Impact case study database

As a result of recommendations from the Brighton Fuse research [ R1], the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) supported a pilot programme – ‘ FuseBox’ [ S1] – a Brighton-based innovation centre that provides digital, creative and tech entrepreneurs with access to spaces, facilities, opportunities and expertise. The pilot led to the creation of ten new businesses [ S1] and FuseBox is now an established hub in the city. Led by the Wired Sussex regional network, it provides support for hundreds of individual entrepreneurs, small and medium enterprises, and large corporations including Legal & General and American Express, helping to mitigate the skills barriers highlighted by the Fuse projects. Phil Jones, Managing Director of Wired Sussex, explains the importance of the research in the development of FuseBox and the organisation’s other projects:

“The research provided us with a detailed in-depth understanding of the way that technology companies use creativity to generate added value. For us, the most important direct impact of the research has been the development of the FuseBox. As its name suggests, the FuseBox is a conscious attempt to turn the research into a highly impactful and value-generating business entity. Very overtly building on the insights from the Brighton Fuse research, the FuseBox underpins access to state-of-the-art technology with a highly developed creatively-driven culture.” [ S2]

Jones goes on to state that the research “has provided the framework to much of the activity that Wired Sussex undertakes to support digital, media and technology businesses both locally and nationally” and that it was “undoubtedly the genesis for several significant projects delivered by FuseBox”.

These projects include the Brighton Digital Catapult Centre – one of four regional centres established to help innovators bring digital services and products to market, in order to make UK businesses more competitive and productive. Jones explains that “the successful proposal to host a regional centre used the Brighton Fuse research as its evidence base” [ S2]. The Brighton Digital Catapult Centre is led by the Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership, which has also been strongly influenced by the Brighton Fuse research, as outlined in its Strategic Economic Plan 2014: “We will build on the recent Brighton Fuse report to address skills development in the CDIT sector.” [ S3]

Other successful projects stemming from FuseBox include:

• The Brighton Immersive Lab, which offers access to mixed reality testing and showcasing spaces and has helped accelerate the growth of the regional VR/AR sector. Jones states that the Lab “embodies the Fuse approach by applying creative practices to a range of emerging technologies”.

• The ESRC-funded FuseBox 5G testbed project – the first in the UK designed to be used by SMEs – became the model used by the DCMS to establish its national Testbeds and Trials Programme.

• A joint DCMS-funded project with partners including Brighton Dome, that is working with the music industry to explore how to use emerging technologies to create, produce and experience musical content in innovative ways.

As Jones explains, “the success of the FuseBox has also inspired other organisations to apply the Brighton Fuse research in their activity”. For example, Chelsea Football Club’s Chelsea Entrepreneur Programme uses the Fuse-derived model developed at the FuseBox to help jobseekers start their own business, while American Express (one of the early supporters of FuseBox) introduced retail developer Redevco to ideas from the Fuse research as part of a ‘store of the future’ project, which looked at how technology will disrupt the physical retail sector. The relationship subsequently led to Redevco investing in and redeveloping part of the Lanes shopping area in Brighton. [ S2]

The Brighton Fuse project was also used extensively to support Brighton & Hove City Council’s successful City Deal bid , “providing the underpinning evidence for Brighton and Hove’s £170m City Deal in 2014” [ S1]. Through the City Deal, the UK government provided £170 million to create 8,500 jobs and grow technology businesses. The government’s policy paper on the City Deal acknowledges the significant influence of the Brighton Fuse research:

“Brighton’s creative-tech cluster has emerged from nothing over the past decade and now boasts over 1,500 high-value businesses... The Brighton Fuse research highlighted this sector’s outstanding performance and held up Brighton as a new model for developing “superfused” businesses.” [ S4]

The paper also highlights the wider influence of Brighton’s City Deal, stating that it “will share knowledge and intelligence about supporting creative-tech business, based on its Fuse model growth, with government departments and other local authorities.” [ S4]

As well as having a direct impact on business success, the research has influenced funding decisions for the creative industries by inspiring policymakers, at both a local and national level. Speaking in support of the Brighton Fuse project at the project findings event in 2013, the Rt Hon Ed Vaizey, then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Culture and Creative Industries, set out his ambition to replicate the success of the Brighton creative cluster across the country:

“The Brighton CDIT cluster is clearly a great success story and I welcome this study that looks at the factors underpinning its success. We are living in an increasingly convergent world where the earlier distinctions between arts and digital technologies are blurring. The creative industries have always been early adopters of new technologies and I want to see similar clusters thrive right across the UK.” [ S5]

In March 2014, the AHRC exhibited the Brighton Fuse project as an example of high-quality research in its Creative Economy Showcase. In his keynote address at the event, the Rt Hon David Willetts MP (then Minister of State for Universities and Science) emphasised the significance of the project, stating: “The fascinating Brighton Fuse project... has a very important lesson for us”. He went on to describe how the project’s identification of the success of super-fused businesses was providing inspiration for government policy:

“This [superfused business] is a business that brings together technology, business acumen and of course creative and artistic activity creating content. If we can bring all that together, you clearly do have quite extraordinarily successful companies and organisations growing more rapidly than other companies across the country, and even more rapidly than other companies in the creative industries… Here in the UK we are very good at combining innovative IT with new creative content. And I think that is the future and it’s something that we want to promote.” [ S6]

AHRC’s 2017 report highlights the influence of Brighton Fuse on the development of similar regional projects (Bristol and Bath By Design, and Creative Fuse North East) and states that “the legacy of the AHRC’s ground-breaking Brighton Fuse project (2011-2013) continues to be felt” [ S6].

Building on this momentum, the Business and Culture Secretaries commissioned Sir Peter Bazalgette to conduct an independent review into how the UK’s creative industries can underpin future prosperity. Bazalgette’s 2017 report [ S7] sets out areas where, as part of the Industrial Strategy, government and industry should work together to develop a Sector Deal for the Creative Industries. Citing evidence from both the Brighton Fuse and Fusion Effect research [ R1 and R3], the report’s key recommendation was to adopt a regional cluster-led approach to support creative industries, supported by a £500 million Creative Clusters Fund. This recommendation was taken up in the Creative Industries Sector Deal, which included an £80m Creative Industries Clusters Programme to support arts and humanities-led research and innovation in UK creative clusters. [ S8]

Professor Marshall’s research has directly improved the way that waste is managed in India – both by shaping national policy and by inspiring the significant informal sector to develop successful new initiatives in waste management practice.

Through sustained engagement and collaboration with organisations including India’s Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Professor Marshall and the research team used their findings to inform and shape new national waste management legislation – the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Rules [ S1]. This legislation, formulated by the MoEFCC, is critical in determining how waste is collected, segregated, stored, processed and disposed of in Indian cities.

When the draft legislation was published for public consultation in October 2013, the research team, through its NGO collaborator Toxics Link, submitted a set of formal objections. The submission referred to the research findings and highlighted how the planned legislation overlooked opportunities for more sustainable waste management strategies. In January 2014, following the submission of objections, the team organised a policy stakeholder forum to discuss the issues. Attendees included senior officials from MoEFCC, the Ministry of Urban Development (now Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA)), and the Central Pollution Control board (CPCB).

As a result of the objections and the forum discussions, [text removed for publication] of Toxics Link was invited to join a four-person government committee, coordinated by the MoEFCC to redraft the Rules [ S2]. [text removed for publication] of the committee, explains the extent of this influence: “I had a privilege to have extensive interaction and critical inputs from expert committee member [text removed for publication] (Toxics Link, New Delhi) in drafting the Rules” [ S3]. [text removed for publication] describes how the research from Sussex directly fed into the amended MSW Rules:

“My contribution in the Expert Committee largely drew from the earlier work on solid waste management by Toxics Link and from a collaborative research project on urban waste management with Professor Fiona Marshall from the University of Sussex… Most of these points were incorporated in the final version of the Rules.” [ S4]

In May 2015, the project team presented a policy brief [ R2] to government officials and representatives from wastepickers’ associations, NGOs, industry and resident welfare associations. The brief provided a timely reference for the redrafting of the MSW Rules. The final MSW Rules [ S1], adopted by the Government of India in 2016, represent a significant change in the overarching framework within which waste management policies and plans must be developed across Indian cities. They draw extensively on the research team’s insights – proposing a stronger role for the informal sector, increased recycling and an end to the practice of simply moving hazardous waste from wealthy to poorer areas – and reflect the eight principles outlined above. For example, they:

• Move beyond an ‘environmental policy only’ perspective on urban waste (in line with principle 1) to include many new stakeholders [ S1, clause 5]

• Recognise the crucial role of informal wastepickers (principle 4) [ S1, clause 11c and 15c]

• Include greater recognition of the benefits of decentralised technologies such as bio-methanation and composting for organic waste (principle 5) [ S1, clause 4(7) and clause 8]

• Explicitly require communities to be involved in waste management and promote decentralised processing (principle 5) [ S1, clause 11(h), clause 15(m) and clause15(t)]

• Support the agricultural use of fertilizers produced from organic wastes (principle 6) [ S1, clause 4(7) and clause 8].

The new MSW Rules have led directly to changes in the way waste is dealt with. For example, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) has planned 10 decentralised waste management plants across the city. The plants use a newly developed technology to treat urban organic waste such as household and food waste. The process generates high-quality manure as well as producing a biogas, which can be used to make electricity. The first of the ten plants, which began operating in February 2019, is currently treating 5 tonnes of organic waste – and generating 800 units of electricity and around 800kg of organic manure – per day [ S5].

In addition to the formal influence on policy, the research team worked with NGOs and wastepickers to inspire new approaches and practices in day-to-day waste collection and processing. These local initiatives are an example of the new MSW Rules being put into action.

The All India Kabadi Mazdoor Mahasangh (AIKMM) – a national waste pickers’ association with more than 16,000 members in the Delhi region – has been working closely with the research team since 2013. This has led to successful new waste management initiatives and partnerships across sectors, as [text removed for publication] from AIKMM explains:

“The research highlighted the need for decentralised technologies... (but) while we were familiar with them, we had never put them into practice. The many dialogues with the project team helped us move in this direction. Now we are involved in implementing successful initiatives on decentralised composting with informal waste workers, municipal bodies and resident welfare associations. We have seven such projects in Bihar, one in Delhi and one in Gurgaon and plan to expand.” [ S6]

The research also provided the stimulus for Delhi’s Lok Adhikar (a union for informal wastepickers) to sign a formal contract with a private company for the segregation of waste in Rohini Zone (an area of Delhi with a population of around 860,000). This move is a practical example of principle 4, demonstrating how informal and formal private sectors can form new synergies which support informal livelihoods. Lok Adhikar was convinced to take this step by the project’s research into alternative practices in Pune and Ahmedabad. Lok Adhikar has subsequently been offered a contract for the Civil Lines Zone (population 360,000). These contracts not only provide security of livelihood for informal waste pickers, but also reduce pollution. [text removed for publication] of Lok Adhikar, states:

“As a result of our interactions and the research findings of the project, we got many new insights on our work. These discussions helped us to understand why it is important for us to actively engage with the formal system of waste management… With this view we signed a formal contract with a waste management company. We are also more mindful of the fact that segregation and recycling is not only a beneficial activity for these [informal waste] workers but is also an important environmental intervention for the entire city. We also got a renewed and comprehensive understanding of the MSW Rules 2016. We no longer view it from only a critical perspective, but see it as a site of opportunity... We have conducted workshops for our workers... [they] are now part of the advocacy efforts for the implementation of those provisions that directly benefit them” [ S7]

Transformative innovation policy (TIP) and its associated methodology [ R1, R2 and R3] has influenced policy and practitioner networks in Colombia, where it has been adopted as a way to meet the UN SDGs. Three national policy documents [ S1, S2 and S3], produced under two different Presidential administrations, draw directly on R1, R2 and R3. These documents have not only introduced TIP into the Colombian national approach to innovation, but have also had significant impact at three levels: within the Ministry of Science and Technology itself; through the Latin American Hub community of practice; and in local projects that have used transformative innovation principles to address complex social and environmental needs.

4.1 Colombian government applies transformative innovation principles

Between 2015 and 2018, Sussex researchers built a close relationship with leading officials in the Colombian government’s Department of Science, Technology and Innovation (Colciencias), providing a detailed programme of training and capacity building on TIP for 40 Colciencias national and regional officials, followed by further training with 25 Colombian academics. The training and mentorship were led by Schot and Ramirez.

This enabled the development of a joint Sussex-Colciencias policy report [ S4], published in 2018, which outlined how transformative innovation can be used as a regional strategy for sustainable development in Colombia. It emphasised the importance of local alliances and place-based innovations for bottom-up transformations and reflected on seven cases where transformative innovation initiatives were introduced by local policymakers.

4.2 Developing Colombia’s new national science and innovation policy

In 2018, Colombia’s President Santos instructed all ministries and government agencies to provide detailed plans for meeting the UN SDGs. Colciencias approached Sussex researchers to help formulate an approach using STI. Schot and Ramirez co-authored the department’s strategic policy document – the Green Book: National Science and Innovation Policy for Sustainable Development [ S1]. In the document’s introduction, Colciencias General Director Alejandro Olaya Dávila states:

“This policy is being developed around what we have termed a “transformative focus”, the central aim of which is to contribute to the solution of the major social, economic and environmental challenges our country is facing, as they are set forth in the Sustainable Development Goals… The Green Book 2030 is the result of a process initiated nearly two years ago, when we created together with the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) and science and innovation agencies in Sweden, Norway, Finland and South Africa, the International Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium, in which we analyzed new possibilities to guide public science and innovation policy in a way that would better respond to major global and national challenges.”

The document outlined the need to adopt a transformative innovation strategy and laid out a detailed plan for transition innovation management strategies in the regions. It was adopted into law as the Sustainable Development STI Policy for Colombia in July 2018 [ S1]. This new policy incorporated the concepts and tools of TIP, outlined in R1. It specifically advocated:

• opening up the policy process to fund programmes and projects that address the challenges of sustainability through STI ( directionality)

• supporting alliances of researchers, firms and civil society actors ( networks) to develop sustainable pathways

• greater reflexivity and learning

• paying special attention to users in the formulation of projects and programmes, and focusing on marginalised communities, through a bottom-up process of participation

• encouraging open-ended outcomes through policy experimentation.

The policy called for new actors to be involved in the policy process by: targeting particular areas and groups, experimenting with pilots, supporting transitions networks, and encouraging business sectors to engage in sustainable development. It also emphasised the importance, as outlined in R3, of regional agencies to determine public funding priorities.

4.3 Shaping the first Colombian Science and Technology Ministry’s strategy

The research has further directly shaped the policies and strategy of Minciencias – Colombia’s newly established Ministry of Science and Technology, which replaced Colciencias in January 2020. After Colombia’s 2019 presidential election, Professor Schot was invited to join the Mision de Sabios – a panel of national and international experts set up by the new President, Ivan Duque, to develop policy and strategy for Minciencias [ S5].

The Commission’s final report [ S2, pp156-160], cites Schot and Steinmueller’s paper [ R1] and – drawing on the recommendations in both R1 and R2 – it advocates a national strategy for transformative innovation, introducing policy experimentation, adopting the formative evaluation methodology and building bottom-up initiatives in the regions. This strategy was endorsed in the CONPES (equivalent of a Green Paper) that is in the process of being ratified into a new STI law for 2021-2030 [ S3]. The CONPES recommends a national programme of policy experimentation to connect all missions working on sustainability.

Minciencias is applying the TIP methodology to its flagship Social Appropriation of Technology programme – A Ciencia Cierta (ACC). With the endorsement of Vice Minister Sonia Monroy, who remains a committed member of TIPC, Minciencias officials are working with Ramirez and other Sussex researchers on redesigning the ACC programme. The aim is to improve the resilience and longevity of ACC-funded projects by building niches or networks of users that are working to transform systems such as energy, water provision and transport systems, to make them more inclusive and environmentally sustainable as proposed in the research [ R1]. The Head of ACC in the Ministry states that mentoring from Sussex researchers in the principles of transformative innovation has enabled the organisation to:

“project improvements for its strengthening and escalation in terms of greater scope and impact, sustainability and identification of local processes for replicability in territories, consolidation of networks for the exchange of experiences, articulation with local and regional actors for sustainability, formation of a toolbox to facilitate its replicability and generation of learnings.” [ S6]

The collaboration has also “contributed to the construction of knowledge within the participating ministry team… allowing us to integrate elements for the formulation and transformative implementation of STI public policy” [ S6].

4.4 Building a community of practice for transformative innovation

In March 2020, the Latin American Hub of TIPC was launched with the objective of developing a platform for TIP in Colombia and the wider region and providing support for the Minciencias programme [ S7]. The Hub, set up and led by Ramirez, is a community of practice funded by its ten member institutions, which include the National Cancer Institute of Colombia, the Centro Tecnologico de Medellin (a major Colombian organisation that coordinates technology projects for the city and surrounding areas of Medellin), and seven universities leading projects with a range of practitioners. The Hub’s projects include deploying a £1m World Bank investment to establish: circular economy practices for urban solid waste disposal incorporating urban street recyclers in Bogota; an Oxfam-funded project on organic lemon value chains in Mexico; and community schemes bringing clean water to marginalised communities in Antioquia [ S7].

All Hub members follow the TIPC methodology and, as the testimonies [ S8, S9] explain, the concepts of experimentation and niche building (which are central to R1, R2 and R3) have had the most significant impact. One of the Hub’s participants is the Antioquia Science and Technology Centre Corporation (CTA) – a collaboration between universities, industry and the state, designed to improve society through science, technology and innovation. CTA’s Director states that key learnings from working with the Hub include “understanding experimentation methodologies that will help us continue to build niches” [ S8]. He adds:

“We are adjusting the way we formulate our proposals to incorporate the transformative approach into projects …[this] has allowed us to underline the importance of building, broadening and expanding the niches we have created over the years and encourage structural changes in the practices in sociotechnical systems.” [ S8]

Similarly, Dr Alvaro Quintero, Director of Innovation at the National Cancer Institute of Colombia, stated that participating in the Hub has led to “a very remarkable advance” [ S9] in the way his organisation “identifies and characterizes new ways of thinking and developing innovations” [ S9]. The organisation has developed – “with the sustained and robust support of the Hub” – a transformative experiment known as the Co-creation Laboratory for Innovation. The aim is to involve patients and carers more directly than previously, as Quintero explains:

“We have understood the enormous potential value of collaborative work with our patients, their relatives and their caregivers… their needs and expectations are often invisible in traditional systems of generating innovations in the health sector… We want to promote their active participation, attempting to trigger a kind of ‘community niche’.” [ S9]

This model is now part of the Institute’s Operational Plan, with a dedicated manager and financial resources. [S9]

4.5 Transformative change filtering through to local level

In 2019, as a result of TIP training provided by Sussex researchers, the Royalty fund (the Colombian government’s main funding vehicle for STI investment in regions) provided £2.8m for a project designed to make Colombian primary education more relevant to the needs of local communities [ S10]. This project was among the first to apply TIP in a local context.

Dr Diana Velasco, former Pro-Vice Chancellor of the University of Ibague, which led the project, explained the influence of the Sussex research:

“The most important feature we took from the ‘third frame’ was to empower people to use science for something: directionality, inclusion, to reach consensus and alignment, to develop bottom-up thinking and make it relevant to the community, and to make all this visible in the curriculum… The principles of TIP have been beneficial in triggering learning on how to design projects that achieve transformative results.” [S11]

Mr Dayani Rojas Forero, the Programme Director, states that, as a result of the project, teachers “have begun to apply different research methodologies as a pedagogical strategy in their classes, for example through common class projects and using IT to support their teaching-learning processes” [ S11].

The project, which worked with 166 primary and secondary schools in the Tolima region to introduce a sustainability focus to the curriculum, adopted several of the central features of TIP. Children and their families were helped to use STI to address local challenges, for example by learning how to test water quality and how to dispose of waste hygienically.

Dr Ely formally participated in the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development – known as Rio+20 – by leading the STEPS Centre’s contribution to the ‘zero draft’ outcome document (which itself framed the process through which the SDGs were adopted in 2015).

Following the 2013 publication of [ R4], Ely was approached by UNCTAD – which provides the Secretariat for the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) – to be the academic lead on a report entitled ‘New innovation approaches to support the implementation of the SDGs’ [ S1]. The report, which Ely presented to the Commission in January 2017, presents five new approaches to innovation – mission-oriented; pro-poor and inclusive; grassroots; social; and digitally-enabled open and collaborative – and highlights how they can contribute to the SDGs, proposing concrete policy considerations. It draws heavily on the research [ R4, R3], including the concepts of directionality, grassroots and hybrid innovation.

This report has been extensively drawn upon in numerous follow-up reports from the session, including a report from the Secretary-General [ S2] published in February 2017. Prepared in response to the UN Economic and Social Council’s request to “raise awareness among policymakers of the process of innovation and to identify particular opportunities for developing countries to benefit from innovation, with special attention placed on new trends in innovation that can offer novel possibilities for developing countries”, this report cites and incorporates key concepts, terminology and definitions from Ely’s research [ R3, R4] and his related report on new innovation approaches [ S1]. The summary explains that the report “examines new approaches to innovation, including… mission-oriented; pro-poor and inclusive; grass roots; social; and digitally enabled open and collaborative” and “emphasizes the need for greater attention to be paid to the role of grass-roots and marginalized communities in the innovation process.” Echoing [ R4], it highlights the importance of hybrid innovations, stating that “many of the most marked impacts will come from hybrids of new approaches and more conventional approaches… Hybridization can occur when initiatives created at the grass-roots level… subsequently receive support from more conventional science and technology institutions. Attention to hybrid innovation approaches involves widening the policy focus of innovation systems, both in terms of the actors involved and their means of interaction and collaboration” [ S2, p12].

The UN CSTD intersessional panel meeting in May 2017 acted on [ S2] to deliver several recommendations, advising how these new innovation approaches can best be implemented. These include:

1. [to Member States] “Adopt policy mixes across various government actors that enable hybrid forms of traditional, pro-poor, grass-roots and social innovation, while prioritizing innovation that is both socially inclusive and environmentally sustainable”

2. [to the UN CSTD]: “Advise the international community of the importance of new innovation approaches that provide socially inclusive and environmentally sustainable solutions to achieving the Goals” and “encourage new innovation approaches and enhance hybrid approaches to innovation”. [ S3]

Following the above reports, UNCTAD commissioned Ely to produce a new framework for its science, technology and innovation policy (STIP) review programme – the formal process through which UNCTAD provides tailored technical advice to developing countries, helping them to establish strategic priorities for development. Ely completed this work in August 2018, drawing on an expert meeting that he and Professor Schot helped UNCTAD to convene, as well as subsequent consultations and discussions.

The final framework [ S4] incorporates the most important concepts from the research: directionality, grassroots and hybrid approaches [ R4], describing policies for grassroots innovation [ R3], and applying the notion of transformative innovation policy, drawing directly from R5. Shamika Sirimanne, Director of UNCTAD’s Division on Technology and Logistics and Head of the UN CSTD Secretariat, explains the scale of the Sussex team’s influence:

“Dr Adrian Ely led the research that has underpinned the new thinking in the framework, including an extended focus on grassroots innovation, attention to directionality in STI and development, and participatory approaches to technology policy formulation and implementation. The framework also drew upon inputs from Prof Johan Schot.” [ S10]

On publication of the framework by the UN, Ely presented it at the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development in May 2019. The framework was well-received, and the UN CSTD submitted a recommendation to the UN Economic and Social Council that the framework should be adopted. Subsequently, in July 2019, the UN Economic and Social Council agreed a resolution which encouraged UNCTAD to “implement as widely as possible its new framework for national science, technology and innovation policy reviews in order to integrate the Sustainable Development Goals.” [ S5]

UNCTAD has so far undertaken STIP reviews based on the new framework in Ethiopia and Zambia, and is currently planning reviews in Botswana and the Dominican Republic. The report of the Ethiopia review [ S6] states that it was “based on the Framework for Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Reviews” [ S5]. Michael Lim, UNCTAD’s co-lead for Ethiopia’s STIP Review, describes how the Sussex research has directly influenced policy changes:

“On the basis of the STIP Review, the Ethiopian government has decided to revise the national STI policy. The research underpinning the STIP Review played a significant role in enabling support to the government of Ethiopia that will lead to policy action that affects patterns of innovation and the adoption of technologies and ultimately contribute to more sustainable development.” [ S7]

Drawing on his experiences of applying the above concepts in other countries [ R6], Dr Chux Daniels took part in the Zambia STIP Review in 2019/2020 as a core member of the team, working alongside UNCTAD and colleagues from the Zambian government [ S9]. Using the new framework described above, the team met with government ministers in charge of STI, as well as investigating grassroots innovation, with the aim of meeting specific challenges relating to food systems, digitalisation and mining. [text removed for publication] at UNCTAD, described the novelty of the review’s approach, which drew upon Ely’s earlier research on grassroots innovation:

“The STIP Review is based on UNCTAD’s 2019 Framework… produced by UNCTAD with the support of Adrian Ely and Johan Schot… The [review] team investigated grassroots innovation as well as innovation in firms, for the first time including a broader range of actors into the innovation system.” [ S8]

As a result of the Review, the Zambian government has begun to address its pressing development challenges in a sustainable manner, with a focus on the SDGs. [text removed for publication] explained the influence of the review on Zambian politics and society as follows:

“Both the process and findings of the STIP Review have contributed to the policy debates across government about the rightful place of STI in development policy. The enhanced awareness about real-world innovation activities… acquired through participating in the STIP Review process, has better equipped them [government staff] to improve the design and implementation of Zambia’s innovation policies, and also contribute in the country’s response to Covid-19 and policy learning… In particular, decisions are contributing to improved and greater employment opportunities generated from an increasingly innovative and diversified economy and export sector, reduced poverty and eradicated hunger, increased health and well-being, as well as reduced negative externalities of the mining sector and overall improvement in sustainable practices by firms and industries.” [ S8]

Chongo John Lukonde of the Zambian Ministry of Higher Education, which is responsible for STI, explains how the review “adopted a transformative innovation lens” and influenced the way in which SDG issues such as hunger and carbon emissions are being brought into the country’s National Development Plan and Zambia’s Vision 2030 [ S9]. Furthermore, he writes:

“Without the process underpinning the STIP Review, the country would have continued to follow policies that… contributed to unsustainable patterns of development that might cause the country to lag behind in the fourth revolution (4IR) technologies. The true beneficiaries of this work are Zambia’s 17 million citizens. The impact is already being felt and can be expected to improve the lives of Zambians for generations to come.” [ S9]

Shamika Sirimanne, Director of UNCTAD’s Division of Technology and Logistics and Head of the Secretariat of the UN CSTD, confirms the significance of the STIP Review process:

“The reformulation of the science, technology and innovation policies in each of these countries will have significant long-term impacts on poverty alleviation, environmental sustainability and economic development – impact that links directly to the research conducted by Dr Adrian Ely at the University of Sussex.” [ S10]

Through proactive engagement and collaboration with the energy industry in both the US and Europe, as described below, Dr Coulon’s research has contributed significantly to the model development process in several energy companies. His research has enhanced firms’ trading, valuation and risk management capabilities (for example, enabling better hedging against price volatility or more accurate pricing of new contracts or investments in physical assets) and reduced their exposure to loss of profits. In the process, his work has contributed to a greater understanding of market risk and price behaviour.

As a result of his specialist research, Coulon was approached to collaborate with Alpiq, a leading Swiss energy company which operates in 31 European countries. The company produces power as well as selling it in the European markets. In 2019, Alpiq owned CHF7.4bn (£6.08 billion) of assets and supplied customers in Europe with 40 TWh of energy [ S1].

Coulon’s work with Alpiq began in 2012 and led to a formal collaboration between the University of Sussex and Alpiq in 2018 [ S2] . The collaboration initially focused on price dynamics and hourly forward curve construction of the German power market (EPEX), as summarized in R3. Christian Jacobsson, former Head of Energy Artificial Intelligence at Alpiq, states:

“Michael’s innovative research on structural models for power prices allowed us to derive new insights into the dynamics of the German day-ahead power market… A key advantage of the approach was the construction of forward price curves and distributions which correctly overlay detailed demand patterns, weather models, and fuel price changes in a tractable stochastic framework. This is critical for the firm when accurately pricing complex assets or contracts, thus increasing profitability while also minimizing risk across our portfolio. Such models have been applied to the entire asset portfolio, power and gas, and especially for the pricing and operative management of the non-standard contract portfolio whose success can to a great extent be stated to rely on Michael’s contributions over many years.” [ S3]

In early 2018, Coulon’s work with Alpiq shifted towards new modelling challenges specific to the growth of renewables, and especially to wind park management. Coulon jointly developed new modelling techniques with Alpiq, which have “had an important impact on the firm’s approach to the new challenges linked to growing renewable generation” [ S3].

Jacobsson describes the benefits of Coulon’s work for both Alpiq and society as a whole:

“The work has improved our ability to manage wind and solar parks offering their power while facing uncertain wind forecasts and highly volatile prices. This is a key component of Alpiq’s push to become a market leader in advanced optimization, trading and risk management solutions for the new energy markets. In addition to benefiting the firm directly, such solutions are critical to society in a world where electricity will be supplied by many distributed intermittent sources like wind and solar, hard to predict and uncontrollable.” [ S3]

Coulon worked with US energy company Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG) between 2013 and 2017. Building on the ideas in R1, he developed solutions tailored to the firm’s specific needs for managing power price risk across a complex grid of generating units and customer demand.

Ismael Arciniegas Rueda (Head of Structuring and Quantitative Analytics at PSEG from 2010 to 2017) states that Coulon’s research “helped us to greatly expand our understanding of the markets, their price dynamics, and how to build rigorous mathematical models for predicting future changes” [ S4]. Insights from Coulon’s work influenced the firm to source the required percentage of renewables each year in a more cost-efficient manner and “the implementation of models built on Michael’s research had a significant positive impact on the firm’s business decisions and profitability” [ S4].

Rueda describes the nature and the significance of Coulon’s work, which provided the company with unique insights:

“Our initial project with Michael extended his earlier work on structural electricity price models to build in demand patterns and congestion effects at zonal or regional levels. The approach retained the attractive features of his previous analysis, such as quantifying the dependency on fuel forward prices, while facilitating the inclusion of new location-specific constraints of the PJM market. The collaboration… was also valuable to PSEG’s trading activities. The model was used to inform the valuation and risk management of assets dependent on locational power prices which required forecasting for many years, a challenge which other models in the literature were not equipped to handle.” [ S4]

This initial collaboration led to a new structural price modelling project based on replicating and extending Coulon’s “ground-breaking research” [ S4] on solar renewable energy certificate (SREC) markets [ R4]. Rueda explains the value of this modelling for PSEG:

“His was the first formal framework developed for predicting the behavior of these certificate prices, and linking them to their key fundamental drivers. As these were very illiquid and volatile markets prone to large price swings, this model was especially critical in providing a benchmark for our traders to better understand and forecast prices in challenging new markets.” [ S4]

Coulon has also collaborated with two other US companies, both of which have implemented power price models for clients based on his research. Scott Shander, Director of Analytics at Commodity Risk Solution (CRS), a US consultancy firm that provides solutions for renewable energy deals to corporate clients, describes his firm’s collaboration with Coulon:

“In 2017, we contacted Michael Coulon to build on his extensive research on structural models for electricity markets, in order to develop a new approach for a large client deal. Our collaboration with Michael over about six months focused on applying his modeling techniques to the Russian power market via a simulation study which facilitated a successful completion of the transaction. Through the use of Michael’s deep knowledge and research in the US markets, he helped CRS conduct a similar structural study of the electricity stack in Russia to aid in econometric fundamental analysis.” [ S5]

Shander explains how Coulon’s insights benefited CRS and its clients:

“This analysis proved critical for a buyside client negotiating a long-term renewable energy transaction (of total value over $60 million) as it not only provided a thorough market risk assessment, it aided in deal structuring to meet the client’s objectives. Although at first glance quite complicated and technical academic papers, Michael’s research on electricity markets provides valuable insights and practical modelling tools that can make a clear difference in real world applications.” [ S5]

Between August 2013 and May 2015, Coulon collaborated with Scoville Risk Partners, which provides advice and analytics for the energy sector. During this time, he enhanced the company’s understanding of volatility and its links with other energy prices, as [text removed for publication] explains:

“The thoughts and insights embedded in Michael’s research (not to mention the numerous discussions that we have had) have influenced how we have approached these problems… His work on structural models of spot prices in commodities has directly impacted how we think about (and model) energy price series, in particular the nonlinear interaction of the prices of ‘fungible’ energy sources and what is generally referred to as the ‘spiky’ nature of such price series.” [ S6]

The Sussex research that led to the CRIBs policy approach has had significant impact on policy and funding at global, continental and national levels.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) Technology Executive Committee – the political body responsible for implementing climate technology policy under the UNFCCC and the Paris Climate Agreement – used the CRIBs approach to evaluate its existing climate technology policy and inform its agreed way forward to improving it [ S1]. In particular, it adopted the CRIBs recommendation that future technology interventions under the UNFCCC act as “innovation system builders” [ S1]. The resulting recommendations were officially adopted by the UNFCCC Subsidiary Body for Implementation [ S1, S2, pp.12, 16, 18, 20, 21]. The significance of this is highlighted by [text removed for publication] of the UNFCCC Secretariat, who acknowledged that the Sussex research:

“…has been adopted as a key concept in the technology development and transfer work and advice of the UNFCCC Technology Mechanism… It was also relevant in the context of the evaluation of the GEF [Global Environment Facility] Poznan strategic program on technology transfer (PSP) undertaken in 2018/19, as the UNFCCC Climate Technology Centre and Network and the PSP pilot regional centres operate as new climate innovation system builders, that connect actors and networks, provide technical and policy support and mobilize climate finance for climate technology projects .” [ S3]

One mode through which the UNFCCC recommends climate technology transfer be achieved is via collaborative research, development and deployment. UNFCCC used CRIBs to frame its assessment of how to fund collaborative research and development through the Green Climate Fund (GCF). The GCF is a USD10.3 billion fund set up by the UNFCCC to finance global efforts towards attaining international climate change goals in developing countries. The GCF board acknowledged CRIBs as a policy approach and agreed to fund its implementation. It also used the analytical categories set out in Sussex’s CRIBs paper [ R4] to frame how the GCF would target its funding [ S4, S5]. This includes whole sections of these GCF policy documents [ S4, S5] that attend to “building innovation systems” and “understand[ing] and respond[ing] to context-specific conditions and needs” in recipient countries, as per the CRIBs paper [ R4]. The policy documents [ S4 pp.3-4, S5 pp.16-17 & 32] also directly cite the CRIBs paper and mention the CRIBs approach multiple times. [text removed for publication], UNFCCC Secretariat, confirms that the CRIBs approach “was central in advising the Green Climate Fund in 2018” [ S3].

The CRIBs work was also used to inform a change in direction in the World Bank’s Climate Technology Programme. This programme originally focussed exclusively on traditional mechanisms, such as supporting entrepreneurs and business incubation, but insights from CRIBs introduced the value of building innovation systems to achieve broader change. [text removed for publication] at the World Bank, confirmed that:

“Evidence, insights and recommendations from David Ockwell and Robert Byrne's publications on Climate-Relevant Innovation-systems Builders were valuable inputs to the strategy of the World Bank infoDev Climate Technology Program and to the development of its program activities. The publications provided a strong policy rationale and a convincing practical framework for the role of institutions in building innovation systems that advance climate technology goals in developing countries. [They] advance unique ideas that cannot be found elsewhere in the literature and therefore were a significant resource for the Climate Technology Program.” [ S6]

As a result, the programme now includes “market ecosystem creation” as the first of its five core activities [ S11].

In the light of the difficulties faced by African countries in leveraging international climate finance, the African Union (AU) recognised the CRIBs approach as an opportunity for African countries to access GCF funding. It commissioned Sussex’s key research partner in Africa – the African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS), which hosts the Africa Hub of the ESRC STEPS Centre’s Global Sustainability Consortium, convened by Byrne and Ockwell – to provide CRIBs training to 41 African and international climate policy makers [ S7]. The training focused on equipping participants with the knowledge and capacity to advise their governments on using the CRIBs approach to leverage climate finance via the GCF and on using CRIBs to improve the implementation of climate technology policy in their respective countries.

18 African countries were represented at the AU training, including representation from: 14 African government ministries; four intergovernmental organisations, including the AU, World Bank, and African Development Bank; and 16 organisations with formal roles in advising and implementing national climate policy in their constituent countries [ S7]. [text removed for publication] at the AU concluded that:

“CRIBs presents a paradigm shift for the participants in these processes as articulated in most of their comments in the evaluation after the meeting [AU CRIBs training event]. This methodology will open gateways for easy access to climate funds. The African Union continues to get more requests for continuation of similar trainings in different regions of the continent .” [ S7, S8].

He also asserts that the training “triggered the development of the AU Green Innovation Framework” [ S8], which helps member countries transition to green economies for sustainable development in line with AU’s Agenda 2063 – a plan for inclusive and sustainable development. The Green Innovation Framework, which builds directly on the CRIBs approach, is now complete, with a public launch expected in 2021 (having been delayed by COVID-19) [ S9a & b].

At a national level, as a result of the AU-commissioned CRIBs training and two further training and capacity-building programmes run by Sussex researchers with their partner ACTS, 16 policy organisations from nine different countries have now developed (or are developing) funding proposals to the GCF to implement CRIBs in their countries, or are using the CRIBs approach to inform climate policymaking and implementation processes [ S7]. Both Kenya and Burundi have submitted CRIBs-based GCF funding proposals [ S10]. To date, this has resulted in USD9.99 million in GCF funding to Burundi (leveraging USD21.73 million in match funding), with an estimated 573,500 beneficiaries [ S12a & b]. Kenya also has two proposals at advanced stages of approval, worth a total of USD20 million [ S12a]. This national-level uptake of the CRIBs approach represents a significant shift towards focusing policy and practice on building innovation systems around climate technologies based on understanding the context-specific needs and political realities of different countries and their people.

Kenya’s National Environment Trust Fund (NETFUND) supports the implementation of the AU’s action plans and is designated by the Ministry of Environment to apply for GCF funding. It has adopted the CRIBs approach in all programme design, as the research director explains:

“We have adopted this as the approach in developing ministerial projects and programmes… so far we have developed 12 programmes under this approach and they are under consideration for funding within government budgets… One of the concepts… was shared with GCF and they have sent back very positive comments.. . The concept was on supporting policy and regulation enforcement on GHG emission and air pollution control. ” [ S7, p13]

This funding proposal has since been submitted and is currently under its second round of review by the GCF [ S10]. Similarly, Dr Kelvin Khisa, Head of the Kenya Industrial Research and Development Institute (a state corporation under the Kenyan Ministry of Industry, Trade and Cooperatives) states that his organisation is “currently developing a GCF readiness proposal for Kenya on the development of energy efficiency regulations following the 4 CRIBs goals” [ S7, p16].

In Uganda, Mildred Namwiira, economist at the Ministry of Water and Environment, states:

“We have really made progress after the CRIBS training and we have changed the way we think in terms of applying for GCF and AF [UNFCCC Adaptation Fund] funds. The theory of change that the CRIBs approach advocates for has improved our skills in writing bankable proposals. [We] are currently building on the knowledge I attained from the training to develop GCF and AF fundable proposals .” [ S7, p15]

Further national-level examples from Ghana, Egypt, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Nigeria and Malawi are described in S7.

For several decades, the nuclear industry has repeatedly strongly denied any significant link between civil and military nuclear capacities. Uniquely initiated by Stirling and Johnstone’s research [ R1-5] – which uncovered the role that civilian nuclear power plays in subsidising submarine-related military nuclear research and development needs and skills bases – new policy and public media debates have been incited and informed by the research evidence.

Enhanced consumer awareness and public scrutiny of UK energy policy

Before 2016, there was no acknowledgement at all of the submarine-specific link between civil and military nuclear capabilities and other connections were more generally denied. Since publishing research output [ R1] the researchers have engaged in media work, given written and oral evidence to parliamentary committees, and held speaker engagements and meetings to raise awareness of the issue. Initially, there was great difficulty getting the research reported in UK mainstream media outlets, but it was covered by the New York Times on 10 October 2016 (‘Britain’s nuclear cover up’) and in the German daily De Tageszeitung (‘Hidden Money für Atom-U-Boote’) on 23 November 2016 [ S1a&b]. The coverage first brought this entirely neglected issue into the public domain, with the research gaining international media attention and increasing UK consumer and energy policy awareness.

Evidence submitted to the Public Accounts Committee’s Hinkley C inquiry (October 2017) led to the first UK mainstream media coverage of the nuclear subsidy issue, published in a leading British newspaper, The Guardian: ‘Consumers to fund nuclear weapons through Hinkley C’, 12 October 2017 followed by ‘The “dreadful deal” behind the world’s most expensive power plant’, 21 December 2017 [ S1c&d]. Based on the research, these articles raised awareness amongst British consumers that higher energy bills due to new nuclear rest in part on military reasons. Subsequent media articles have been published. After presenting the research at the Oxford Energy Colloquia, the authors were approached by BBC journalist Roger Harrabin, who wrote a BBC news article: ‘Nuclear: Energy bills “used to subsidise submarines”’, 5 June 2019 [ S1e]. This led to articles being published on the research in The Independent (‘Homeowners forced to pay higher energy bills to subsidize nuclear submarines’, 5 June 2019), The Scotsman ( ‘Energy bills subsidising Scotland’s submarines’, 6 June 2019) [ S1f&g] and later (significantly) a detailed sympathetic feature in The Daily Telegraph (‘Britain's push for nuclear power makes no sense, unless it is a hidden subsidy for the Royal Navy’ online, and ‘With the UK case for nuclear power lost, the battle now is one of defence’ in print, 16-17 December 2020) [ S1h]. This media coverage, directly informed by the research, has enhanced consumer awareness of what energy bills are paying for over several years, challenging established norms.

Stimulated policy debate and opened up democratic discussion towards more transparent policymaking

The researchers’ written and oral evidence to the Public Accounts Committee’s (PAC) Hinkley C inquiry in October 2017 highlighted the entirely neglected role that sustaining capabilities for the nuclear submarine programme plays in the UK Government’s intense support for a civil nuclear programme, and thus helped to highlight this issue to parliamentarians.

The Committee’s Chair, Meg Hillier MP, was influenced by the researchers’ evidence, which she drew on and cited in a subsequent oral evidence session (9 October 2017) in order to question (Q84) Mr Stephen Lovegrove CB (Permanent Secretary for the Ministry of Defence) on the advantages of a civil nuclear programme for the submarine programme [ S2a]. This led (for the first time on the public record) to a UK Government official confirming that there are linkages between civil nuclear new build and the submarine programme, and that the civil nuclear new build programme was beneficial with regard to submarine capabilities [ S2a]. With implications possibly extending to many tens of billions of pounds, this first public acknowledgement of the research findings [ R1-5] is very important in terms of transparent policymaking.

This large-scale cost issue – relating to the cross-subsidy of military capabilities by civil nuclear consumer revenues, as well as related assessment and planning issues – was picked up in the PAC’s report on Hinkley C [ S2a], in which the Committee recommended that:

1. The Department (BEIS) should tell the Committee how it will ensure there is an independent and transparent assessment of the impacts on consumers, including the impacts on the poorest households, when agreeing future energy infrastructure deals that are paid for through consumers’ bills.

2. The Department should re-evaluate and publish its strategic case for supporting nuclear power before agreeing any further deals for nuclear power stations.

The Government agreed with these recommendations [ S2b].

In the year following publication of the research, there have been a number of high-profile reports that have confirmed exactly the same linkages so distinctively highlighted in this research. This includes a high-level report by Ernest Moniz, former United States Secretary of Energy, released on 12 July 2017 [ S3a], and acknowledgements in the UK of civil-military linkages by Rolls Royce in their document on Small Modular Reactors published on 12 September 2017 [ S3b].

Since the inquiry, parts of Government have been increasingly open about civil-military nuclear linkages. They have not cited this research, but under the circumstances this would not be expected, since it involves implicit acknowledgement of past concealment of these linkages. Yet, in the UK Government’s ‘Nuclear Sector Deal’ document (7 December 2017) [ S4] there is frequent reference to the ‘synergies’ between the two programmes and how the Government aims to ensure the transferability of nuclear workers between them. In another example, Richard Harrington, under-Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), stated on 11 July 2018 that he wants to “include the MoD in everything we do” on nuclear and that the “artificial distinction” between civil and defence nuclear should come to an end [ S5]. Such stark statements by Government Ministers have only occurred since this research has been published and publicised in the media.

Most recently, the research, submitted as evidence to the BEIS inquiry into the financing of energy infrastructure and published by BEIS on 5 June 2019 [ S6] has influenced parliamentarians to request an inquiry into the link between Civil and Military Nuclear Use, citing research as the basis for calling for an inquiry into this issue [ S7].

A motion was lodged in the Scottish Parliament on civil-military nuclear linkages (6 June 2019) explicitly stating that “…the Parliament notes analysis by the University of Sussex, which suggests that energy bills are inflated to partly subside the UK’s nuclear weapons arsenal” and that this provides “a compelling explanation for the UK’s resolute commitment to nuclear energy projects” [ S8].

The research has thus changed UK policymaking practice, influencing political moves to influence Government towards greater transparency regarding subsidies for nuclear submarines through energy bills. In short, through this work, the issue has moved from being entirely neglected within UK democratic institutions in 2016 to being a live policy issue under increasing scrutiny by 2019.

Following political and media interest in R1, Mazzucato and Penna organised a three-day conference on ‘Mission-Oriented Finance for Innovation’ (London, 22-24 July 2014), which resulted in the Policy Network publication ‘ Mission Oriented Finance for Innovation: New ideas for investment-led growth’. The event introduced the pair’s ideas to UK and international policymakers, business executives and academics, challenging conventional thinking about the public sector’s role in financing innovation, and promoting long-term ‘mission-oriented’ policies to stimulate economic growth and solve societal challenges.

When the UK Government’s Technology Strategy Board rebranded as Innovate UK in 2014, it commissioned Mazzucato to produce a report to “inform our strategic development of innovation support” [ S1]. The report drew on R1, stating “innovation-led growth is a major battle that requires public policy to fundamentally change,” to start “actively creating and shaping markets” through “‘mission-oriented’ investment.”

In 2016, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Select Committee launched an inquiry around the development of a UK Industrial Strategy [ S2]. Mazzucato provided evidence [with reference to R1-5] to the inquiry, and was invited to a roundtable led by Rt Hon Greg Clark (then Secretary of State for the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS)) to discuss how an Industrial Strategy could incorporate the mission-oriented approach. The Committee criticised the BEIS Industrial Strategy Green Paper (Jan 2017), drawing extensively on Mazzucato’s evidence. It recommended that “the Government reconsider giving sectoral strategies priority and instead focus on horizontal policies and specific ‘missions’ to meet UK-wide and local public policy challenges. This will make clear that the function of the Government’s industrial strategy – and of industry itself – is to solve societal problems and it will provide a clear focus for activity across Government and industry.” [ S2, p3]

In March 2017, the Government launched the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, committing more than £1 billion over four years to fund UK business and research, with the aim of placing research and innovation at the heart of the Industrial Strategy. Mazzucato continued to engage in the strategy’s development, responding to the Green Paper consultation [ S4] and presenting her work to BEIS officials (July 2017). When the Government launched its Industrial Strategy White Paper in November 2017 [ S4], the influence of the ‘mission-oriented’ research was immediately evident. The policy was now built around “ambitious missions – global and national challenges that need to be tackled by breaking down traditional barriers and finding new ways of doing things.” [ S4, p22]. The Strategy is infused with references to the Sussex researchers’ concepts, including:

• “Governments can make long-term investment that no single commercial or academic player can take alone. The modern nation state is the most powerful means we have of pooling risk. We are willing to take these risks… An industrial strategy that avoids risk is no industrial strategy at all” [p22]

• “A truly strategic government must do more than just fix the foundations: it must… look to shape new markets and industries” [p32]

• The announcement of four Grand Challenges, towards which “business, academia, civil society and the government must work together, bringing their expertise and entrepreneurial spirit, to drive us all towards success” [pp 34-5]

• Plans to “develop ‘missions’ to tackle the Grand Challenges… tackling specific problems, such as reducing carbon emissions… using well defined and concrete goals to allow progress to be monitored and assessed.” [p35]

In March 2018, Mazzucato, now at UCL, gathered a network of influential academic, policy, public- and private-sector proponents of her research (many of whom, including Lord David Willetts, attended the conference she organised in 2014) to assemble the ‘Commission for Mission-Oriented Innovation and Industrial Strategy’ (MOIIS). In a speech on 21 May 2018, PM Theresa May explicitly acknowledged the influence of this Commission, stating:

“…setting ambitious and clearly-defined missions motivates human endeavour. There is huge potential in a missions-based approach to drive faster solutions and it is an approach being pioneered here in the UK, by University College London’s Commission on Mission-Oriented Industrial Strategy. So today I am setting the first four missions of our Industrial Strategy – one in each Grand Challenge.” [ S5]

Mrs May subsequently announced four ‘missions’, each with time-bound, measurable targets. These were described in a BEIS policy paper ‘Forging our future: Industrial Strategy’ [ S6, p9]: (i) to transform chronic disease prevention, diagnosis and treatment by 2030; (ii) to ensure everyone can enjoy five extra healthy, independent years by 2035; (iii) for all new small vehicles to be zero-emission by 2040; and (iv) to halve energy use of new buildings by 2030.

In May 2019, BEIS published their policy paper ‘The Grand Challenge missions’ [ S7a], which details the £2billion spent or committed to supporting the four missions. Inspired by Mazzucato’s work, it also announced additional ‘missions’ to “focus on a specific problem, bringing government, businesses and organisations across the country together to make a real difference”. The paper’s introduction links to the MOIIS Commission’s report [ S7b], which draws on Mazzucato and Perez’s work (referencing R1, R2, R5) to outline the research behind ‘mission-oriented innovation’ (pp22-3), its application to industrial strategy (pp24-5), and how the Industrial Strategy ‘should evolve to deliver innovation-led growth that solves key societal challenges’ (p13).

In 2015, Mazzucato was appointed to the Scottish Government’s Council of Economic Advisers, enabling her to “highlight the important role that national investment banks play in providing long-term investment to support economic growth in many European countries” [ S8a, p7]. In December 2017, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon announced plans for a Scottish Investment Bank (SIB) “with the aim of boosting Scotland's economic performance …by providing patient capital to finance growth” [ S8a, p7]. The Bill states: “Much of the Scottish Government's inspiration for a national investment bank draws on the academic work of Professor Mariana Mazzucato” [ S8a, p4] and cites R3 [ S8a, pp9, 10, 14, 26]. The SIB launched in November 2020, backed by £2billion government funding to support projects and businesses that meet goals such as cutting carbon emissions and reducing inequality. Sturgeon said: “The launch of the bank is one of the most significant developments in the lifetime of this parliament, with the potential for it to transform, grow and decarbonise Scotland’s economy.” [ S8b]

As a result of work funded by the European Commission grant [ G3], Mazzucato’s research became noticed by the Commission. Carlos Moedas, European Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation, demonstrated his support for Mazzucato’s work in a series of engagements and speeches in 2016-17 [ S9]. He subsequently invited her to become his Special Adviser on Mission Driven Science and Innovation, and commissioned her to develop strategic recommendations about how to maximise the impact of the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation through mission-oriented policy. Her report, ‘ Mission-Oriented Research & Innovation in the European Union’, published in February 2018, builds on Mazzucato and Perez’s previous work on Europe [ R2] and cites R1 and R4. In June 2018, the Commission announced their proposal for Horizon Europe – a €100billion programme to succeed Horizon 2020 that “will incorporate research and innovation missions to increase the effectiveness of funding by pursuing clearly defined targets.” [ S10a]. Outlining how Horizon Europe was designed, the Commission lists three key documents on mission-oriented policy “that shaped the proposal”: two are outputs from Mazzucato’s research (the above report, and in presentation format), and the third is an analysis of the stakeholder consultation response to this report [ S10b].

In September 2020, the proposed EU missions – designed to address challenges including climate change and cancer – were announced. Mariya Gabriel, Commissioner for Innovation, Research, Culture, Education and Youth said: “The EU missions’ idea is to tackle these societal challenges in a new way: targeted, time-bound and with a measurable goal. They bring together policies and instruments as a coherent, joined-up approach to ensure a strong impact on society and drive long-term, systemic and disruptive change.” [ S11]. On 11 December 2020, the EU institutions reached a political agreement on Horizon Europe (which will run from 2021 to 2027) and set its budget at €95.5billion [ S10a].