
S
KOR
OTHERS
Total by
geographic
al area
7,57
29,74
0,36
0,30
1,6
4
0,5
2,66
100
9,00
25,12
0,47
0
0
0
3,32
100
26,06
14,51
0,24
0,49
2,03
1,01
100
6,57
29,28
0,37
0,28
0,23
2,38
100
10,25
20,84
0,22
0,54
0,4
0,76
1,22
100
24,00
19,05
0,38
0,19
0,1
9
1,14
2,67
100
0,3
8
0,6
1
Using waste heat
3,19
Total
73,86
57,2
3
7,57
29,74
0,36
0,30
1,6
4
0,5
2,66
100
Following our distinction between renewable and non-renewable innovations, Figures 11a and 11b show
how “Alternative energy production” eco-innovations evolved. To better present these trends, we took into
account the time period between 1970 and 2010, excluding the previous phase during which only 20 patents
were filed. Figure 11a describes the evolutionary trend of technologies for producing energy from renewable
sources. In particular, it reveals that all of them present a U-shaped trend, hence highlighting that, despite
their environmental advantages, these technologies have not been used for a long time, for the above
mentioned reasons. In fact, their growing trend is visible during the oil shock, due to the need of new sources
of energy, and, after that, environmental programs, such as the Kyoto protocol, have fostered the use of less
polluting electricity production technologies. In particular, while “Hydro energy” and “Wind energy”
solutions initially received only a marginal attention, in the last few years the interest towards their use
seems increased. For instance, in 2005 the Global Wind Energy Council was launched to provide a credible
and international representative forum for the entire wind energy sector. Differently, Figure 11b depicts a
steady growing development trend for all the different technological classes (except for “pyrolysis or
gasification of biomass” that probably reached its peak in the maturity phase in the early 1990s). This trend
may be reasonable due to the fact that those solutions have been principally promoted by the environmental
concerns came up in the late 1980s to replace oil-based energy sources.
Figure 11a ”Renewable” technologies’ development trend.
Figure 11b ”Non-renewable” technologies’ development trend.
4.3. Energy conservation
Reducing carbon emissions, as well as bridging the energy gap between energy production and consumption,
let energy conservation practices receive an increasing attention in several countries (ES, 2012). As made
before, we first present the patenting activity as a whole. Then, we provide a brief analysis for each subclass.
Figure 12 presents the patenting application activity since 1946, as measured by patent count per year, both
globally and per different geographical regions. It shows that, before the late 1980s, the interest towards
energy conservation technologies is not comparable with the innovative efforts made between 1970 and 1986
in the “Alternative energy production” and “Nuclear energy” fields (see Figure 1 and 5, respectively). In fact,
only in the U.S., after the oil crisis, there is presented a slow growth of the innovative effort in energy
conservation technologies, whereas a time of stagnation is depicted from 1976 till the end of 1980s. This
could be explained by considering that, differently from the solutions developed in the other two
technological categories, in this case innovative efforts are directed towards the reduction of energy
consumption, rather than the exploitation of new energy sources. Thereby, the main exogenous shocks, as the
oil crisis occurred during the Kippur War, have probably not determined, at the global level, an analogous
attention towards conservation energy issues. Indeed, only in the U.S. there were some government
initiatives toward energy conservation, hence fostering spending on research, new laws, incentives, as well
as the introduction of novel solutions (Wulfinghoff, 2000).
Figure 12 Trend of “Energy conservation” patent applications.
By considering the years from 1985 to 2000, Figure 12 shows that “Energy conservation” patenting activity
saw a sharp growth rate, even higher than that characterizing the “Alternative energy production”. This is
especially true for the U.S. and Japan. Accordingly, the number of patents granted in the “Alternative energy
production” class in that period had an increase of 150%, while the number of patents granted in the “Energy
conservation” class raised of 250%, thus suggesting that the relevance of energy conservation started under
the banner of environmental protection and resources scarcity problems, as highlighted during several
international conferences and in related documents, such as the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human
Environment and the Brundtland’s Report (e.g., WCED, 1987). Indeed, the growing trend could be explained
by referring to several policy actions taken place starting from late 1980s in response to those concerns. For
example, in the U.S. a collaboration of manufacturers and energy efficiency advocates resulted in the 1987
National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, which set specific Federal energy conservation standards for
many household products (Gillingham et al., 2006). A further energy efficiency legislation was represented
by the 1992 Energy Policy Act (Public Law 102-486), which extended standards for other products, like
motors, lamps, commercial heating, and cooling equipments, in order to improve the overall energy
efficiency. In addition, in Japan from 1993 to 2008, after the Earth Summit held in 1992, a series of
amendments were enacted so as to deal with global environmental issues and set energy conservation goals2.
In particular, the New National Energy Strategy in 2006 and the Basic Energy Plan in 2007 specified that a
clear technology strategy was mandatory, especially to identify a roadmap regarding long term technology
development. In Figure 13 another interesting finding emerges. Specifically, Europe doesn’t seem to have
significantly invested in energy conservation technologies. In fact, it is possible to notice that relative few
efforts have been devoted in this area compared to the other technological domains previously discussed.
Differently, U.S. and Japan’s patenting activities reveal a noteworthy attention paid towards energy
conservation technologies, similar to the one demonstrated for the production of renewable energy. Figure 13
also reveals that other countries like South Korea and Taiwan have worked more intensely on these
solutions, differently from what occurred for alternative energy technologies. This may be explained by
taking into account that energy conservation technologies, such as low energy lighting lamps or new
solutions for buildings’ energy efficiency, result more marketable (Lopez-Pena et al., 2012), hence reducing
R&D investments’ risks, and at the same time having good environmental performances. In addition,
especially for Japan, energy conservation solutions are probably the best way to cope with an increasing
energy demand relying only on the imports of fuel resources. In fact, as Energy Information Administration
(2012) highlighted, despite Japan relied on oil and gas imports to meet about the 60% of its energy needs in
recent years, it is shown that from 2000 to 2010 self-produced resources were less than the 1% of those
consumed. As highlighted for the other two categories, even in this case inventors rely also on non-patent
literature in developing “Energy conservation” technologies (see Figure 14). This could be explained by
looking at the actions discussed in the previous paragraph, even though this behavior appears to be more
recent in this category than in the “Alternative energy production” one.
Figure 13 “Energy conservation” patent share
geographical area.
2
http://www.asiaeec-col.eccj.or.jp/contents02.html
Figure 14 “Energy conservation” scientific citations analysis.
Figure 15 Top 10 organizations in “Energy conservation” class with the highest patent intensity, as represented by the
bubble dimension, and related period of the highest patenting activity (x-axis) and outcome quality (y-axis).
Figure 15, showing the leading organizations in terms of number of patents owned, provides other important
insights. First, European organizations are not classified in the top ten rank. Second, Japanese firms present a
significant patenting activity, especially referring to recent years. However, their invention quality, measured
by citations received, is lower than those characterizing U.S. companies. Finally, Eastman Kodak Company
behaves differently from the other companies. In fact, it seems the only organization undermining the
Japanese leadership in terms of both quantity and quality. Probably, it is the only firm that is trying to move
towards new technological trajectories, thus developing high impact and valuable solutions. Figures 16a
shows the distribution of breakthrough inventions among the analyzed regions. It reveals that U.S.
companies hold the majority of high quality patents, probably because of the Japan’s late entry in the
patenting activity. Interestingly, despite the littler efforts showed, European countries have generated a
higher number of breakthrough eco-innovations in the field than Japanese firms. In addition, Figure 16b
shows that highly cited patents were filed between 1971 and 1982.
Figure 16a “Energy conservation” breakthrough patent
share geographical area.
Figure 16b “Energy conservation” breakthrough
innovation’s development trend.
Table 2 presents “Energy conservation” subclasses. It shows that, differently from the other two main
classes, U.S. does not always own the majority of patents in each category. Indeed, the number of patents in
the “Low energy lighting” and “Measurement of electricity consumption“ subclasses owned by Japan
exceeds the number of patents granted by U.S.. This may be due to the fact that in the last energy plan the
Japanese government actively promotes the use of LED lighting to replace the traditional style incandescent
bulbs and other related initiatives (IEA, 2010), which include technologies for measuring energy
consumption, and this is likely to have stimulated innovative efforts in these two subclasses. Finally, Figure
17 shows temporal trends in patenting activity for each subclass. It shows that only “Low energy lighting”
and “Storage of electrical energy” had an increasing trend. On the contrary, the other categories provide a
little contribution to the overall trend.
Table 2 Total patent share and percentage of patents owned by geographical area for “Energy conservation”
technologies.
Patent share
U.S.
EU
JP
BRIC
CAN
TW
KOR
Storage of electrical energy
30,47
49,71
9,50
27,11
0,74
3,20
4,65
3,27
Total by
OTHERS geographical
area
1,82
100
Power supply circuitry
2,08
61,33
11,78 16,00
0,44
1,33
6,22
1,56
1,33
100
Measurement of electricity
consumption
1,74
35,88
11,61 47,49
0
1,58
0,53
1,58
1,32
100
Storage of thermal energy
4,20
62,84
21,17 10,47
0,44
1,43
1,21
0,88
1,54
100
Low energy lighting
Thermal building insulation, in
40,01
30,57
10,2
44,03
0,37
1,3
6,21
5,94
1,39
100
20,45
66,65
20,15
4,76
0,34
5,39
0,71
0,39
1,62
100
Recovering mechanical energy
1,05
65,35
18,86
5,26
0,44
5,26
1,32
0,44
3,07
100
Total
100
general
Figure 17 “Energy conservation” subclasses evolution.
5. Discussion, Implications, and Conclusion
This paper studies the evolution of eco-innovations in the energy field, specifically focusing on low-carbon
energy technologies, by investigating patenting activity trends both globally and in specific geographical
areas. Furthermore, this paper tries to explain evolutionary trends as a result of country policies, as well as
historical events that may have fostered such innovations. To this aim, a unique database of patented
inventions filed at the U.S.PTO. between 1946 and 2010 and belonging to the “Nuclear power generation”,
“Alternative energy production”, and “Energy conservation” technological areas has been created and
analyzed. Several interesting findings concerning the dynamics and distribution of low-carbon energy
technologies emerged.
First, the global evolutionary trends of eco-innovations show the key role played by geopolitical
circumstances. In fact, the eco-innovative activity increases with the highest grow rate during the petrol crisis
period and in the early 1990s, as a result of the global warming awareness, except for few technological
categories, as “Pyrolysis or gasification of biomass”, “OTEC”, and “Storage of thermal energy”. This shows
that governments’ strategies and energy programs set important frameworks and initiatives to foster and
sustain eco-innovation development (Popp, 2006). The main example is represented by the substantial
contribution in developing nuclear power solutions provided by the U.S. government and the Commissariat à
l'énergie atomique, which appear in the top 10 patents’ assignee classification in the nuclear energy category.
A further example is given by Japan, which developed a governmental plan fostering the use of LED lighting
and became the leading country for low energy lighting. Nevertheless, as shown through the analysis of the
leading innovative organizations, private companies owns the majority of the developed eco-innovations. On
one hand, this shows that commercial activities have an important role in the eco-innovation’s development.
This is in line with previous studies, which highlight that once a firm comes up with new technological
solutions embedded in a product, other companies try to experiment different solutions which are markedly
different from each other. This goes on till one design emerges as the more promising to better meet users’
needs in a relatively complete manner, namely dominant design (Abernaty and Utterback, 1978). Then,
convergence on a dominant design leads to period of incremental changes in the chosen technological
solution (Abernaty and Utterback, 1978; Teece, 1986; Tushman and O’Reilly, 1997; Suarez, 2004). Hence,
as competition evolves within the market, technological solutions shift to cope with market needs. On the
other hand this is the result of the fact that climate change is playing a growing role in business competition
(Porter and Reinhardt, 2007) and in turn can also impact on future national innovative programs. Second,
data analyses depict a great discrepancy between subclasses in each main technological area. In fact, some of
them represent less than the 1% of the total amount of patents developed within a specific class. In particular,
what is worthy to note is that, although certain subclasses include hot technologies upon which current
debates are focusing, this does not necessarily corresponds to a higher patent share, such as in the case of
“Alternative energy production” class. In fact, patent analyses show that wind, geothermal and hydro
technologies represent only the 8% of the total amount of patents granted, despite their widely recognized
important role in the next future as effective and sustainable technologies. However, the current wholesale
rate is certainly far from the required level. By taking into account what occurred for some low-carbon
technologies, such as nuclear plants and solar cells, the eventual push to full commercialization may
significantly foster their spread and boost innovation, hence again highlighting how commercial
opportunities can enhance innovative efforts (Teece, 1986, Suarez, 2004). Third, our study sheds new light
on which are the major inventor countries. We showed that innovation in low-carbon energy technologies is
mostly generated in the U.S., which accounts for more than a half of the total inventions. The innovative
performance of Japan is also particularly impressive, since in a number of subclasses, such as in solar energy
and low energy lighting technologies, it ranks equal to or better than Europe. Other countries, such as South
Korea, Canada, Taiwan, or Australia, present significant contributions in the patenting activity only in some
particular technological fields. For instance, Canada owns the 5% of all patents in the thermal building
insulation category and the 3% of breakthroughs in the energy conservation category, while it does not
contribute in the development of renewable energy technologies at all. Furthermore, South Korea and
Taiwan primarily focus on energy conservation solutions. Looking at BRIC, it seems that they are still far
from intensive innovative activity, despite the fact that their environmental awareness is growing, as well as
the use of eco-innovation solutions (Lewis, 2007; Levi, 2010). However, it should be noticed that our
analysis looks at the trends of patents filed until 2010. During more recent years, BRIC investments in lowcarbon energy technologies have significantly grown (e.g., PEW, 2010; Lema et al., 2012), so suggesting
that the trend of patents in this field by those countries is destined to grow. Another important result emerges
from the analysis of scientific-based citations. Specifically, in recent years, the number of patents which are
also based upon scientific literature is growing. This could be a signal that the goal of strengthening the role
and the appliance of scientific knowledge to support sustainable development (as described in the Chapter 35
of Agenda 21) is becoming effective. Thus, inventors are probably more deeply focusing on scientific
research than in the past, hence making use of scientific knowledge to increase their understanding of
environmental problems and creating suitable technological solutions (e.g., Fleming and Sorenon, 2004).
Finally, our analysis shows how breakthrough eco-innovations were developed in the three different
technological areas. Results show that for “Alternative energy production” and “Nuclear power generation”
classes breakthroughs’ development occurred in the earliest stage of eco-innovation evolution, and that it is
restricted in few years. Reasonable explanation lies in the fact that knowledge about using wind, water, sun
or nuclear power is older than 1970s, but it was never fully exploited due to the use of carbon and petroleum.
However, since the early 1970s, resource scarcity problems and environmental concerns attracted funds and
shifted global attention towards new form of energy generation. Hence, new business opportunities have
emerged, pushing organizations in protecting their inventions to compete in these new markets. Similarly,
“Energy conservation” breakthroughs were developed early in time, but in a longer period than the other two
classes. This could be explained by considering that energy efficiency needs emerged under the banner of
resource scarcity issues, hence needing more time to develop effective actions and technologies. However,
these results may also be related to the choice of our measure for identifying breakthrough eco-innovations.
In fact, it highlights those patents that are fully exploited, hence more cited. Thus, new significant inventions,
which, as we said, probably rely on scientific knowledge and so may need of a long term to be applied, may
be not fully recognized by our proxy.
In terms of managerial and policy implications, our suggestions are threefold. First, it emerges that the
development of eco-innovations is influenced by both private and public efforts. Thus, we encourage
corporate executives and policy makers to invest in strengthening their networks, by which technical,
economic, and political knowledge could be better integrated in order to follow both business and social
needs, as well as integrate all the competences needed to address the complexity characterizing the ecoinnovation development (see also Messeni Petruzzelli et al., 2011). Second, it is shown that different types of
low-carbon energy technological solutions have been developed in response to environmental and
geopolitical concerns. Thus, it results how companies and policy makers can adopt different types of ecoinnovations, which are, however, very difficult to be fully studied, assessed, and regulated. Hence, a
centralized organism that looks over the intensity and dynamics of their applications and their interaction
with the society is needed. Furthermore, clear national policies on eco-innovations should be underpinned by
international agreements through which all countries commit to take action to reduce their environmental
impacts and can keep pace with the ever-changing technologies that are developed. Third, eco-innovation
evolution is a global issue. Thus, transferring appropriate solutions by taking into account specific local
needs, as well as ensuring their effective implementation, can help to address environmental and economic
goals. This is especially true for developing countries where the assimilation, adaptation, and maintaining of
the imported technologies assume a fundamental role (UN, 2012).
To our knowledge, this study is the first attempt to depict a comprehensive scenario of eco-innovations
evolution in the field of energy. Furthermore, we investigated their evolutionary trends by analyzing a wide
dataset of patented inventions to address the topic in a complete and deep manner. Nevertheless, this study
has some limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the innovation process is described by means of
patents, which do not represent the whole innovative portfolio. Indeed, some innovations are not patentable
and patents do not always represent the most suitable appropriation mechanisms (Levin et al., 1987; Bessen,
2006). Moreover, the rate at which new innovations are patented varies across industry (e.g., Levin et al.,
1987; Gittelman, 2008). Second, comparisons at global scale raises some biases since the value of patents
vary across countries and the characteristics of appropriation regimes significantly affect the propensity to
patent (Archibugi and Pianta, 1996; OECD, 2009c). Third, despite its important role, we focused on a
specific type of eco-innovation, as technological eco-innovation, although other kinds of eco-innovations,
such as organizational and business eco-innovation, can be recognized and investigated (e.g., Kemp and
Pearson, 2008).
In addition, to address these limitations, future research should place more emphasis on eco-innovation
commercialization. We highlighted the relevance of commercial activities to spread those technologies.
Hence, providing insights and empirical studies on how firms’ capabilities, technological characteristics, and
environmental circumstances interact in order to bring those technologies to the market are needed.
Furthermore, the economic impacts of eco-innovations are not still fully measured. Here, further research
should be conducted in order to map out diffusion of eco-innovations and related socio-technical changes, as
well as to assess main macro-economic impacts. In addition, scholars could focus their attention on
investigating which policies have more influenced eco-innovations’ development, thus providing policy
makers with more detailed insights.
In conclusion, we believe that this study has taken the literature one step further in the on-going debate on
the evolution of eco-innovations and hope that this work may stimulate further theoretical refinement and
empirical investigation in this relevant area of research.
References
Abernathy, W.J., Utterback, J. 1978. Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology Review, 50, 41–47.
Adams, J.D. 1990. Fundamental stocks of knowledge and productivity growth. Journal of Political
Economy, 98, 673–702.
Ahuja, G., Lampert, C.M. 2001. Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how
established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7) 521–543.
Andersen, M.M. 2008. Eco-innovation-towards a taxonomy and theory. 25th Celebration DRUID
Conference 2008 on Entrepreneurship and Innovation – Organizations, Institutions, Systems and Regions,
Copenaghen, Denmark.
Archibugi, D., Pianta, M. 1996. Innovation Surveys and Patents as Technology Indicators: The State of the
Art, in Innovation, Patents and Technological Strategies, OECD, Paris.
Arundel, A., Kemp, R. 2009. Measuring eco-innovation. United Nations University – Maastricht Economic
and Social Research Training Centre on Innovation and Technology. Maastricht, UU-MERIT #2009-017.
Audretsch, D.B., Lehmann, E., Warning, S. 2005. University spillovers and new firm location. Research
Policy, 34, 1113–1122.
Brunnermeier, S.B., Choen, M.A. 2003. Determinant of environmental innovation in US manufacturing
industries. Journal of Environmental economics and Management, 45(2), 278-293.
C2ES.
2009.
Climate
Techbook.
http://www.c2es.org/climate-techbook.
Center
for
climate
and
energy
solution.
Available
at
Callaert, J., Van Looy, B., Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., Thijs, B. 2006. Traces of Prior Art: An analysis of
non-patent references found in patent documents. Scientometrics, 69(1), 3-20.
Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R., Zuniga, P. (2008). In search of performance effects of (in) direct industry
science links. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(4), 611–646.
CEEPR.
2009.
Social
Norms
and
Energy
Conservation,
http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/workingpapers/2009-014.pdf.
Cockburn, I., & Henderson R. 1998. Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of
research in drug discovery. Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(2), 157-182.
Cohen, W.M., Nelson R.R., Walsh, J.P. 2002. Links and impacts: the influence of public research on
industrial R&D, Management Science, 48, 1-23.
Comanor, W.S., Scherer, F.M., 1969. Patent statistics as a measure of technical change. Journal of Political
Economy, 7(3), 392–398.
Darby, M. R., Zucker, L. G. 2001. Change or die: The adoption of biotechnology in the Japanese and U.S.
pharmaceutical industries. Res. Tech. Innovation, Management, Policy, 7, 85–125.
Dirk Czarnitzki, D., Hussinger, K., Schneider, C. 2011. Commercializing academic research: the quality of
faculty patenting. Industrial and Corporate change, 20(5), 1403-1437.
Demirbas, A. 2009. Political, economic and environmental impacts of biofuels: A review. Applied
Energy, 86, 108–117.
Demirel, P., Kesidou, E. 2011. Stimulating different types of eco-innovation in the UK: Government polices
and firm motivations. Ecological Economics, 70, 1546-1557.
Dernis H., Kahn, M. 2004. Triadic patent families methodology. STI working paper 2004/2, Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France.
Deyle, H.-G., Grupp, H. 2005. Commuters and the regional assignment of innovative activities: A
methodological patent study of German districts. Research Policy, 34(2), 221-234.
EACI. 2011. Boosting green business. Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation and European
Commission.
Ecoworld. 2006. How Much Solar Energy Hits Earth?. Accessed August 11, 2011.
EIA. Federal Energy Subsidies. EIA Service Report, SR/EMEU/92-02, Distribution Category UC-98.
EIA. 2012. Country Analysis Brief. Japan. Available at http://www.eia.gov/cabs/Japan/pdf.pdf.
EPA. 2005. Technology Characterization: Fuel Cells. Prepared by: Energy and Environmental Analysis,
Arlington, Virginia. Available at http://www.epa.gov/chp/documents/catalog_chptech_fuel_cells.pdf.
ES, 2012. Energy efficiency report. Energy & Strategy Group Publishing, Milano, Italy.
European Commission. 2004. Stimulating Technologies for Sustainable Development: An Environmental
Technologies Action Plan for the European Union. IP/04/117, Brussels.
European Commission. 2009. Impact Assessment SEC(2009)1297 accompanying the Communication on
‘Investing in the Development of Low Carbon Technologies (SET-Plan). COM (2009) 519 final.
European Commission. 2010. EUROPE 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
COM(2010) 2020 final, Brussels.
Evangelista, R., Sandven, T., Sirilli, G., Smith, K. 1998. Measuring Innovation in European Industry.
International Journal of the Economics of Business, 5(3), 311-333.
Fleming, L., Soreson, O. 2004. Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management Journal,
25(8-9), 909–928.
Fussler, C., James, P. 1996. Driving Eco-innovation: A Breakthrough Discipline for Innovation and
Sustainability. London: Pitman.
Gambardella, A., Harhoff , D., Verspagen., 2008. The value of European patents. European Management
Review, 5(2), 69-84.
Gillingham, K., Newell, R., Palmer K. 2006. Energy Efficiency Policies: A Retrospective Examination.
Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31, 161-192.
Gittelman, M. 2008. A note on the value of patents as indicators of innovation: Implications for management
research. Academy of Management Perspective, 22, 21–27.
Griliches, Z. 1979. Isues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth.
Bell Journal of Economics, 10(1), 92–116.
Griliches, Z., 1990. Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28,
1661– 1707.
Gulbrandsen,
M.,
Smeby,
J.C.
2005.
Industry
funding
and
university
professors'
research
performance. Research Policy, 34(6), 932-950.
Hagedoorn, J., Cloodt, M. 2003. Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple
indicators?. Research Policy, 32(8), 1365-1379.
Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., 2001. The NBER PatentCitations Data File: Lessons, Insights, and
Methodological Tools, in Jaffe and Trajtenberg, Patents, Citations, and Innovations, Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Hall, B.H., Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M. 2005. Market Value and Patent Citations. The RAND Journal of
Economics, 36(1), 16-38.
Hargroves, K, .2005. The Natural Advantage of Nations: Business Opportunities, Innovation and
Governance in the 21st Century. James & James/ Earthscan.
Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, M., Vopel, K. 1999. Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions.
Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(3), 511-515.
Harmon, R.R., Cowan, K. 2009. A Multiple Perspectives View of the Market Case for Green Energy.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(1), 204-213.
Hirschey, M., Richardson, J.R. 2001. Valuation effects of patent quality: A comparison for Japanese and
U.S. Firms. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 9, 65-82.
Horbach, J., Rammer, C., Rennings, K. 2012. Determinants of eco-innovations by type of environmental
impact - The role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull. Ecological Economics, 78, 112–
122.
I-NERI. 2001. Fiscal Year 2011 Annual Report. International Nuclear Energy Research Initiative. Online
available at http://www.ne.doe.gov/INERI/pdfs/I-NERI%20FY%202011%20Annual%20Report_web.pdf.
IEA. 2010. Phase Out of Incandescent Lamp. IEA, Energy Efficiency Series, Paris.
IEA.
2012.
International
Low-Carbon
Energy
Technology
Platform.
Available
at
http://www.iea.org/media/technologyplatform/faq_tech_platform.pdf.
IPHE. 2010. 2010 Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Global. Commercialization & Development Update. International
Partnership for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells in the Economy.
Jacobsson, S., JohnsonA. 2000. The diffusion of renewable energy technology: an analytical framework and
key issues for research. Energy Policy, 28, 625-640.
Jaffe, A. 1989. The Real Effects of Academic Research. American Economic Review, 79 (5), 957-70.
Jaffe, A.B., Henderson, R., Trajtenberg, M. 1993. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as
evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108, 577– 598.
Jaffe, A.B., Stavins, R.N. 1995. Dynamic incentives of environmental regulation: the effects of alternative
policy instruments on technology diffusion. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29,
S43–S63.
Jensen, R., Thursby, M. 2001. Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions.
American Economic Review, 91(1), 240-59.
Kayal, A. 1999. Measuring the Pace of Technological Progress: Implications for Technological Forecasting.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 60(3), 237–245.
Kemp, R., Pearson, P. 2008. Final report MEI project about measuring eco-innovation, Maastricht. Available
at www.merit.unu.edu/MEI2008.
Kesidou, E., Demirel, P. 2012. On the drivers of eco-innovations: Empirical evidence from UK. Research
Policy, 41, 862-870.
Klemmer, 1999, in P. Klemmer (Ed.), Innovation and the environment, Series Innovation Effects of
Environmental Policy Instruments, vol. 3, Analytica, Berlin.
Koefoed, M., Buckley, C. 2008. Clean technology transfer: a case study from the South African metal
finishing industry, 2000-2005. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 78-84.
Kotha, S., Orne, D. 1989. Generic Manufacturing Strategies: A Conceptual Synthesis. Strategic Management
Journal, 10, 211–231.
Lema, R., Berger, A., Schmitz, H. 2012. China’s impact on the global wind power industry. Discussion
Paper/Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik.
Levin, R., Kievorick, A., Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G. 1987. Appropriating the returns from industrial R&D.
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 783-820.
Levi, M.A., Economy, E.C., O’Neil, S.K., Segal, A. 2010. Energy Innovation: Driving Technology
Competition and Cooperation Among the U.S., China, India, and Brazil. 2010, Council on Foreign Relations:
New York.
Lewis, J. 2007. Technology Acquisition and Innovation in the Developing World: Wind Turbine
Development in China and India. Studies in Comparative International Development, 42(3–4), 208–232.
LFEE. 2005. An Overview of Coal based Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Technology. MIT
LFEE 2005-002 WP, September.
Liebeskind, .JP., Oliver, A.L., Zucker, L., Brewer, M. 1996. Social networks, learning, and flexibility:
sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotechnology firms. Organization Science, 7(4), 428-442.
Leu, H.-G., Wu, C.-C.. Lin, C.-Y. 2012. Technology exploration and forecasting of biofuels and bio
hydrogen energy from patent analysis. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 37(20), 15719-15725.
Lopez-Pena, A., Perez-Arriga, I., Linares, P. 2012. Renewables vs. energy efficiency: The cost of carbon
emissions reduction in Spain. Energy Policy, 50, 659-668.
Mansfield, E. 1991. Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy, 20(1), 1–12.
Masini, A., Menichetti, E. 2012. Investment decisions in the renewable energy sector: An analysis of nonfinancial drivers. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, in press.
McJeon, H.C., Clarke, L., Kyle, P., Wise, M., Hackbarth, A., Bryant, B.P., Lempert, R.J. 2011. Technology
interactions among low-carbon energy technologies: What can we learn from a large number of scenarios?.
Energy Economics, 33(4), 619-631.
Messeni Petruzzeli, A. 2011. The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties, and geographical distance
on university-industry collaborations: A joint-patent analysis. Technovation, 31(7), 309-319.
Messeni Petruzzelli, A., Dangelico, R.M., Rotolo, D., Albino, V. 2011. Organizational factors and
technological features in the development of green innovations: Evidence from patent analysis. Innovation:
Management, policy & practice, 13(3), 291-310.
Meyer, M. 2002. Tracing Knowledge Flows in Innovation Systems. Scientometrics, 54(2), 193-212.
Meyer, M. 2000. Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Research Policy, 29,
409-434.
Narin, F., Hamilton, K., Olivastro, D., 1997. The increasing linkage between US technology and public
science. Research Policy, 26, 317–330.
Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C.K., Rangaswami, M.R. 2009. Why Sustainability is now the key dirver of
innovation. Harvard Business Review, hbr.org.
Nelson, R. 1994. American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy 23, 323–348.
NREL. 2011. Clean Energy Innovation: Sources of Technical and Commercial Breakthroughs, National
Renwable Energy (U.S. Department of Energy).
Nuttall, W.J. 2005. Nuclear Renaissance: Technologies and Policies for the Future of Nuclear Power. Taylor
& Francis Group Press, New York, NY.
Nuttall, W.J., Manz, D.L. 2008. A new energy security paradigm for the twenty-first century. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 75(8), 1247-1259.
OECD. 2000. Innovation and the Environment. OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD. 2005. Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd edition, OECD,
Paris, www.oecd.org/sti/oslomanual.
OECD. 2007. Innovation and Growth. Rationale For An Innovation Strategy. OECD Publishing, Paris.
Available at http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/40908171.pdf.
OECD. 2008. Environmental Policy, Technological Innovation and Patents. OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD. 2009a. Literature Review of Recent Trends And Future Prospects For Innovation In Climate Change
Mitigation, OECD Environment Working Papers, France, Paris.
OECD, 2009b. Eco-innovation in industry – enabling green growth. OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD. 2009c. OECD Patent Statistic Manual, OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD. 2010. Eco-Innovation in Industry: Enabling Green Growth. OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD. 2011. Towards Green Growth. OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD. 2012. The Future Of Eco-Innovation: The Role of Business Models in Green Transformation.
OECD Background Paper, Copenhagen, Denmark.
OECD, IAEA. 2006. Uranium 2005: Resources, Production and Demand, Paris: OECD Publishing.
Oltra, V., Kemp, R., de Vries, F. 2010. Patents as a measure for eco-innovation. International Journal of
Environmental Technology and Management, 13, 130-148.
Oltra, V., Saint Jean, M. 2009. Sectoral systems of environmental innovation: an application to the French
automotive industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(4), 567–583.
Palma, D., Coletta, G. 2011. Renewables’ technological competitiveness and sustainable development in the
new global economy. ENEA, Technology Transfer Unit.
Pavitt, K. 1985. Patent Statistics as Indicators of Innovative Activities: Possibilities and Problems.
Scientometrics 7, 77–99.
PEW. 2010. WHO’S WINNING THE CLEAN ENERGY RACE?. The Pew Charitable Trusts, Washington,
D.C.
Phene, A., Fladmoe-Lindquist, K., Marsh, L. 2006. Breakthrough innovations in the U.S. biotechnology
industry: the effects of technological space and geographic origin. Strategic Management Journal, 27(4),
369–388.
Pilkington, A., Dyerson, R., Tissier, O. 2002. The electric vehicle: - Patent data as indicators of technological
development. World Patent Information, 24(1), 5-12.
Popp, D. 2005. Lessons from patents: Using patents to measure Technological change in environmental
models. Ecological Economics, 54, 209-226.
Porter M.E., Reinhardt F.L. 2007. A Strategic Approach to Climate. Harvard Business Review, 85, 22-26.
Public
Law
102-486-OCT.
24,
1992.
Energy
Policy
Act
of
1992.
Available
at
Energy
Policy
Act
of
2005.
Available
at
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/pdfs/2527.pdf.
Public
Law
109–58—AUG.
8,
2005.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ58/pdf/PLAW-109publ58.pdf.
Rennings, K. 2000. Redefining innovation – eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological
economics. Ecological Economics, 32, 319-332.
Rogers, M. 1998. The Definition and Measurement of Innovation. Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic
and Social Research Press.
Saxenian, A. 1994. Lessons from Silicon Valley. Technology Review, 97(5), 42-51.
Schneider, M., Holzer, A., Hoffman, V.H. 2008. Understanding the CDM's contribution to technology
transfer. Energy Policy, 36(8), 2930-2938.
Sellers, R. 2004. Renewable Energy Markets: Past and Future Trends, IEA, Paris.
Sharif, M.N. 1986. Measurement of technology for national development. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 29(2), 119-172
Shrivastava, P. 1995. Environmental Technologies and Competitive Advantage. Strategic Management
Journal, 16, 183-200.
Singh, J. 2008. Distributed R&D, cross-regional knowledge integration and quality of innovative output.
Research Policy, 37(1), 77-96.
Singh, J., Fleming, L. 2010. Lone Inventors as Sources of Breakthroughs: Myth or Reality?. Management
Science, 56(1), 41-56.
Sovacool, B., Victor, S., Valentine, V. 2012. The international politics of nuclear power. Routledge Press,
New York, NY.
Stern, N. 2007. The Economics of Climate Change. Stern Review, Cambridge University Press.
Suarez, F.F. 2004. Battles for technological dominance: an integrative framework. Research Policy, 33, 271284.
Sun, Y., Lu., Y., Wang, T., Ma, H., He, G. 2008. Pattern of patent-based environmental technology
innovation in China. Technological forecasting and Social Change, 75(7), 1032–1042.
Teece, D. 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration,
licensing, and public policy. Research Policy, 15, 285–305.
Trajtenberg, M. 1990. A penny for yout quotes: patent citations and the value of information. RAND Journal
of Economics, 21, 325-342.
U.S. Department of Energy. 2006. Basic research needs for advanced nuclear energy systems. Report of the
Basic Energy Sciences Workshop on Basic Research Needs for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems.
Available at http://li.mit.edu/Archive/Papers/06/ANES_rpt.pdf.
UN. 2002. Report of the United Nation Conference on Sustainable Development. A/CONF.199/20, United
Nations publishing, New York.
UN. 2012. Report of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. A/CONF.216/16, United
Nations publishing, New York.
UNEP. 2003. Environmentally Sound Technologies for Sustainable Development. International
Environmental Technology Centre division of Technology, Industry and Economics, available at
hhtp://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/techtranfocus/sustdev_est_background.pdf.
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Agenda 21, Rio De Janeiro, 1992, chapter34.
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Agenda 21, Rio De Janeiro, 1992, chapter35.
Verspagen, B., De Loo, I. 1999. Technology Spillovers between Sectors and over Time. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 60(3), 215-235.
WCED (1987),Our CommonFuture: Report of the Worldd Commission on Environment and Development,
WCED, Switzerland.
World
Nuclear
Association.
2009.
Advanced
Nuclear
Power
Reactors.
Available
at
http://vaec.gov.vn/userfiles/file/Advanced%20Nuclear%20Power%20Reactors%20t9_09.pdf.
Wulfinghoff, D.R. 2000. The Modern History of Energy Conservation: An Overview for Information
Professionals. Electronic Green Journal, 1(13).
Zoltan, J.A., Anselin, L., Varga, A. 2002. Patents and innovation counts as measures of regionall production
of new knowledge. Research Policy, 31(7), 1069-1085.
Zucker, L.G., Darby, M.R., Armstrong, J.S. 2002. Commercializing Knowledge: University Science,
Knowledge Capture, and Firm Performance in Biotechnology. Management Science, 48(1), 138-153.
Zucker, L.G., Darby, M.R. 2001. Capturing Technological Opportunity via Japan's Star Scientists: Evidence
from Japanese Firms' Biotech Patents and Products, The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1-2), 37-58.
Download